Editing Gossip (section)

==In psychology==

===Evolutionary view===
[[File:Eugene de Blaas The Friendly Gossips.jpg|left|thumb|300x300px|''The Friendly Gossips'' (1901) by [[Eugene de Blaas]]]]
From [[Robin Dunbar]]'s evolutionary theories, gossip originated to help bond the groups that were constantly growing in size. To survive, individuals need alliances; but as these alliances grew larger, it was difficult if not impossible to physically connect with everyone. Conversation and language were able to bridge this gap. Gossip became a social interaction that helped the group gain information about other individuals without personally speaking to them.  

It enabled people to keep up with what was going on in their social network. It also creates a bond between the teller and the hearer, as they share information of mutual interest and spend time together. It also helps the hearer learn about another individual's behavior and helps them have a more effective approach to their relationship. Dunbar (2004) found that 65% of conversations consist of social topics.<ref name="Dunbar">{{cite journal | last1 = Dunbar | first1 = R | year = 2004 | title = Gossip in evolutionary perspective | journal = Review of General Psychology | volume = 8 | issue = 2| pages = 100–110 | doi = 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.100 | s2cid = 51785001 }}</ref>

Dunbar (1994) argues that gossip is the equivalent of [[social grooming]] often observed in other primate species.<ref name="Dunbar, R.I.M. 1994">Dunbar, R.I.M. (1994). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. London: Faver & Faber.</ref> Anthropological investigations indicate that gossip is a cross-cultural phenomenon, providing evidence for evolutionary accounts of gossip.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Besnier | first1 = N | year = 1989 | title = Information withholding as a manipulative and collusive strategy in Nukulaelae gossip | journal = Language in Society | volume = 18 | issue = 3| pages = 315–341 | doi = 10.1017/s0047404500013634 | s2cid = 145505351 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Gluckman | first1 = M | year = 1963 | title = Gossip and scandal | journal = Current Anthropology | volume = 4 | pages = 307–316 | doi = 10.1086/200378 | s2cid = 162361888 }}</ref><ref name="Haviland, J.B. 1977">{{cite journal | last1 = Haviland | first1 = J.B. | year = 1977 | title = Gossip as competition in Zinacantan | journal = Journal of Communication | volume = 27 | pages = 186–191 | doi = 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1977.tb01816.x }}</ref>

There is very little evidence to suggest meaningful sex differences in the proportion of conversational time spent gossiping, and when there is a difference, women are only very slightly more likely to gossip compared with men.<ref name="Dunbar, R.I.M. 1994"/><ref name="Haviland, J.B. 1977"/><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Foster | first1 = E.K. | year = 2004 | title = Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions | journal = Review of General Psychology | volume = 8 | issue = 2| pages = 78–99 | doi = 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.78 | s2cid = 33099827 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.424.1793 }}</ref> Further support for the evolutionary significance of gossip comes from a recent study published in the peer-reviewed journal, [[Science (journal)|Science]] Anderson and colleagues (2011) found that faces paired with negative social information dominate visual consciousness to a greater extent than positive and neutral social information during a binocular rivalry task.

[[Binocular rivalry]] occurs when two different stimuli are presented to each eye simultaneously and the two percepts compete for dominance in visual consciousness. While this occurs, an individual will consciously perceive one of the percepts while the other is suppressed. After a time, the other percept will become dominant and an individual will become aware of the second percept. Finally, the two percepts will alternate back and forth in terms of visual awareness.

The study by Anderson and colleagues (2011) indicates that higher order cognitive processes, like evaluative information processing, can influence early visual processing. That only negative social information differentially affected the dominance of the faces during the task alludes to the unique importance of knowing information about an individual that should be avoided.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hedrih |first=Vladimir |date=2023-01-19 |title=New study on intrasexual competition sheds light on women's most common insults toward female rivals |url=https://www.psypost.org/2023/01/new-study-on-intrasexual-competition-sheds-light-on-womens-most-common-insults-toward-female-rivals-64997 |access-date=2023-01-20 |website=PsyPost |language=en-US}}</ref> Since the positive social information did not produce greater perceptual dominance of the matched face indicates that negative information about an individual may be more salient to our behavior than positive.<ref name="Anderson">{{cite journal | last1 = Anderson | first1 = E. | last2 = Siegel | first2 = E.H. | last3 = Bliss-Moreau | first3 = E. | last4 = Barrett | first4 = L.F. | year = 2011 | title = The visual impact of gossip | journal = Science Magazine | volume = 332 | issue = 6036| pages = 1446–1448 | doi = 10.1126/science.1201574 | pmid = 21596956 | pmc = 3141574 | bibcode = 2011Sci...332.1446A }}</ref>

Gossip also gives information about social norms and guidelines for behavior, usually commenting on how appropriate a behavior was, and the mere act of repeating it signifies its importance. In this sense, gossip is effective regardless of whether it is positive or negative<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Baumeister | first1 = R. F. | last2 = Zhang | first2 = L. | last3 = Vohs | first3 = K. D. | year = 2004 | title = Gossip as cultural learning | journal = Review of General Psychology | volume = 8 | issue = 2| pages = 111–121 | doi = 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.111 | s2cid = 19009549 }}</ref> Some theorists have proposed that gossip is actually a pro-social behavior intended to allow an individual to correct their socially prohibitive behavior without direct confrontation of the individual. By gossiping about an individual's acts, other individuals can subtly indicate that said acts are inappropriate and allow the individual to correct their behavior (Schoeman 1994).

===Perception of those who gossip===
Individuals who are perceived to engage in gossiping regularly are seen as having less social power and being less liked than those who gossip less frequently.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hartung |first1=Freda-Marie |last2=Krohn |first2=Constanze |last3=Pirschtat |first3=Marie |date=2019-05-29 |title=Better Than Its Reputation? Gossip and the Reasons Why We and Individuals With "Dark" Personalities Talk About Others |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |volume=10 |page=1162 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01162 |doi-access=free |pmid=31191391 |pmc=6549470 |issn=1664-1078}}</ref> The type of gossip being exchanged also affects likeability, whereby those who engage in negative gossip are less liked than those who engage in positive gossip.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Farley | first1 = S | year = 2011 | title = Is gossip power? The inverse relationship between gossip, power, and likability | journal = European Journal of Social Psychology | volume = 41 | issue = 5| pages = 574–579 | doi = 10.1002/ejsp.821 | hdl = 11603/4030 | hdl-access = free }}</ref> In a study done by Turner and colleagues (2003), having a prior relationship with a gossiper was not found to protect the gossiper from less favorable personality-ratings after gossip was exchanged. In the study, pairs of individuals were brought into a research lab to participate. Either the two individuals were friends prior to the study or they were strangers scheduled to participate at the same time. One of the individuals was a confederate of the study, and they engaged in gossiping about the research assistant after she left the room. The gossip exchanged was either positive or negative. Regardless of gossip type (positive versus negative) or relationship type (friend versus stranger) the gossipers were rated as less trustworthy after sharing the gossip.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Turner | first1 = M. M. | last2 = Mazur | first2 = M.A. | last3 = Wendel | first3 = N. | last4 = Winslow | first4 = R. | year = 2003 | title = Relationship ruin or social glue? The joint effect of relationship type and gossip valence on liking, trust, and expertise | journal = Communication Monographs | volume = 70 | pages = 129–141 | doi = 10.1080/0363775032000133782 | s2cid = 144861229 }}</ref>

[[Walter Block]] has suggested that while gossip and [[blackmail]] both involve the disclosure of unflattering information, the blackmailer is arguably ethically superior to the gossip.<ref>
Block, Walter ([1976], 1991, 2008). ''[[Defending the Undefendable]]: The Pimp, Prostitute, Scab, Slumlord, Libeler, Moneylender, and Other Scapegoats in the Rogue's Gallery of American Society'' Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, {{ISBN|978-1-933550-17-6}}, pp. 42-43, [https://books.google.com/books?id=MHU4KkvxSMsC full text online]</ref> Block writes: "In a sense, the gossip is much ''worse'' than the blackmailer, for the blackmailer has given the blackmailed a chance to silence him. The gossip exposes the secret without warning." The victim of a blackmailer is thus offered choices denied to the subject of gossip, such as deciding if the exposure of his or her secret is worth the cost the blackmailer demands. Moreover, in refusing a blackmailer's offer one is in no worse a position than with the [https://www.gossip99.com/ gossip].  Adds Block, "It is indeed difficult, then, to account for the vilification suffered by the blackmailer, at least compared to the gossip, who is usually dismissed with slight contempt and smugness."

Contemporary critiques of gossip may concentrate on or become subsumed in the discussion of [[social media]] such as [[Facebook]].<ref>
{{cite book
 | last1 = Cuonzo
 | first1 = Margaret A.
 | chapter = 15: Gossip and the evolution of facebook
 | editor1-last = Wittkower
 | editor1-first = D. E.
 | title = Facebook and Philosophy: What's on Your Mind?
 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=290I3uyqx2IC
 | series = Popular culture and philosophy series, edited by George A. Reisch
 | volume = 50
 | location = Chicago
 | publisher = Open Court Publishing
 | date = 2010
 | page = 173ff
 | isbn = 9780812696752
 | access-date = 23 Apr 2019
}}
</ref>