Dispersed Collectivities: Rumors and Gossip

This article will focus on the role of rumor and gossip in dispersed collectivities. It will provide an overview of the main principles of rumor and gossip, the history of rumor and gossip, and the mechanisms of rumor and gossip transmission. A discussion of communication and behavior in dispersed collectivities will be included. The issues associated with measuring rumor and gossip will also be discussed. The article concludes with thoughts on the impacts of rumor and gossip on social life.

Keywords Collective Behavior; Collectivity; Dispersed Collectivities; Gossip; Localized Collectivities; Rumor; Social History; Social Life; Structural Functionalism

Dispersed Collectivities: Rumors & Gossip

Overview

The following is an analysis of rumor and gossip in dispersed collectivities. Rumor and gossip are forms of mass behavior and social communication with specific functions in and impacts on society. Individuals in dispersed collectivities communicate, in part, through rumor and gossip. Rumor, in dispersed collectivities, refers to information that is both unsubstantiated, difficult to stop, and spread by informal means. For example, rumors are most often spread in informal conversation. Gossip, in dispersed collectivities, refers to a type of rumor concerning personal affairs. In some instances, rumor and gossip are employed as tools of social control and management. In addition to rumor and gossip, forms of dispersed collective communication and behavior include propaganda, panic, mass hysteria, fashions, and fads.

Sociologists study forms of dispersed collective communication and behavior to understand how individuals and groups build communication networks. Understanding the role and purpose of rumor and gossip in dispersed collectivities is vital for all those interested in the sociology of collective behaviors. This article explores the role of rumor and gossip in dispersed collectivities in four parts:

• An overview of the main principles of rumor and gossip, the history of rumor and gossip, and the mechanisms of rumor and gossip transmission

• A discussion of communication and behavior in dispersed collectivities

• An analysis of the issues associated with measuring rumor and gossip

• A description of the impacts of rumor and gossip on social life.

The Main Principles of Rumor & Gossip

Rumor describes interpersonal communication infused with private belief and subjectivity. Social scientists distinguish between two types of rumors: wish rumors and dread rumors. Wish rumors spread stories or information of hoped-for consequences or outcomes. Dread rumors spread stories or information of feared or potentially disappointing consequences or outcomes. Researchers have found that people more often spread rumors that they perceive to be credible and reliable. Rumors may serve a psychological function by helping individuals and groups cope with uncertainty and anxiety. They also have the potential to damage an individual's reputation and social standing. Researchers study how rumors originate and how damaging rumors may be fought or controlled. Urban legends, a type of contemporary folklore featuring apocryphal stories of events that are believed to have happened to real people, are a popular form of rumor.

Gossip refers to a type of interpersonal communication of a personal or sensational nature. Gossip is a form of communication in which an individual actively participates in passing on information to others in a group. Social scientists have found that gossip, which is generally passed between people with shared characteristics or within a community, performs numerous functions in society. It is a vehicle or tool for cultural learning as well as social comparison (Rosnow & Foster, 2005).

The History of Rumor & Gossip Studies

The social sciences, particularly the fields of sociology and psychology, began to focus on the social importance and potential social impacts of rumor and gossip in the 1940s. The World War II years provided fertile ground for the study of rumor and gossip. Psychologists Gordon Allport and Leo Postman studied rumor and gossip with an eye toward learning how to stop civilian populations from spreading rumors that would damage morale and national safety or groundlessly raise hopes. Allport and Postman developed the basic law of rumor. The basic law of rumor (expressed as an equation R ˜ i × a ) refers to the notion that strength of rumor (expressed as R ) varies according to the importance of the subject to the individual concerned (expressed as i ) multiplied by the uncertainty of the evidence (expressed as a ). Critics of Allport and Postman's basic law of rumor argue that the theory is weakened by its lack of empirical support and validation. In addition, the basic law of rumor does not account for the emotional context and content of rumors.

In the 1960s and 1970s, sociologists and psychologists worked to connect rumor and gossip with civil disorders and collective behavior. In the 1990s and 2000s, research on rumor and gossip worked to clearly distinguish between the concepts and functions of rumor and gossip. Contemporary sociologists study the impacts of rumor and gossip on social life, as well as the character, quantity, topics, targets, and tone of rumor and gossip in everyday life (Rosnow & Foster, 2005).

Rumor & Gossip Transmission

Rumor and gossip are transmitted through face-to-face communication, electronic communication, telephone, and written communication. There are three types of orientations or stances that individuals take in relation to rumor and gossip. Individuals may respond to rumors by taking a critical set, uncritical set, or transmission set (Buckner, 2001).

Individuals take a critical set in relation to a rumor when they have knowledge about the rumor's domain. Individuals who take a critical set or stance are able to separate truth from falsehood. In some instances, the familiar situation surrounding the rumor, such as election-time rumors, allow informed individuals to evaluate the credibility of the rumor. Individuals who exercise critical judgment in evaluating a rumor may influence and potentially stop or correct the rumor. For example, informed and critical individuals may cut irrelevant information from the rumor or eliminate disinformation from the rumor (Buckner, 2001).

Individuals take an uncritical set in relation to a rumor when circumstances and emotions prevent them from taking a critical stance (characterized by critical judgment or ability). For example, individuals can take an uncritical set in relation to a rumor when the rumor satisfies and fills a need for the individual. When individuals take an uncritical set toward a rumor, they believe the rumor unquestioningly and tend to pass it on to friends, family, and acquaintances. Individuals often take an uncritical set in relation to a rumor when they have no prior warning or prior information about the rumor. In these instances, individuals have no resources to critically evaluate the rumor and tend to believe it without question. This most frequently happens in crisis situations. Individuals can also take an uncritical set in relation to a rumor in situations in which nothing is known about the rumor in question. When individuals cannot apply critical judgment or ability to a rumor, they tend to fit the rumor into their own predetermined frameworks of values and beliefs. In some instances, individuals modify the rumor to make it fit better into their frameworks. Individuals may also distort the rumor in significant ways to make it fit their needs (Buckner, 2001).

Individuals take a transmission set in relation to a rumor when the content of the rumor is irrelevant to them and their only interest is in spreading or passing the rumor on to others. Individuals in these situations are called neutral transmitters. Researchers have noted that the transmission stance toward a rumor may be rare outside of controlled laboratory research settings, for people are rarely neutral about information, gossip, and rumor. When individuals take a transmission set in relation to a rumor, they may change the language of the rumor to match their own linguistic styles and eliminate portions of the message until the message makes sense to them. However, they will not intentionally make any changes to the rumor (Buckner, 2001).

Rumors are passed and shared in interactive situations. They can have different types of patterns depending on how they were transmitted. The two most prominent rumor patterns are the chain and the network. The rumor chain refers to scenarios in which the rumor moves from individual to individual in a progressive series of individual interactions. The rumor network refers to scenarios in which individuals hear the rumor from multiple sources. Multiple interaction networks reinforce the validity and believability of rumors. Rumors may change distribution patterns and move between the rumor chain and the rumor network (Buckner, 2001).

Rumors move through communities or groups with different levels of speed and repetition. Factors that influence the impact of a rumor on a community include the structure of the group and the interest and involvement that the community has in the topic of the rumor. These factors influence how fully and quickly a rumor is spread or halted in a community. Groups in which rumors spread are either dispersed (also referred to as diffuse) or localized (also referred to as close). Dispersed groups tend to have rumor chains rather than rumor networks. Dispersed groups also tend to be spread out geographically with limited opportunities for face-to-face exchanges. Localized groups, on the other hand, have continuous contact among members. Examples of localized groups include small towns, fraternities, army-units, and school cliques. Localized groups tend to have multiple rumor networks (Buckner, 2001).

Applications

Communication & Behavior in Dispersed Collectivities

Collectivities refer to distinct human groups united by shared social structures, identity, and customs. Collectivities include large numbers of loosely connected people. Common examples of collectivities include ethnic groups and indigenous communities. Collectivities tend to have a designated leader representing common interests. Collectivities are characterized by their shared beliefs, values, social structures, decision-making, tradition, and activities. Members of collectivities are aware of and tend to cultivate the separate identity of their group.

Sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902–1979) developed the conceptual scheme of the collectivity in his book The Social System (1951). Here, defined the parameters and characteristics necessary to create collectivities. For example, Parsons believed that a collectivity's members must be loyal to one another and to the group as a whole. Members must accept the preservation of the collectivity as a moral obligation. Parsons argued that the members of a collectivity must develop a system of sanctions to direct behavior. The system should stress certain actions as desirable in the collectivity and identify other actions as hostile to and ultimately incompatible with the collectivity (Treudley, 1953).

Parsons was a sociologist best known for his contributions to and association with structural functionalism. Structural functionalism is a theory based on the notion that social structures in society, such as collectivities, function to maintain the operations of the system as a whole. Seeking to develop a grand theory for the social sciences, Parsons posited that societal action is based on four interrelated subsystems: “The behavioral systems of its members, the personality systems of those members, the society as a system of social organization, and the cultural system of that society” (Brick, 2004). Parsons was one of the preeminent American sociological theorists after World War II until functionalism fell out of favor during the 1970s (Brick, 2004).

Collectivities are recognized as distinct from social groups in three main ways. First, collectivities have limited social interactions; second, they lack social boundaries; and third, they tend to have weak or unconventional norms and beliefs. There are two types of collectivities: dispersed collectivities and localized collectivities. Dispersed collectivities describe mass situations or mass behavior. Mass behavior refers to the collective behavior of individuals settled or dispersed over a large geographic area. Localized collectivities refer to people who are in close proximity to one another and consort with one another and act in unison. Communication and behavior differ in the two types of collectivities. For example, dispersed collective communication and behavior include communication in small groups and networks. In contrast, localized collective communication and behavior are characterized by mob, riot, and crowd actions.

In addition to rumor and gossip, other forms of collective communication and behavior in dispersed collectivities include propaganda, panic, mass hysteria, fashions, and fads. Propaganda refers to information shaped to influence public opinion. Panic and mass hysteria refer to the irrational and frantic behavior that results from a stimulus that is perceived to be threatening. Fashion refers to a specific social pattern shared and practiced by a large number of people. Fads refer to an unconventional social pattern shared by a large number of people for a short period of time.

Individuals in localized collectivities communicate, in part, through crowd, riot, and mob actions. A crowd refers to a temporary gathering of people united by a common focus. Individuals in crowds are known to influence each other. Sociologist Herbert Blumer divided crowds in to five distinct categories including the casual crowd, the conventional crowd, the expressive crowd, the acting crowd, and the protest crowd. Blumer based his crowd scheme largely on the emotional intensity of crowds (Snow, 2001). Mobs, such as those involved in lynching, are highly emotional crowds that pursues a violent or destructive goal. Riots are emotionally frenzied crowds that lacks focus and purpose. Riots tend to be violent and lack direction and leadership. In some instances, riots, mobs, and crowds—such as those protesting social injustice—have resulted in or brought about social change. In some cases, they can provide opportunities for individuals without social standing or political power to effect change (Macionis, 1995).

Issues

Measuring Rumor & Gossip

Early research on rumor and gossip tended to take place in controlled laboratory settings. For example, social scientist Jacob Levy Moreno (1889–1974) engaged in laboratory research to measure the psycho-emotional reactions of people to one another. Moreno's research, which had implications for rumor and gossip studies of the time, involved a sociometric test in which each research participant in a group was required to choose associates based on particular criterion. Moreno documented his research in the book Who Shall Survive (1934). Postwar social scientists criticized the artificial environments of these early laboratory experiments on rumor, gossip, and social-emotional relations. To address the artificial atmosphere of laboratory experiments and gain an understanding of the natural mechanisms of rumor transmission and function, contemporary social scientists, particularly sociologists and psychologists, developed research methods suited for the everyday world (Schall et al 1950).

Today, social scientists use specific metrics and indices to record and measure rumor and gossip. For example, sociologists and psychologists may use social network analysis (SNA) to explore how the links among all the members in the network affect gossiping behavior and its social impact. Social network analysis measures variables, such as the density of the network and the positions of individuals within the network, to assess how rumor and gossip impact the group or network. Social network analysis presumes that the structure of the gossip network matters as much as the content of the gossip (Rosnow & Foster, 2005).

Contemporary research on rumor and gossip tends to focus on the characteristics of rumor and gossip and those who participate in the collective behavior of rumor and gossip. For example, Jack Levin and Arnold Arluke studied the quantity, topics, targets, and tone of rumor and gossip as expressed in the conversations of male and female college students. Their research study involved content analysis of 194 instances of gossip in the conversations of 76 male and 120 female college students. Researchers collected data by stationing themselves in a student lounge and unobtrusively eavesdropping on casual undergraduate conversations. Data showed that female college students spent more time gossiping and spreading rumors than male college students. Female college students were also found to be much more likely than male college students to gossip about their friends and family (Levin & Arluke, 1985).

Contemporary social scientists face difficulty in gathering data about rumor and gossip due to privacy and subjectivity issues. For example, Levin and Arluke's study escaped the research problems associated with the staged laboratory experiments that common in the early twentieth century, but in their chosen real-world, field-based research setting, faced privacy and boundary issues

Conclusion

The Impact of Rumor & Gossip on Social Life

In the final analysis, rumor and gossip have a strong impact on social life. Rumors may serve a psychological function by helping individuals and groups cope with uncertainty and anxiety. They also have the potential to strengthen or damage an individual's reputation and social standing. Gossip can be a vehicle for cultural learning and social comparison. Gossip also has a role in promoting and preserving social history. For example, many ancient historical records, such as Greek poet Homer's poems about the Trojan Wars, were considered artful gossip at the time they were told or written (Theodoracopulos, 1994).

Researchers, most notably Robert H. Knapp, have found rumors to function as projections of societal attitudes and motivations. In 1944, Knapp analyzed a collection of war rumors printed in the Boston Herald . Knapp found that the rumors fit into three categories including pipe-dream rumors, fear rumors, and wedge-driving rumors. Researchers have also found that rumor and gossip serves a sense-making function for individuals. Social psychologists Nicholas DiFonzo and Prashant Bordia analyzed an online chat group discussion and found rumor spreading to be a collective, problem-solving activity primarily sustained by anxiety and uncertainty. Ultimately, rumor and gossip can have positive or negative social effects. They can serve the interests of the group, or be tools for individuals to build personal advantage and power (Rosnow & Foster, 2005).

Terms & Concepts

Collective Behavior: Spontaneous social actions that occur outside of prevailing social structures and institutions.

Collectivity: A distinct human group united by shared a shared identity and shared customs and social structures.

Dispersed Collectivities: Individuals settled or dispersed over large geographic areas who participate in mass behavior.

Gossip: A type of rumor or communication of a personal or sensational nature.

Localized Collectivities: People who are in close proximity to one another and act in unison and consort.

Rumor: Interpersonal communication infused with private belief and subjectivity.

Social History: An area of history that actively connects historical events with shared social trends.

Social Life: The relationships, trends, and belief systems that unite individuals and groups.

Structural Functionalism: A theory based on the notion that social structures in society, such as collectivities, function to maintain the operations of the system as a whole.

Bibliography

Ackroyd, S. (2002). Collectivities in social and organizational theory. Management Research News, 25 (8–10), 12.

Baker, J. & Jones, M. (1996). The poison grapevine: How destructive are gossip and rumor in the workplace? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7 , 75–86. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=14880598&site=ehost-live

Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Why people gossip: An empirical analysis of social motives, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2640–2670. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=83404964

Brick, H. (2004). Review of Talcott Parsons: An intellectual biography. The Journal of American History, 91 , 1086–1087.

Buckner, H. (1965). A theory of rumor transmission. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29, 54–70. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5413862&site=ehost-livehttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=30044190http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=34168709

Gonzalez-Roma, V. et al. (1999). The validity of collective climates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72 , 25–40.

Kapferer, J. (1992). How rumors are born. Society, 29 , 53–60. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9208176516&site=ehost-live

Levin, J. & Arluke, A. (1985). An exploratory analysis of sex differences in gossip. Sex Roles, 12 (3/4), 281–286. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=23826261&site=ehost-live

Macionis, J. (1995). Sociology . New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Miller, D. (1992). Snakes in the greens' and rumor in the innercity. Social Science Journal, 29 . Retrieved June 5, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9305055051&site=ehost-live

Rosnow, R. & Foster, E. (2005). Rumor and gossip research. Psychological Science Agenda, 19 . Retrieved June 5, 2008 from: http://www.apa.org/science/psa/apr05gossip.html

Schall, H., Levy, B., & Treselt, M. (1950). A sociometric approach to rumor. Journal of Social Psychology, 31 , 121–129. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=16501505&site=ehost-live

Snow, D. (2001). Extending and broadening Blumer's conceptualization of symbolic interactionism. Symbolic Interaction, 24 , 367–377.

Theodoracopulos, T. (1994). Have you heard? National Review, 46 , 64–65. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9405037892&site=ehost-live

Treudley, M. B. (1953). The ethnic group as a collectivity. Social Forces, 31 , 261–265. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=13546055&site=ehost-live

Watson, D. C. (2011). Gossip and the self. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 1818–1833. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=62957347

Watson, D. (2012). Gender differences in gossip and friendship. Sex Roles, 67(9/10), 494–502. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=82370784

Suggested Reading

Cohen, A. & Jacobsen, C. (1987). The power of social collectivities: A follow up study. British Journal of Sociology, 38 , 101–105. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6781661&site=ehost-live

Conein, B. (2011). Gossip, conversation and group size: Language as a bonding mechanism. Irish Journal of Sociology, 19, 116–131. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=71661639

Feinberg, M., Wilier, R., Stellar, J., & Keltner, D. (2012). The virtues of gossip: reputational information sharing as prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 102, 1015–1030. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=74616086

Kamins, M., Folkes, V., & Perner, L. (1997). Consumer responses to rumors: Good news, bad news. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6 , 165–187. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4815645&site=ehost-live

Young, R. (1987). Collectivity vs. group: A framework for assessment. Collectivity in Social Group Work: Concept & Practice, 9 , 33–43. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=22972784&site=ehost-live