Why People Gossip: An Empirical Analysis of Social Motives, Antecedents, and Consequences

Abstract

In 3 studies with student samples, we advance a social-motivational approach to gossip. We developed the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire to distinguish negative influence, information gathering and validation, social enjoyment, and group protection as motives underlying gossip. Study 1 demonstrated that these motives can be distinguished empirically, and that the informational motive was the most prevalent reason to instigate gossip. Study 2 showed that group protection was especially important when the opportunity to gossip with a group member about another member's norm-violating behavior was salient. Study 3 showed that when participants imagined someone gossiped to them about another group member's norm violation, and ascribed this to group protection, they rated the gossip as social and did not disapprove of it.

Full text

Why People Gossip: An Empirical Analysis of
Social Motives, Antecedents, and Consequences1
Bianca Beersma2
Department of Work and
Organizational Psychology
University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Gerben A.Van Kleef
Department of Social Psychology
University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
In 3 studies with student samples, we advance a social-motivational approach to
gossip. We developed the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire to distinguish negative
influence, information gathering and validation, social enjoyment, and group pro-
tection as motives underlying gossip. Study 1 demonstrated that these motives can be
distinguished empirically, and that the informational motive was the most prevalent
reason to instigate gossip. Study 2 showed that group protection was especially
important when the opportunity to gossip with a group member about another
member’s norm-violating behavior was salient. Study 3 showed that when partici-
pants imagined someone gossiped to them about another group member’s norm
violation, and ascribed this to group protection, they rated the gossip as social and
did not disapprove of it.
Gossip, which is defined as the exchange of information with evaluative
content about absent third parties3(Foster, 2004), is an activity in which
many people frequently engage (Foster, 2004; Goodman & Ben-Ze’ev, 1994;
Wilson, Wilczynski, Wells, & Weiser, 2000). A diary study by Goldsmith and
Baxter (1996) revealed that gossip was the most frequently enacted speech
event in a 2-week period of data collection, and researchers have estimated
that people spend between 65% (Dunbar, Duncan, & Marriott, 1997) and
80% to 90% (Emler, 1994) of their day-to-day conversations gossiping.
Gossip occurs in diverse types of groups, such as hospital personnel (Suls &
1This research was sponsored in part by two grants of The Netherlands Organization for
Scientific Research (NWO) awarded to Bianca Beersma (Grant 451.04.100) and Gerben van
Kleef (Grant 451.05.010). The authors thank Joyce Jacobs and Judith Janssens for their help
with the data collection.
2Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bianca Beersma, Depart-
ment of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018
WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: b.beersma@uva.nl
3There has been much debate in the literature on gossip about how to define the construct.
Rather than reiterate this discussion here, we refer the reader to Foster (2004), who reviewed the
debate, and who stated that the label gossip is “justified primarily by the exchange of information
about absent third parties” (p. 81). Furthermore, Foster also stated that to qualify as gossip,
such information must have valence, or evaluative content. The definition that we use in the
current research is based on these descriptions.
bs_bs_banner
2640
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2012, 42, 11, pp. 2640–2670.
©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00956.x

Goodkin, 1994), psychologists (Nevo, O., Nevo, B. & Derech-Zehavi, A.
1994), and college sorority members (Jaeger, Skelder, Rind, & Rosnow,
1994; Jaeger, Skelder, & Rosnow, 1998). Thus, as Wilson et al. (2000)
eloquently put it, the evidence suggests that people “gossip with an appetite
that rivals their interest in food and sex” (p. 347).
Despite its prevalence, gossip has acquired a negative reputation. The
moral codes of almost all societies, across time and cultures, condemn gossip
(Goodman, 1994). Gossip is often seen as exclusively self-serving behavior
aimed at manipulating others and influencing them in some malicious way.
Recent reviews, however, argue for a more positive view on gossip (Baumeis-
ter, Zhang, & Vohs, 2004; Dunbar, 2004; Foster, 2004), claiming that gossip
is purposeful and important to social functioning.
The purpose of the current studies is threefold. First, we examine the
question of why people gossip. Knowledge about the motives underlying
gossip is both theoretically interesting and practically valuable, for example,
for organizations, which may benefit from gossip that is instigated for posi-
tive reasons, but suffer from the negative consequences of malicious gossip.
Distinguishing between gossip that is instigated because of different motives
can be the start of organizational policies aimed at minimizing the negative
and optimizing the positive consequences of gossip. Second, we examine
whether people gossip for different reasons in different situations. Perhaps
some motives to gossip are more important in certain contexts than in others,
and our research aims to shed light on this issue. Third, we examine whether
people are able to distinguish between different types of gossip. If gossip can
be shown to be based on positive motives (under specific circumstances), can
people then tell gossip that is based on these positive motives from gossip that
instead is aimed toward mere enjoyment or even to benefit a person’s self-
interest? Do they react differently to different types of gossip in different
situations; and if so, what determines these different responses? Examining
these questions is a useful step in the direction of developing knowledge
about when and where gossip perpetuates.
Gossip for the Good of the Group
Taking an evolutionary perspective, Dunbar (2004) argued that gossip
may have been selected for because it strengthens the intimacy of social
bonds. It has also been argued to have been selected for because it helps to
control against norm violations in groups. During the course of evolution,
humans became more and more social because this offered certain benefits,
such as safety and the possibility to share resources. For instance, a single
person cannot ward off a bear or catch a mammoth, but a group can.
WHY PEOPLE GOSSIP 2641

Sociality was very favorable for the development of homo sapiens, however
there was one caveat: Although the group as a whole benefits most when
individual group members all contribute equally to the group, for individual
group members it is tempting to not contribute and still reap the benefits of
others’ contributions (Dawes, 1980; Van Dijk & Wilke, 1999; Van Vugt,
2009). Groups, therefore, developed norms that prescribe how individuals
should behave (Campbell, 1975).
But even with group norms in place, it is inevitable that some group
members will, from time to time, behave in a way that is not in accordance
with the norms because this is individually beneficial to them. One of the
most striking examples of norm-violating behavior is free riding. Free riders
can, for example, join in eating mammoth meat, while not participating in the
killing of the animal, thus avoiding the risks associated with the killing.
Modern free riding could pertain to throwing one’s garbage out whenever it
is personally convenient and leaving it for others to clean up, or not putting
much energy into team projects at work while still reaping the benefits from
these projects when they are successful. For the other group members—who
do behave in accordance with the norms—this non-normative free-riding
behavior poses a problem: They do all the work and invest their resources,
while the free riders exploit them. As Enquist and Leimar (1993) showed in a
mathematical-modeling study, this eventually leads to out-reproduction by
the free riders of the “honest” members of the group and, ultimately, to their
extinction.
Imposing group norms on all members is difficult, as free riding is difficult
to control. It would be very inefficient for individual group members to treat
everyone they encounter with such vigilance and suspicion that they could
never be taken advantage of, because doing so would mean wasting costly
time and energy that could more profitably be spent on other things.
Fortunately, evolution gave humans the possibility of speech. Speech
makes it possible for group members to warn each other against those who
do not behave in accordance with the group’s norms (also see Dunbar, 2004).
In Enquist and Leimar’s (1993) study, if group members were given the
possibility to pass on even a small amount of information about free riders’
behavior to other group members, the selective advantage of free riding was
strongly diminished, and the “honest” members remained the dominant
group in the population. Although Enquist and Leimar studied models that
greatly simplify group interactions, compared to real-world groups, they
called this process of information exchange “gossip.”
In summary, it has been argued that the idea of protecting the group
against those who violate group norms by taking a free ride or otherwise
failing to live up to group norms may be an important function of gossip. In
his group-level perspective on gossip, Gluckman (1963) developed a similar
2642 BEERSMA AND VAN KLEEF

argument, and even proposed that the threat alone that group members may
gossip if one does not behave in accordance with the norms is enough to keep
group members’ behavior consistent with the group’s norms. Likewise,
Keltner, Van Kleef, Chen, and Kraus (2008) argued that gossip serves as a
mechanism to keep the behavior of (powerful) individuals in check by pres-
suring them to adhere to social norms. In this way, gossip promotes the
common good (Wilson et al., 2000).
Although interesting, functional analyses of gossip have also received
criticism. For example, Paine (1967) argued that group-level functional
analyses of gossip are problematic because it is not the group or community,
but rather the individuals who compose that group or community who
engage in gossip. Therefore, he argued that to really understand gossip, we
should examine the individual motives of gossipers. Although our overview
shows that at the group level there is a great deal of theorizing about the
social functions of gossip, little empirical research has been devoted to under-
standing the reasons why individual group members instigate gossip.
Understanding these individual motives underlying gossip behavior is
important to gain insight into what causes the phenomenon. Are the func-
tions that gossip is theorized to have at the group level reflected in individual
motives to instigate gossip? This is not necessarily the case, as gossip may
serve the function described previously without group members consciously
realizing that it does. It is, therefore, important to examine empirically
whether group members consciously decide to instigate gossip specifically
because they want to protect their group against norm violators, to enhance
social bonds, or for yet other reasons. It is these questions that we aim to
answer in the current studies.
Both Morreall (1994) and Emler (1994) noted the surprising scarcity and
fragmentation of research evidence regarding gossip. A decade later, this
situation had remained largely unchanged, as Foster (2004) noted that still,
few empirical data existed. This is surprising if we consider that although it is
generally morally condemned, people spend much time gossiping. This, com-
bined with several theoretical accounts arguing that gossip may serve positive
functions (as discussed previously), shows that it is clearly time for empirical
research on the motives underlying gossip, or the reasons why people decide
to instigate gossip.
As stated previously, the current paper examines (a) why people gossip;
(b) whether people gossip for different reasons in different situations; and
(c) whether people are able to distinguish between different types of gossip.
We addressed these questions in a series of studies, aiming to shed light on
the social motives of individuals to instigate gossip, the influence of the
person with whom one can gossip, the behavior about which one can
gossip, and the evaluation of gossip. We especially focus on the possibility
WHY PEOPLE GOSSIP 2643

that a motive to instigate gossip could be to warn group members against
norm defectors.
A Social-Motivational Approach to Gossip
As we briefly alluded to in the introduction, gossip is often morally
condemned. For example, moral codes derived from Christian and Jewish
religions condemn gossip and incorporate a number of severe punishments
designed to discourage it (Goodman, 1994). Even in societies in which reli-
gion no longer plays a central role, gossip is often frowned upon and is seen
as reproachable. But is gossiping really that negative? To answer that ques-
tion, it is interesting to first examine what goals individuals attempt to
achieve when engaging in gossip. In the present paper, we adopt a social-
motivational approach to gossip to increase understanding of when and why
people gossip (cf. Paine, 1967).
Several scholars have argued for a more positive perspective on gossip
(e.g., Dunbar, 2004; Foster, 2004; Wert & Salovey, 2004a). In the current
studies, we focus on four social motives underlying gossip that have been
discussed in the literature (e.g., Foster, 2004; Rosnow, 1977; Stirling, 1956).
These four motives are (a) to influence others negatively; (b) to inform; (c) to
enjoy; and (d) to maintain group norms.
As we alluded to earlier, gossip is often seen as self-serving behavior
aimed at manipulating others and influencing them in some malicious way.
Indeed, the first motive for gossip we examine here pertains to the possibil-
ity that, by gossiping, people can influence others and manipulate their
opinions, typically in a negative direction. This motive for gossip is prob-
ably the one that has led to gossip’s negative reputation (Foster, 2004).
Rosnow (1977) explained the negative influence motive as follows: Person A
tries to get some kind of advantage over Person B or C, by trying to con-
vince Person B to revise his or her opinion about Person C. This motive is
self-serving in the classic meaning of the term and, for instance, aims at
extending one’s own power or destroying the reputation of the target (the
person who is being gossiped about). Gossip used in this way has been
referred to as indirect aggression (Richardson & Green, 1997). Indirect
aggression is strongly related to relational aggression, which is defined as
covert aggressive behavior that is intended to harm someone by damaging
or manipulating his or her relationships with others (Archer & Coyne, 2005;
Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).
The second motive for gossip concerns information gathering and vali-
dation. By gossiping, one can acquire new information about the person
about whom one gossips, or check whether or not others share one’s
2644 BEERSMA AND VAN KLEEF

opinion of this person. According to Rosnow (1977), by gossiping, people
can exchange news with one another and create a “social map” of the
environment in which they live. Gossip is an efficient way—and often the
only way—to get access to information (Foster, 2004). This is especially
the case when it concerns unfavorable information about a person. Indi-
viduals may gossip to validate the assumptions they have about the social
world around them (Rosnow, 1977). Gaining information about the
soundness of one’s opinions is a form of social comparison that has been
argued to be central to gossip (Wert & Salovey, 2004b). Gossiping is an
excellent way to find out whether others think the same about some mutual
acquaintance.
The third motive is that of social enjoyment. By gossiping, one can simply
have fun and distract oneself and others from routine activities. Gossiping
then is motivated by the desire to have a good time with others. Several
authors have observed that there are situations in which people gossip just for
the satisfaction and amusement it renders (e.g., Ben Ze’ev, 1994; Rosnow,
1977; Spacks, 1982; Stirling, 1956). According to Foster (2004), the social
enjoyment motive is the reason for the immense popularity of gossip shows
on television and in the popular press. Although this is not gossip according
to our definition, it is a proxy for gossip that seems to fulfill the social
enjoyment motive.
The fourth motive for gossip that has been suggested is to protect the
group and its norms against harmful behavior (Gluckman, 1963). Gossip
has been argued to be used by insiders to exclude outsiders (Dunbar, 2004;
Noon & Delbridge, 1993). By gossiping, one can “warn” group members
against others who violate group norms, and it is possible that this explicit
motive is a reason to instigate gossip (cf. Dunbar, 2004; Keltner et al., 2008).
Although these motives are discussed at length in the literature, quanti-
tative empirical research on the social motives for gossip is scant (but see, for
exceptions, Beersma & Van Kleef, 2011; Feinberg, Willer, Stellar, & Keltner,
2012). As we have explained briefly, we aim to contribute to this literature in
several ways. In the first study, we examine the question of why people gossip
by examining whether the four motives for gossip discussed previously can be
distinguished empirically, and by examining the relationships between these
motives and gossip. In doing so, we build on the social-motivational perspec-
tive to develop and test the idea that gossip may serve different social
motives, depending on the situation. In the second study, we devote special
attention to the group-protection motive—perhaps the most social of the
four motives—and examine in which situations this motive is particularly
important. Finally, in the third study, we explore how moral reactions to
gossip are shaped by the motives people ascribe to gossipers, and how these
presumed motives affect people’s behavioral responses to gossip.
WHY PEOPLE GOSSIP 2645

Study 1
The goal of Study 1 is to develop a measure of gossip motives to explore
whether the motives to gossip that we derived from our literature review can
be empirically distinguished and are, indeed, related to the tendency to
instigate gossip.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Study 1 participants were 221 undergraduate students (160 females, 61
males) at the University of Amsterdam (70% female; Mage =21 years) who
participated in this study and in Study 2 for course credits. They received a
booklet with instructions, which they read individually. We asked the students
to think about and briefly describe the last occasion when they instigated a
conversation with someone about a person while the person about whom they
talked was not present (we explicitly avoided the word “gossip” in order to
avoid social-desirability effects). Thereafter, the participants were instructed
to think back to the reasons they had for instigating the conversation they had
just described. We then asked them to complete the Motives to Gossip
Questionnaire we developed for this study. After they completed the question-
naire, they were thanked for their participation and informed that they would
be fully debriefed about the purpose of the study after they had participated in
Study 2.
Motives to Gossip Questionnaire
We developed a 22-item questionnaire to tap into the four motives for
gossip that were described previously. The questionnaire contains 9 items
measuring information gathering and validation, 5 items measuring social
enjoyment, 5 items measuring negative influence, and 3 items measuring
group protection. The questionnaire was administered in Dutch. The items
started with the phrase “For me, a reason to instigate this conversation was.
. . .” Responses were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(completely disagree)to7(completely agree). See Table 1 for a translated
version of the complete questionnaire.
Results
Factor Analysis and Reliability of the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire
We ran a factor analysis with varimax rotation to explore the factor
structure of the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire. Factor analysis is a
2646 BEERSMA AND VAN KLEEF

Table 1
Varimax-Rotated Factor Loadings for the Items of the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire: Study 1
Item
Component
Information
gathering and
validation
(6.93)
Social
enjoyment
(4.34)
Negative
influence
(3.19)
Group
protection
(1.59)
For me, a reason to engage in this conversation was . . .
to engage in an enjoyable activity. .001 .844 .070 -.123
to have a nice time with the person I was talking with. .040 .893 .037 -.037
to engage in a fun activity with the person I was talking with. .083 .916 .053 -.040
to kill time with the person I was talking with. -.017 .915 .078 -.076
to have a good time. .023 .937 .038 .010
to damage the reputation of the person we talked about. .041 .105 .733 .088
to say negative things about the person we talked about. .127 .081 .772 .112
to negatively influence the image that the person I was talking with has of the person we talked about. .038 .083 .783 .228
to put the person we talked about in a negative light. .076 .123 .854 .078
to discuss negative characteristics of the person we talked about. .296 -.181 .613 .101
to check whether the person I was talking with thought the same about the person we talked about. .802 .096 .069 -.051
to compare my ideas about the person we talked about with the person I talked with. .809 .080 .127 -.012
to check whether my image of the person we talked about was correct. .743 -.105 .033 .122
to get to know whether the person I was talking with had the same ideas as I had. .899 .092 .081 .027
to check whether the person I talked to had the same ideas about the person we talked about. .896 .055 .071 .067
to check my opinion about the person we talked about. .747 -.072 .123 .190
to find out whether the person I was talking with agreed with me. .863 .086 .057 .072
to learn whether the person I was talking with and I had the same views. .867 .047 .090 .022
to find out whether my ideas about the person we talked about were correct. .783 -.105 .112 .133
to protect the person I was talking with against the person we were talking about. .053 -.073 .123 .893
to warn the person I was talking with for the behaviour of the person we talked about. .220 -.066 .275 .831
to prevent that the person I was talking with would be exploited by the person we talked about. .102 -.103 .186 .887
Note. Items were listed in random order in the study, but are shown here clustered per underlying factor for ease of presentation. Eigenvalues for the unrotated principal components are listed in
parentheses for each factor. Factor loadings in boldface show that each item had the highest factor loading on the motive it was supposed to measure.
WHY PEOPLE GOSSIP 2647

statistical method that is used to describe variability among observed vari-
ables in terms of fewer unobserved variables called factors. The observed
variables are modeled as linear combinations of the factors, plus “error”
terms. The information gained about the interdependencies can be used to
uncover the underlying structure of a relatively large set of variables. In the
case of our Study 1, we had a priori expectations about which variables
would load on which factors, and we sought to determine if items created to
represent one specific motive indeed clustered together.
The analysis reveals four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, which
together explained 73% of the total variance. Table 1 depicts the factor
loadings of the questionnaire items. The four-factor solution derived from
the factor analysis mapped exactly onto the four motives for gossip identified
in our literature review. Each item had the highest loading on the factor on
which it was supposed to load. The factor analysis thus shows that the four
motives for gossip that we derived from our literature review could, indeed,
be empirically distinguished. Therefore, we computed separate scales for each
of the four motives. This resulted in scales with good reliabilities (Cronbach’s
alphas were .79, .94, .95, and .89, respectively, for negative influence, infor-
mation gathering and validation, social enjoyment, and group protection).
Relative Prevalence of the Motives to Gossip
To explore the relative importance of the motives in the gossip episode on
which the participants had reported, we ran a repeated-measures ANOVA
with the four motives as a within-subjects measure. The analysis reveals a
significant effect for this within-subject factor, indicating that the motives
were seen as differentially important, F(3, 651) =160.05, p<.001. Post hoc
tests show that information gathering and validation (M=4.63, SD =0.10)
was seen as a more important reason to gossip than was social enjoyment (M
=3.45, SD =0.12), F(1, 217) =60.49, p<.001. Also, social enjoyment was seen
as more important than was group protection (M=2.21, SD =0.10), F(1,
217) =55.30, p<.001. Finally, group protection did not differ in importance
from negative influence (M=2.11, SD =0.07), F(1, 217) =1.04, p=.31, ns.
Discussion
The results of Study 1 demonstrate that the four motives for gossip can
be empirically distinguished and reliably measured. Moreover, interestingly,
in people’s self-reports of the most recent gossip conversation in which they
had been involved, they rated the negative influence motive as the least
important reason to gossip. Social enjoyment seemed to be a more central
consideration for people to instigate gossip, and information gathering and
2648 BEERSMA AND VAN KLEEF

validation were rated as most important. These findings are interesting in
light of the negative reputation of gossip. It is highly unlikely that our
participants were not aware of the negative connotation of gossip. Yet, when
reporting on gossipy conversations, they mostly indicated that they engaged
in these conversations to convey, receive, and validate social information
and to enjoy themselves: two reasons that most people would label as neutral
or even positive.
Social-desirability considerations may have played a role in our
study—no one likes to call himself or herself manipulative or self-
interested—but this is unlikely, as the questionnaires were completed anony-
mously, and participants knew that the researchers could not trace answers
back to a specific person. Even if social desirability may have played a role,
the finding that neutral or even positive motives for gossip—and not motives
that have a negative moral connotation—are seen as more important reasons
to instigate gossip is an interesting starting point to delve more deeply into
the social motives for gossip. The issue of social desirability will be further
addressed in Study 3.
Interestingly, the importance of the group-protection motive was rated
relatively low, suggesting that in the gossip conversations that participants
spontaneously recalled, it played only a modest role. This is consistent with
findings by Dunbar (2004). However, as Dunbar noted, “It may nonetheless
be that the handful of cases involving this kind of behavior are dispropor-
tionately important in terms of their consequences for the recipients’ ability
to avoid exploitation in the future” (p. 107). Gossip motivated by the desire
to protect one’s group against norm violators is likely to occur only in specific
situations. People may often gossip just to enjoy themselves or to exchange
information, but under specific circumstances, they may gossip to warn their
group members against norm violators. The latter type of gossip may have
been selected for during evolution, and although gossip may be an interesting
activity to engage in across situations, it may become especially important
when one’s group is at risk of being exploited.
What are the circumstances that determine why people gossip? In the
current paper, we focus on two factors; namely, (a) the person with whom
one can gossip, particularly whether or not this person is a member of the
same group; and (b) whether or not the gossip is about norm violations.
Concerning the former, people can, of course, gossip with many others.
These may be group members with whom they have interdependent relation-
ships, but also relative outsiders with whom they happen to have a good
relationship. For example, gossip about a colleague can take place in one’s
workgroup, but also at a party where one meets friends who have no rela-
tionship with the colleague who is the target of the gossip. Under both
circumstances, gossip is likely to satisfy the social-enjoyment motive, and
WHY PEOPLE GOSSIP 2649

probably to some extent the information-gathering-and-validation motive
as well.
The group-protection motive, in contrast, is more likely to be served by
gossiping with a member of the same group. If the group-protection motive
is, indeed, an important reason for people to gossip with their fellow group
members, we should observe that they gossip more with group members
about other members’ behavior that violates the norms of the group than
about behavior that does not violate these norms. For gossip with others
outside one’s group, this distinction should be less apparent; people should
be equally likely to gossip to outsiders about norm-violating and non-norm-
violating behavior by others in their group. We, therefore, propose that
under circumstances in which people have the opportunity to instigate gossip
in a conversation with a member of their group, they should be especially
likely to do this when the norms of their group are violated.
Moreover, building on our review of the motives for gossip and on the
findings of Study 1, we propose, in general terms, that different motives to
gossip become relevant, depending on the situation. That is, even though
people generally show a high prevalence of gossip across situations (Dunbar
et al., 1997; Emler, 1994; Goldsmith & Baxter, 1996), they may gossip for
different reasons in different situations. Extending our theoretical analysis,
we argue that the group-protection motive for gossip is most likely to
vary as a function of the situation. Social enjoyment (Baumeister & Leary,
1995) and information gathering and validation (Festinger, 1954) are fun-
damental human needs; hence, these motives can be expected to be less
subject to situational variations. By contrast, group protection, and social
influence more generally, only become relevant motives under particular
circumstances.
Study 2
In Study 2, we presented participants with scenarios in which we manipu-
lated the relationship with a possible conversation partner (member of the
same group or not) and the behavior of the gossip target (violating a group
norm or not). We measured the extent to which participants stated that they
would be inclined to instigate gossip in this situation, and the reasons for
doing so. We propose the following:
Hypothesis 1. When the conversation partner is a member of the
same group, people will be more inclined to instigate gossip,
especially when the gossip target violates a group norm;
whereas when the conversation partner is not a member of the
2650 BEERSMA AND VAN KLEEF

same group, the distinction between gossiping about norm-
violating and non-norm-violating behavior will be less
apparent.
Hypothesis 2. The group-protection motive will be more
strongly related to the tendency to instigate gossip when the
gossip target violates a group norm and the conversation
partner is a member of the same group than in the other
conditions.
We further aim to replicate the findings of Study 1 in another context (i.e.,
reacting on vignettes, rather than reporting on a past gossip conversation).
Method
Participants and Procedure
The same 221 students who participated in Study 1 also participated in
Study 2. There was a time delay of 1 week between the two studies, and the
participants were fully debriefed about the purpose of both studies after they
participated in Study 2.
The participants were randomly assigned to the conditions of a 2 (Target
Behavior: norm violation vs. no norm violation) ¥2 (Conversation Partner:
colleague vs. friend) full-factorial design. They received a booklet with instruc-
tions, which they read individually. The first page of the booklet contained a
scenario. The participants were asked to imagine that they had a job in a bar.
In the bar, employees work in a team. The scenario explained that there is a
common norm that team members help each other out with chores when
needed. Participants were asked to imagine that they had helped out doing the
dishes—a chore that is generally disliked—three times in the past week. After
this, the manipulation of target behavior was introduced. In the norm-
violation condition, a colleague (“Co-worker Z”) had not helped out doing the
dishes a single time this week, which seemed to be a result of this coworker
trying to avoid the unpleasant task (a typical case of norm violation by free
riding). In the no-norm-violation condition, Co-worker Z constantly used a
disinfectant for hand-cleaning after collecting empty glasses or delivering food
to the tables. This is a noticeable and perhaps unusual behavior, but it has no
negative consequences for other group members.
The scenario then described how the participant went home after work by
bus, and the manipulation of relationship with the conversation partner was
introduced. In the colleague condition, the participant imagined meeting a
coworker who worked in the same bar (i.e., a member of the workgroup, but
not Co-worker Z) at the bus stop. In the friend condition, the participant met
WHY PEOPLE GOSSIP 2651

a friend who did not work in the same bar (i.e., not a member of the
workgroup). After participants read the scenario, they indicated the extent to
which they would be inclined to instigate gossip (see Dependent Variables).
Thereafter, we asked them to complete the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire
with specific reference to the scenario they just read, so that we could assess
to what extent each of the four gossip motives was related to the tendency to
instigate gossip in each of the four different situations. Finally, the partici-
pants were thanked, debriefed about the purpose of both Study 1 and Study
2, and given their course credit points.
Dependent Variables
Self-reported tendency to instigate gossip. To avoid social-desirability
effects or lack of clarity as a result of different ideas about what gossip is,
rather than asking participants directly whether or not they would be likely to
instigate gossip in the scenario they read, we measured the self-reported
tendency to instigate gossip with two items: “In the described situation, I
would talk to the person at the bus stop about Co-worker Z,” and “In the
described situation, I would talk to the person at the bus stop about the way
in which Co-worker Z is behaving.” The items were rated on a 7-point scale
ranging from 1 (definitely not)to7(certainly). The correlation between the
two items was high (r=.91, p<.001), so we aggregated them into a scale by
averaging them.
Motives to Gossip
We used the same 22-item questionnaire to measure motives to gossip as
we did in Study 1, but this time participants were specifically asked to report
on the extent to which a specific reason to talk with the person at the bus stop
would play a role for them in the scenario that they had read. We rephrased
some parts of the questionnaire to fit the context of the present study. For
instance, the opening phrase was reformulated as “A reason to instigate a
conversation about Co-worker Z could be....”Also, “the person we talked
about” was replaced by “Co-worker Z” in all of the questions. Apart from
these small changes, the questionnaire was the same as in Study 1.
Results
Factor Analysis and Relative Importance of the Motives to Gossip
As in Study 1, we ran a factor analysis with varimax rotation to explore
whether the factor structure of our questionnaire would be similar when
2652 BEERSMA AND VAN KLEEF

participants reported on gossip in specific scenarios (Study 2) to when they
reported on real-life gossip (Study 1). The analysis reveals that this was the
case. We found exactly the same four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1
as in Study 1 (specifically, 8.31 for the factor on information gathering and
validation; 4.20 for the factor on social enjoyment; 3.42 for the factor on
negative influence; and 1.31 for the factor on group protection). The items
that were constructed to measure information gathering and validation had
factor loadings between .74 and .89; the items measuring social enjoyment
had factor loadings between .85 and .93; the items measuring negative influ-
ence had factor loadings between .67 and .91; and the group-protection items
had factor loadings between .82 and .89. All cross-loadings were lower than
.36. We again computed separate scales for each of the four motives. As
in Study 1, this resulted in scales with good reliabilities (Cronbach’s alphas
were .90, .95, .96, and .91, respectively, for negative influence, information
gathering and validation, social enjoyment, and group protection).
As in Study 1, we tested the relative importance of the four motives as
rated by the participants by running a repeated-measures ANOVA with the
four motives as a within-subjects measure. The analysis reveals a significant
effect of the within-subjects factor, indicating that the four motives were seen
as differentially important, F(3, 651) =238.05, p<.001. Post hoc tests show
that information validation (M=4.89, SD =0.09) was seen as a more
important reason to gossip than was social enjoyment (M=3.71, SD =0.12),
F(1, 217) =73.49, p<.001. Also, social enjoyment was seen as more impor-
tant than was group protection (M=2.17, SD =0.09), F(1, 217) =109.80, p
<.001. Group protection did not differ in importance from negative influence
(M=2.23, SD =0.08), F(1, 217) <1, ns. We thus found the same relative
importance of motives to gossip in the scenario study as we did in Study 1.
Effects of Target Behavior and Relationship With Conversation Partner
on Gossip
Hypothesis 1 predicted that when participants read the scenario in which
they had the opportunity to gossip with a colleague (i.e., a member of their
workgroup), they would be especially likely to instigate gossip when the
gossip target violated the group’s norms. Hypothesis 1 also predicted that
when they read the scenario in which they had the opportunity to gossip with
a friend (who was not a member of their group), the difference between
norm-violating and non-norm-violating behavior of the gossip target would
be less apparent. To test the hypothesis, we ran a 2 (Conversation Partner:
colleague vs. friend) ¥2 (Target Behavior: norm violation vs. no norm
violation) ANOVA on self-reported tendency to instigate gossip.
WHY PEOPLE GOSSIP 2653

We found a main effect for target behavior, indicating that participants
reported to be more strongly inclined to instigate gossip about norm-
violating behavior (M=4.93, SD =0.15) than about non-norm-violating
behavior (M=4.25, SD =0.15), F(1, 216) =10.50, p<.001. We also found an
interaction between target behavior and conversation partner, F(1, 216) =
4.49, p<.035. Simple-effects analyses show that, consistent with Hypothesis
1, when participants read that they were given the opportunity to gossip with
a colleague, they reported being more inclined to instigate gossip about
norm-violating behavior (M=5.05, SD =1.20) than about non-norm-
violating behavior (M=3.92, SD =1.76), F(1, 216) =14.38, p<.001. Also
consistent with Hypothesis 1, when the participants read that they were given
the opportunity to gossip with a friend, the difference between norm-
violating behavior (M=4.80, SD =1.48) and non-norm-violating behavior
(M=4.56, SD =1.78) in the extent to which participants indicated being
likely to instigate gossip was not significant, F(1, 216) <1, p<.43.
Relative Importance of Different Motives to Gossip
Hypothesis 2 predicted that the group-protection motive would be more
strongly related to the tendency to instigate gossip in the condition in which
the conversation partner is a member of the same group and the gossip
target violates a group norm than in the other conditions. Thus, if the
group-protection motive is more strongly related to the tendency to instigate
gossip in the condition in which the participants read that they could gossip
with a colleague and in which the target of gossip violated the group’s norms
than in all other conditions, this hypothesis would receive support. To test
this, we performed Fisher’s r-to-ztests in which we tested the correlation
between ratings on the group-protection motive and the self-reported ten-
dency to instigate gossip against the pooled correlation between group pro-
tection and the self-reported tendency to instigate gossip in the other three
conditions.
Table 2 shows the correlations between the four motives for gossip and
the self-reported tendency to instigate gossip for each condition. The corre-
lation between the group-protection motive and the self-reported tendency to
instigate gossip in the colleague norm-violation condition was .47, whereas
the pooled correlation over the other three conditions was .14. Fisher’s r-to-z
test resulted in a zscore of 2.31, showing that the two correlations differ
significantly from one another ( p<.021). This is consistent with Hypothesis
2: In the condition in which the participants reported on their tendencies to
gossip to a colleague and were confronted with norm-violating behavior, the
relationship between the group-protection motive and the self-reported ten-
dency to instigate gossip was stronger than in all other conditions.
2654 BEERSMA AND VAN KLEEF

Table 2
Correlations Between Motives to Gossip and Self-Reported Tendency to Instigate Gossip Per Condition: Study 2
Motive to gossip
Information
gathering and
validation
Social
enjoyment
Negative
influence
Group
protection
Colleague/norm violation .72*** .20 .38*** .47***
Colleague/no norm violation .39** .26 .26 .08
Friend/norm violation .36** .26 .13 .12
Friend/no norm violation .47*** .34** .27* .09
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.005.
WHY PEOPLE GOSSIP 2655

For reasons of exploration, we also examined the correlations for the
other motives for gossip. The correlation between the information-gathering-
and-validation motive and the self-reported tendency to instigate gossip in
the colleague norm-violation condition was .72, whereas the pooled correla-
tion over the other three conditions was .40. Fisher’s r-to-ztest produced a z
score of 3.06, indicating that the two correlations differ significantly from one
another ( p<.002). This finding shows that the information-gathering-and-
validation motive was more strongly related to the self-reported tendency to
instigate gossip in the colleague norm-violation condition than in the other
conditions. For social enjoyment and negative influence, no significant dif-
ferences in correlations were found across conditions.
Discussion
When given the opportunity to instigate gossip with a member of the same
group (in this case, a colleague), participants in Study 2 reported stronger
tendencies to gossip about norm-violating behavior than about non-norm-
violating behavior. Self-reported tendencies to instigate gossip were not
affected by the gossip target’s behavior in the condition in which the partici-
pants read that they had the opportunity to gossip with a friend who was not
a member of their workgroup. This is consistent with our prediction that
gossip with a group member would especially be instigated in a situation in
which group norms are being violated and one has the opportunity to “warn”
a group member against the norm violator. Furthermore, consistent with
Hypothesis 2, the group-protection motive was more strongly correlated with
the self-reported tendency to instigate gossip in the colleague norm-violation
condition than in the other conditions. We found a similar effect for the
information-gathering-and-validation motive. This was also more strongly
related to the self-reported tendency to instigate gossip in the colleague
norm-violation condition than in all other conditions.
These findings support a social-motivational perspective on gossip:
People seem to be especially likely to instigate gossip when their group is
endangered by norm violations and when they have the opportunity to
discuss this with a member of the same group. Rather than just being idle
conversation or being aimed at enhancing one’s position, in this context
gossip is mainly used to gather and validate information and to protect the
group against norm violations.
Because participants reported on their own behavior in Studies 1 and 2,
the findings may have been influenced by social desirability (although we
emphasized that participants’ responses would be processed anonymously,
and we never referred to “gossip” explicitly). Moreover, in Studies 1 and 2,
we did not examine the consequences of gossip (e.g., How do others see and
2656 BEERSMA AND VAN KLEEF

react to gossipers? Do these reactions toward gossipers depend on the
motives recipients of gossip ascribe to gossipers?). There is some evidence
that variations regarding the type of behavior that is gossiped about (Wilson
et al., 2000), whether gossip is truthful or deceptive (Kuttler, Parker, & La
Greca, 2002), and whether it is positive or negative (Blumberg, 1972) influ-
ence how people react to gossip. Extending this prior work, in Study 3 we
explore how reactions to another’s gossiping are influenced by the gossip
motive one ascribes to the gossiper.
Study 3
In Study 3, we presented participants with scenarios in which they were
being gossiped to, instead of having the opportunity to instigate gossip
themselves. By doing so, we aim to reduce possible social-desirability effects.
As in Study 2, we manipulated the relationship with the conversation partner
(colleague vs. friend) and the behavior of the gossip target (norm violation vs.
no norm violation). We want to know how ascribed motives to instigate
gossip are related to moral reactions to gossip. Specifically, we examined
whether gossiping is viewed as social and immoral: Do people’s judgments of
another’s gossiping vary as a function of the motives they think the other has
to instigate gossip? Furthermore, we are interested in whether motives
ascribed to a gossip-instigating partner are differentially related to disap-
proving reactions. We hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3. When one believes that someone else is gossiping
to protect the group, it will be seen as more social and less
immoral and is less likely to be disapproved, particularly when
the other person instigates gossip about norm-violating behav-
ior and one is a member of the same group. In this specific
condition, the group-protection motive will be most salient.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Study 3 participants were 123 students at the University of Amsterdam
(71% female; Mage =21 years). The participants were randomly assigned to
the conditions of a 2 (Target Behavior: norm violation vs. no norm violation)
¥2 (Conversation Partner: workgroup member vs. friend) full-factorial
design. As in Studies 1 and 2, the participants received a booklet with instruc-
tions, which they read individually. On the first page of the booklet, they read
WHY PEOPLE GOSSIP 2657

a scenario. In order to avoid mono-operationalization bias, we used different
scenarios than in Study 2.
The participants were asked to imagine that after a lecture at the univer-
sity, they went home by tram and met someone on the tram stop. In the
same-group condition, this was a fellow student with whom they were in a
project team; while in the different-group condition, this was a friend they
knew from high school who went to the same university, but had chosen a
different major. The scenario then described that this person tells the partici-
pant about his or her experiences in a project workgroup in which he or she
is collaborating with three other students (in the same-group condition, the
participant is a member of this group; while in the different-group condition,
he or she is not). In the norm-violation condition, the participants read that
the person at the tram stop tells them that one of the students in the work-
group, named “Hennie” (a gender-neutral Dutch name), is not contributing
as much to the group’s work as are the others, allegedly on purpose (typical
norm-violating, free-riding behavior). In the no-norm-violation condition,
the person at the tram stop tells the participant that Hennie is always eating
lots of bananas in the workgroup (behavior that is unusual and salient, but
not harmful to the group).
After participants read the scenario, we measured their reactions to the
gossip described in the scenario. We asked them the extent to which they
found the behavior of the person they met on the tram stop social or
immoral; and we asked them whether they would show their disapproval of
the gossiping behavior (see Dependent Variables). Thereafter, they were
asked to complete the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire with specific refer-
ence to the scenario they just read, so that we could measure the extent to
which the gossiping behavior of the person on the tram stop was attributed
to the four different gossip motives. Finally, participants completed the
manipulation checks and were thanked, debriefed, and given their course
credit points.
Dependent Variables
Reactions to gossip. We asked the participants to indicate how social they
thought the gossiping behavior was by letting them rate the behavior on three
scales: “To what extent do you find the behavior of the person at the tram
stop . . .,” which was followed by social,sympathetic, and sociable. The three
items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all)to7(very much;
a=.82).
In addition, we used five items to measure how immoral the participants
deemed the behavior: “To what extent do you find the behavior of the
2658 BEERSMA AND VAN KLEEF

person at the tram stop . . .?” This was followed by immoral,asocial,mean,
unfriendly, and reprehensible. These five items were rated on a 7-point scale
ranging from 1 (not at all)to7(very much;a=.78).
Finally, we used three items to measure the extent to which participants
showed their disapproval of the gossiping behavior. The questions were
“How likely is it that you would show disapproval about the fact that
Hennie’s behavior is being discussed?”; “How likely is it that you would tell
the other person that you think Hennie’s behavior shouldn’t be discussed?”;
and “How likely is it that you would tell the other person that you disapprove
talking about Hennie?” (a=.85).
Motives to gossip. We used the same 22-item questionnaire to measure
motives to gossip as in Studies 1 and 2, but this time the participants were
specifically asked to indicate the extent to which a specific motive may have
been a reason for the person on the tram stop (rather than for themselves) to
instigate in gossip. We rephrased the questions accordingly. As in Study 2, we
used 7-point ranging from 1 (completely disagree)to7(completely agree). As
in Studies 1 and 2, a factor analysis confirmed the factor structure of the
questionnaire. We again computed scales for the four motives, which had
good reliabilities (as=.87, .92, .93, and .81, respectively, for negative influ-
ence, information gathering and validation, social enjoyment, and group
protection).
Results
We were interested in the correlations between the motives gossip receiv-
ers ascribe to gossip instigators and gossip receivers’ attitudes toward
the gossiping as a function of the situation (i.e., workgroup member/norm
violation, workgroup member/no norm violation, friend/norm violation,
friend/no norm violation). These correlations are reported in Table 3. In the
workgroup member/norm violation condition, the more participants believed
that the person at the tram stop was instigating gossip to protect the group,
the more they viewed the gossiping as “social,” as reflected in a strong
positive correlation (r=.53), whereas the pooled correlation across the other
three conditions was -.16. Fisher’s r-to-ztest shows that these two correla-
tions differed significantly from one another (z=2.05, p<.05).
Moreover, in the workgroup-member/norm-violation condition, the more
participants believed that the person at the tram stop was instigating gossip
to protect the group, the less they viewed the gossiping as “immoral,” as
reflected in a negative correlation (r=-.37), whereas the pooled correlation
across the other three conditions was .21. Fisher’s r-to-ztest reveals that the
two correlations differed significantly from one another (z=-2.86, p<.005).
WHY PEOPLE GOSSIP 2659

Table 3
Correlations Between Motives to Instigate Gossip and Reactions to Gossip Per Condition: Study 3
Condition
Motive to gossip
Information
gathering and
validation
Social
enjoyment
Negative
influence
Group
protection
Group member/norm violation
Social .26 .58*** -.01 .53***
Immoral -.29 -.06 .50** -.37*
Showing disapproval -.20 -.36* .20 -.08
Group member/no norm violation
Social .03 .24 -.19 -.28
Immoral .17 -.26 .41* .26
Showing disapproval -.45** -.41* .32 .23
Not group member/norm violation
Social .17 .32 -.30 .16
Immoral -.19 -.02 .53** .15
Showing disapproval .20 .01 .12 .52**
Not group member/no norm violation
Social -.65*** .45* -.58** -.29
Immoral .61*** -.12 .59** .20
Showing disapproval .42 -.11 .45* .33
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.005.
2660 BEERSMA AND VAN KLEEF

Finally, the pooled correlation between gossiping to protect one’s group
and showing disapproval across all conditions—with the exception of the
workgroup-member/norm-violation condition—was positive and significant
(r=.38, p<.001), indicating that across conditions (except the workgroup-
member/norm-violation condition), perceiving group protection as a motive
for instigating gossip was related to showing disapproval of the gossip. In the
workgroup-member/norm-violation condition, however, ascribing the gossip
to the motive of group protection was not related to showing disapproval
of the gossip (r=-.08, p=.65). Fisher’s r-to-ztest indicates that the two
correlations differed significantly from one another (z=-2.30, p<.05). Thus,
in general, gossip that is ascribed to the motive of group protection evokes
disapproval, but not in the condition in which one is gossiped to by a group
member about another group member’s norm-violating behavior (i.e., the
situation in which this particular motive to instigate gossip is most relevant).
These findings support Hypothesis 3. In the condition in which the par-
ticipants read about a group member who instigated gossip about norm-
violating behavior by another group member, and they believed that group
protection was a reason for this behavior, the gossip was seen as more social
and less immoral, and the participants were less likely to show disapproval of
this behavior than in the other situations we examined.
Discussion
In line with our theorizing, when participants read a scenario in which
they were being gossiped to by a group member about another group mem-
ber’s norm-violating behavior, they saw this as more social and less immoral,
especially when they thought that their colleague was protecting the group.
The group-protection motive was not significantly correlated to attitudes
about gossip in the other conditions. Moreover, whereas participants indi-
cated being more likely to disapprove of gossip when they attributed the
gossip to group-protection motives across conditions, this was not the case in
the workgroup-member/norm-violation condition.
General Discussion
Together, the results of the three studies reported here shed new light on
social motives for gossip. Study 1 showed that gossip serves a number of
morally neutral and even positive motives, which are more often reported as
reasons to gossip than is the morally questionable motive of negative influ-
ence. Specifically, information gathering and validation and social enjoyment
WHY PEOPLE GOSSIP 2661

were found to be important reasons for people to instigate spontaneous
gossip. Protecting one’s group against norm violators, a motive for gossip
claimed by some scholars (Dunbar, 2004; Gluckman, 1963) to be of crucial
importance, was rated as a reason for gossip less frequently.
This led us to examine in Study 2 whether situational variations concern-
ing the person one can gossip to and the type of behavior one can gossip
about shape people’s tendency to instigate gossip and their reasons for doing
so. The results showed that people reported stronger tendencies to instigate
gossip under circumstances in which it can be used to warn one’s group
members against norm violators who exploit the group. Moreover, under
these circumstances, we found that the group-protection and informational
motive for gossip are seen as especially important reasons to instigate gossip.
Finally, in Study 3, we examined whether reactions to gossip would vary
as a function of the motives that are ascribed to gossip instigators across
different situations. We found that when individuals read about a situation in
which they were being gossiped to by a group member about norm-violating
behavior by someone else in their group, and they believed the gossip to be
aimed at group protection, they regarded this as social behavior and were
unlikely to show disapproval.
The present studies contribute to the literature on gossip in that they show
that notwithstanding its negative reputation, gossip serves important motives
for group members. These motives range from social enjoyment to informa-
tion search and validation to protecting group norms.
Our findings are interesting in light of the evolutionary, functional analy-
ses that have been made of gossip in previous literature (e.g., Dunbar, 2004).
Gossip has been argued to be functional for groups because it can be used to
warn group members against norm defectors. This is of vital importance to
successful group functioning.
As we pointed out in the introduction, the presence of norm violators can
be very costly for groups. Allowing free riders in a group, for instance,
reduces the overall performance of the group. In addition, frustration and
irritation as a result of the substandard contributions of some group
members may interfere with group functioning. Gossip could be a less risky
and less dangerous solution to the free-rider problem than directly confront-
ing free riders (at least when the gossip remains undiscovered). It could even
be more effective, as the possibility that one will be gossiped about does not
only affect current free riders, but also those who might consider free-riding
in the future (Gluckman, 1963).
Moreover, our data indicate that it is relatively harmless: Gossiping to
uphold group norms is perceived as a social and moral thing to do. Our
results show that under specific circumstances (i.e., when group members
violate norms and this behavior can be gossiped about with other group
2662 BEERSMA AND VAN KLEEF

members), the motive of group protection is, indeed, significantly related to
the self-reported tendency to instigate gossip. However, this does not neces-
sarily mean that gossip fulfills the function of protecting the group against
norm violators effectively. Although the latter question cannot be answered
by our studies, recent evidence has suggested that the threat of being gossiped
about does guard groups against free-riding. Specifically, Beersma and Van
Kleef (2011) found that when individuals believed that their group members
had a high tendency to engage in gossip and their decisions were identifiable
by these other group members, they contributed a larger share of a personal
resource to the group (and thus refrained from free-riding) than when they
believed their group members to be less prone to gossiping or when decisions
were unknown to group members.
Follow-up research should examine to what extent gossip based on the
motives we examined here relates to social-influence processes in groups in a
broader sense. Our findings suggest that exerting social influence (e.g., to
enhance one’s own position in the group, but also to protect the group
against norm violators) is a motive for engaging in gossip. Combined with the
findings of Beersma and Van Kleef (2011), it seems that at least within the
realm of resource contributions to groups, gossip does exert social influence.
This conclusion is in line with theorizing by Keltner et al. (2008), who
reviewed evidence that gossip serves as a way of keeping powerful group
members’ behavior in check. It would be worthwhile to examine whether
gossip’s influence extends to other phenomena related to social influence,
such as individual judgment in groups (Asch, 1955), conformity to group
norms (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004), and discussion of information that is
shared among group members relative to discussion about information that
is unique to group members (Greitemeyer & Schulz-Hardt, 2003; Stasser &
Titus, 1985).
Ultimately, such research could answer the question of when controlling
norm violations through gossip actually becomes harmful for groups.
Research on group decision making (De Dreu & De Vries, 1997; Nemeth &
Staw, 1989) has shown that a strong focus on norm-abiding behavior, con-
formity, and consensus can lead to suboptimal group performance. To be
creative and innovative, groups need dissenters whose behavior may not be
completely in line with the groups’ norms (Beersma & De Dreu, 2005).
Gossip controlling these dissenters might lead to dysfunctional groupthink,
the process in which groups try to minimize conflict and reach consensus
without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas (Janis, 1972). An
interesting question for future research is when and why gossip as a control-
ling device is harmful or helpful for groups, and what groups can do to strike
a balance between the positive and negative effects of gossip. Whereas gos-
siping aimed to serve the group-protection motive may be very helpful for
WHY PEOPLE GOSSIP 2663

groups performing convergent tasks, which are aimed at creating one joint
solution, it may be harmful for groups performing divergent tasks, which are
aimed at creating multiple solutions (Beersma & De Dreu, 2005).
From an applied perspective, the current findings inform managers (or
consultants, coaches, or anyone involved with groups and teams) about the
motives underlying gossip, and their relative prevalence. Many organizations
struggle with managing gossip (Michelson, Van Iterson, & Waddington,
2010). The assumption that gossip is a problem that should be discouraged is
widespread. However, attempts to prevent gossiping, or to abolish it, have
proven unsuccessful (Goodman & Ben-Ze’ev, 1994) or difficult to implement
(Ribeiro & Blakely, 1995). Our findings are helpful in this respect because they
nuance the negative light in which gossip is often seen, as they show that gossip
is often initiated for morally neutral, or even positive reasons. This can help
practitioners who are confronted with gossip in the teams they manage or
consult to interpret and deal with this gossip. Our results can be of assistance
when analyzing the types of gossip taking place in real, ongoing teams, thus
giving insight in the processes at play, which could, in turn, increase under-
standing of the effects of gossip on other team processes and performance.
Especially informative for practitioners would be research that relates the
motives examined in our studies to social influence in groups, as this could
inform them whether different types of gossip are a good or a bad thing for
the teams with which they work. If gossiping that is aimed to protect the
group indeed leads to more norm-abiding by group members and, therefore,
helps groups perform convergent tasks—whereas groups that need to
perform tasks of a more divergent type may be hindered by gossip—this
knowledge will be very useful for managers trying to influence the processes
in teams to optimize employees’ performance and well-being. Although our
studies are a first step to empirically measure and distinguish four of the
motives that have been suggested in the earlier literature on gossip that we
consider to be the most basic (e.g., Foster, 2004; Rosnow, 1977; Stirling,
1956), there are some other motives possibly underlying gossip that are not
included in the questionnaire.
One motive discussed in the literature that was not included explicitly as
a separate motive in our studies is cultural learning (Baumeister et al.,
2004). It has been argued that gossip helps individuals to learn about how
to live in their cultural society, but it is not clear whether individuals initiate
gossip with this specific motive in mind. The cultural-learning motive may
overlap in part with the information-gathering-and-validation motive. Ben-
Ze’ev (1994), for example, has argued that gathering information about
others through gossip does not only help people gain insight into the lives of
others, but ultimately also into their own lives (cf. cultural learning). The
cultural-learning motive may also overlap in part with the group-protection
2664 BEERSMA AND VAN KLEEF

motive: By gossiping to warn group members against norm violators, the
rules concerning what to do and what not to do in a group are conveyed.
Future research should examine whether cultural learning can be empiri-
cally distinguished from information gathering/validation and group pro-
tection as a separate motive for instigating gossip, or whether it overlaps
with these motives we examined here.
Another motive underlying gossip may be to strengthen bonds with the
person with whom one gossips (i.e., the “friendship” function; see Foster,
2004). This function is closely related to the social-enjoyment motive that we
included in our studies, and we would expect it to overlap considerably with
this motive. However, future research is needed to determine whether the
strengthening of interpersonal bonds can be distinguished as a separate
motive for gossip. In this respect, we should note that the strengthening of
bonds through gossip might also take place in another way that was not
included in our studies. That is, through making positive remarks about an
absent third party—which might indirectly reflect on that party—intragroup
bonds can be strengthened. Specifically, making compliments or “standing
up” for a friend or colleague in his or her absence (cf. Argyle, Henderson, &
Furnham, 1985; Henderson & Argyle, 1986) can constitute a way to build
and strengthen personal relationships.
Moreover, in our studies, we focused on the motives of tellers or instiga-
tors of gossip, not on the motives of audiences. An interesting direction for
future research would be to examine whether the motives distinguished here
play similar roles for individuals who are being gossiped to as for those who
initiate gossip.
Although future studies into the social motives underlying gossip behav-
ior should further extend the framework we began here by including different
motives and by including motives of gossip recipients as well as instigators,
we believe that our set of studies is an interesting starting point for a social-
motivational analysis of gossip. Not only do our data show that the motives
examined here can be reliably empirically distinguished, they also demon-
strate that different motives are differentially related to the self-reported
tendency to instigate gossip in different situations, and that reactions to
gossip depend on the motives ascribed to the gossiper.
Besides the theoretical and practical contributions of our studies, another
contribution is methodological in nature. Empirical work on gossip is sparse,
and the studies that have been conducted typically have involved qualitative
data (for rare exceptions, see Beersma & Van Kleef, 2011; Feinberg, Willer,
Stellar, & Keltner, 2012). According to Foster (2004), “methods more sophis-
ticated than eavesdropping and more convenient than ethnography need to be
developed and applied” (p. 93) in the field of gossip research. He also argued
that “more experimental work with randomized assignments is warranted”
WHY PEOPLE GOSSIP 2665

(p. 93) because “factors that determine people’s response to gossip and how
they act upon it could help explain how gossiping plays a role in social
cognition and relationships” (p. 93).
Although several interesting questions about the motives underlying
gossip and people’s reactions to gossip still remain unanswered, we think that
our studies are a step in the right direction, and we hope that they will inspire
other researchers to approach the topic of gossip with experimental methods.
For example, future research could investigate more closely for what kinds of
norm violations gossip is used as a controlling device. We specifically focused
on free-riding behavior in the current studies, but norm-breaking may also
entail emotional transgressions, interactional mistakes, or dissenting from
group consensus. It would be interesting to examine whether our findings
generalize to these other types of norm violations.
The present studies focused mainly on the motive of group protection. As
noted previously, this motive may be of crucial importance for successful
group functioning. This is not to say, however, that other motives are less
important. Future studies might examine the other gossip motives that were
uncovered in this study and investigate how their prevalence and relation to
the tendency to instigate gossip are influenced by situational characteristics.
The negative-influence motive, for example, might be affected by situational
variations, such as the power position of an individual in his or her group.
Future studies exploring under which circumstances people gossip—and for
which reasons—can give us more insight into the social functions of gossip.
Future work might also employ laboratory methods with unobtrusive
measures (i.e., measuring participants’ “natural” behaviors when they do not
know that they are being observed). One limitation of the studies reported
here is that participants indicated what they would do in a hypothetical
situation (Studies 2 and 3) or reported on past behavior (Study 1). Although
we reduced social-desirability effects by not only having participants reflect
on their own gossiping behavior (Study 2), but also having them report their
reactions to others’ gossip (Study 3), we cannot completely rule out that
social desirability played a role. Observing participants’ gossip behavior
directly will eliminate these concerns.
Finally, future studies should examine whether our results will generalize
to different contexts and populations. There is no reason to suspect that our
theory regarding when and why group protection is an important motive to
gossip would apply only to students. We believe, therefore, that this popu-
lation constituted a good setting to test this theory. Nevertheless, testing the
boundary conditions of the theory would be useful. If, for example, effects
would be different in a population in which people experience more status
differences or are more strongly dependent on one another, this would be
interesting.
2666 BEERSMA AND VAN KLEEF

Conclusion
Although gossip is often frowned upon or even openly condemned, many
people engage in it. The results of our studies show that gossip may not
always be as negative as one might believe at first. Gossip allows people to
gather and validate information, to enjoy themselves with others, and to
protect their group against norm violations. Gossip aimed at influencing or
manipulating others—the motive for gossip that often comes to mind first
when thinking about gossip—was rated as the least important motive.
We must note that as we argued also for group protection, the infrequent
occurrence of a behavior (in this case, gossiping to influence others in a
negative way) does not mean that it does not have important consequences.
Negative effects of gossip have, for example, been documented by Baker and
Jones (1996) and by Wittek and Wielers (1998). Claiming that gossip is
always positive and beneficial for groups, therefore, would be incorrect.
However, our data do show that the purely negative reputation of gossip is in
need of revision. In specific situations, people can use gossip for noble goals;
that is, to maintain the norms of a group and to discourage free riding. Our
results also show that if they do so, this is recognized by others as social
behavior, which definitely is not disapproved. We hope that these findings
will inspire both researchers who examine gossip and practitioners who
encounter it to develop a more nuanced view of gossip.
References
Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, rela-
tional, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review,8,
212–230.
Argyle, M., Henderson, M., & Furnham, A. (1985). The rules of social
relationships. British Journal of Social Psychology,24, 125–139.
Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American,193,
31–35.
Baker, J. S., & Jones, M. A. (1996). Poison grapevine: How destructive
are gossip and rumor in the workplace? Human Resource Development
Quarterly,7, 75–86.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho-
logical Bulletin,117, 497–529.
Baumeister, R. F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Gossip as cultural
learning. Review of General Psychology,8, 111–121.
Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2005). Conflict’s consequences: Effects
of social motives on post-negotiation creative and convergent group
WHY PEOPLE GOSSIP 2667

functioning and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,89, 358–374.
Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2011). How the grapevine keeps you in line:
Gossip increases contributions to the group.Social Psychological and Per-
sonality Science,2, 642–649.
Ben Ze’ev, A. (1994). The vindication of gossip. In R. F. Goodman & A.
Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 11–24). Lawrence, KS: University
Press of Kansas.
Blumberg, H. H. (1972). Communication of interpersonal evaluations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,23, 157–162.
Campbell, D. T. (1975). On the conflict between biological and social evolu-
tion and between psychology and the moral tradition. American Psycholo-
gist,30, l103–1126.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and
conformity. Annual Review of Psychology,55, 591–621.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and
social-psychological adjustment. Child Development,66, 710–722.
Dawes, R. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology,31, 169–
193.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & De Vries, N. K. (1997). Minority dissent in organiza-
tions. In C. K. W. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in
organizations (pp. 72–86). London, UK: Sage.
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). Gossip in an evolutionary perspective. Review of
General Psychology,8, 100–110.
Dunbar, R. I. M., Duncan, N. D. C., & Marriott, A. (1997). Human con-
versational behaviour. Human Nature,8, 231–246.
Emler, N. (1994). Gossip, reputation, and social adaptation. In R. F.
Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 119–140). Lawrence,
KS: University Press of Kansas.
Enquist, M., & Leimar, O. (1993). The evolution of cooperation in mobile
organisms. Animal Behavior,45, 747–757.
Feinberg, M., Willer, R., Stellar, J., & Keltner, D. (2012). The virtues of
gossip: reputational information sharing as prosocial behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,102, 1015–1030.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Rela-
tions,7, 117–140.
Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future
directions. Review of General Psychology,8, 78–99.
Gluckman, M. (1963). Gossip and scandal. Current Anthropology,4, 307–316.
Goldsmith, D. J., & Baxter, L. A. (1996). Constituting relationships in talk:
A taxonomy of speech events in social and personal relationships. Human
Communication Research,22, 87–114.
2668 BEERSMA AND VAN KLEEF

Goodman, R. F. (1994). Introduction. In R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev
(Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 1–8). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Goodman, R. F., & Ben-Ze’ev, A. (Eds.). (1994). Good gossip. Lawrence, KS:
University Press of Kansas.
Greitemeyer, T., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2003). Preference-consistent eva-
luation of information in the hidden profile paradigm: Beyond
group-level explanations for the dominance of shared information in
group decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,84, 322–
339.
Henderson, M., & Argyle, M. (1986). The informal rules of working rela-
tionships. Journal of Occupational Behaviour,7, 259–275.
Jaeger, M. E., Skelder, A. A., Rind, B., & Rosnow, R. L. (1994) Gossip,
gossipers, gossipees. In R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good
gossip (pp. 154–168). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Jaeger, M. E., Skelder, A. A., & Rosnow, R. L. (1998). Who’s up on the low
down: Gossip in interpersonal relations. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R.
Cupach (Eds.). The dark side of close relationships (pp. 103–117).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. (2008). A reciprocal
influence model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry.
In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 40,
pp. 151–192). New York: Academic Press.
Kuttler, A. F., Parker, J. G., & La Greca, A. M. (2002). Developmental and
gender differences in preadolescents’ judgments of the veracity of gossip.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,48, 105–132.
Michelson, G., Van Iterson, A., & Waddington, K. (2010). Gossip in orga-
nizations: Contexts, consequences, and controversies. Group and Organi-
zation Management,35, 371–390.
Morreall, J. (1994). Gossip and humor. In R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev
(Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 56–64). Lawrence, KS: University Press of
Kansas.
Nemeth, C., & Staw, B. M. (1989). The tradeoffs of social control and
innovation within groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 175–210). New
York: Academic Press.
Nevo, O., Nevo, B., & Derech-Zehavi, A. (1994). The tendency to gossip as
a psychological disposition: Constructing a measure and validating it. In
R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-Zeev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 180–189).
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Noon, M., & Delbridge, R. (1993). News from behind my hand: Gossip in
organizations. Organization Studies,14, 23–36.
WHY PEOPLE GOSSIP 2669

Paine, R. (1967). What is gossip about? An alternative hypothesis. Man,2,
272–285.
Ribeiro, V. E., & Blakely, J. A. (1995). The proactive management of rumor
and gossip. Journal of Nursing Administration,25, 43–50.
Richardson, D. R., & Green, L.G. (1997). Circuitous harm: Determinants
and consequences of nondirect aggression. In R. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive
interpersonal behaviors (pp. 171–188). New York: Plenum.
Rosnow, R. L. (1977). Gossip and marketplace psychology. Journal of Com-
munication,27, 158–163.
Spacks, P. M. (1982). In praise of gossip. Hudson Review,35, 14–38.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group
decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,53, 81–93.
Stirling, R. B. (1956). Some psychological mechanisms operative in gossip.
Social Forces,34, 262–267.
Suls, J., & Goodkin, F. (1994). Medical gossip and rumor: Their role in the
lay referral system. In R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good gossip
(pp. 169–179). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Van Dijk, E., & Wilke, H. (1999). Conditional contributions and public good
provision: Perceptions, motives, and behavioral reactions. Group Pro-
cesses and Intergroup Relations,2, 245–258.
Van Vugt, M. (2009). Averting the tragedy of the commons: Using social
psychological science to protect the environment. Current Directions in
Psychological Science,18, 169–173.
Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004a). Introduction to the special issue on gossip.
Review of General Psychology,8, 76–77.
Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004b). A social comparison account of gossip.
Review of General Psychology,8, 122–137.
Wilson, D. S., Wilczynski, C., Wells, A., & Weiser, L. (2000). Gossip and
other aspects of language as group-level adaptations. In C. Heyes &
L. Huber (Eds.), The evolution of cognition (pp. 347–365). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Wittek, R., & Wielers, R. (1998). Gossip in organizations. Computational and
Mathematical Organization Theory,4, 189–204.
2670 BEERSMA AND VAN KLEEF