Abstract
Gossip is universal, and multiple studies have demonstrated that it can have beneficial group-level outcomes when negative reports help identify defectors or norm-violators. Gossip, however, seldom happens in a social vacuum. Instead, it is enmeshed in a fabric of positive and negative relationships that creates opportunities, constraints, and also motives to gossip. This article studies the importance of friendships and antipathies among the three concerned parties (sender, receiver, target) for negative gossip among adolescents. We contrast two theoretical accounts. According to the first, gossip brings closer individuals who have “enemies” in common. Based on this, we infer that gossip appears in triads where both the sender and receiver share their antipathy against the target. The second position argues that gossip is used to compromise different opinions of friends towards the target. Thus, what predicts gossip is direct antipathy against the target or being friends with someone who dislikes the target (indirect antipathy) rather than the combination of the two antipathies. We test these two lines of reasoning with sociometric data from 17 classroom observations (13 unique classrooms in different time points) in Hungary. Bayesian Exponential Random Graph Models yield support for direct antipathy in 13 (nine unique) classrooms and indirect antipathy in five. No evidence for shared antipathy is found. Results suggest that, at least among adolescents, negative gossip is not about bonding with potential allies but more about consensus-making between friends. Also, results reveal that negative gossip concentrates on the two ends of the reputational echelon, hinting that, in the classroom, high reputation might be contested instead of rewarded.
Highlights
In scientific literature, gossip refers to informal communication about a third person who is not present (Dores Cruz et al, 2021; Foster, 2004)
Negative gossip can increase cooperation within the group (Beersma & Kleef, 2011; Kniffin & Wilson, 2005; Wu et al, 2016), tar gets of negative gossip might experience social exclusion, avoidance, and other negative consequences (Feinberg et al, 2012; Jaworski & Coupland, 2005; Kisfalusi, Takacs, et al, 2019; Martinescu et al, 2021)
The group-beneficial consequences and the potentially severe individual implications for the target both justify the necessity of closely investi gating the drivers of negative gossip
Summary
Gossip refers to informal communication about a third person who is not present (Dores Cruz et al, 2021; Foster, 2004). Gossip seems to be universally present in all human groups and accounts for a substantial portion of verbal communication (Dunbar et al, 1997; Emler, 1994). Gossip is not just universal and essential for the social orientation of individuals and for achieving group-beneficial outcomes, such as cooperation and social order (Fein berg et al, 2014; Kniffin & Wilson, 2010; Wu et al, 2016). The recognition of its universality and its consequences for the individual and the group brought gossip
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
