Smith 3引3 (2006)assumed that go sip can be intentionally manipulated and cost compared with experiencing such behaviors first and used scenario studies to examine the conditions under hand.In effect,a social network is a distributed surveillance which p people may its truth value (e.g.,when th system,mon ing the behavior of n nbers of th ind nle h n to rely on in ence to target's direct self-reports.in a context where a games with different par ners,and receive gossip about the ve self-report might be exaggerated (Stiff Van levels of 8).t p ab d when sip from multiples of that behavior (Sommerfeld.Krambeck.Semmann.& Milinski,2007).People evidently recognize the group-serv ing and norm-de functions of gossip,passing gossip ong to pulation of artificial agents (software programs)can Stellar.Keltner.2012). blish cooperation and exclude free riders (e.g Potential Unreliability of Gossip nication about Despite its usefulness.gossip has weaknesses as well.Most cooperation)a key part of their system.In contrast to prev obviously,information from others may be less reliable than work on the topic,they consider the potential impa e sev ntly Ifa target isp viduals with nle hut hath false but breaks d n as the aches strong dislike for a specific individual,gossip from others Laidre,Lamb,Shultz and Olsen (2013)show that agents will be questionably useful in allowing the individual topre through ormation the target rception (e.Mohr Ken y 2006)As a result However they assum that messages are corrunted by rar ven if the target beha s consistently,Perceiver A's impre noise,rather than by agents who intentionally send s10 through go ma pr nto the nd e hioloay the when information communicated from on the positive functions of gossin.especially the detection becomes more stereotypic (Lyons 2003).An .g.,n0 coop rators). mm gets ma e po me im s sometimes mentioned as a fiumction When maninulated of bi ses involve intentional distortion gossip is considered,proposed solutions usually involve can also biased,as opl 2006.3id 013 6plesourc 2008 college students whoy ecially likely to nas tive information about their romantic rivals,or positive items friends behind suc Social-Psychological Considerations thin Utility of Gossip diseussed earlier ould be ed MosCbeopedO m the fun onal b enefits disct Avoiding Influence From False Gossip into targets that would be difficult or impossible for the per. How can people avoid being influenced either by uninten as knowledge tionally biase rare negative b 10 n othe entify in the individual to avoid this target.at 30 Smith 313 (2006) assumed that gossip can be intentionally manipulated, and used scenario studies to examine the conditions under which people may discount its truth value (e.g., when they receive the same message from only one source versus mul￾tiple independent sources). Sommerfeld, Krambeck, and Milinski (2008) had participants play a series of cooperation games with different partners, and receive gossip about the partners’ levels of cooperativeness. Like Hess and Hagen, they also proposed that effects of false gossip can be miti￾gated when perceivers receive gossip from multiple sources. However, most detailed analyses of ways to deal with false gossip come from well outside social psychology, from theoretical biology or computer science perspectives. Savarimuthu et al. (2013) advance a technical model of how a population of artificial agents (software programs) can establish cooperation and exclude free riders. Drawing on work on the evolution of cooperation (e.g., Nowak & Sigmund, 2005, as reviewed earlier), they make gossip (i.e., inter-agent communication about other agents’ levels of cooperation) a key part of their system. In contrast to previ￾ous work on the topic, they consider the potential impact of false gossip and show that their proposed system is robust when only a small proportion of gossip is assumed to be false, but breaks down as the proportion approaches 50%. Laidre, Lamb, Shultz, and Olsen (2013) show that agents connected in a network through which information flows can use a specific decision rule that involves comparing multiple messages, to attempt to correct false information. However, they assume that messages are corrupted by ran￾dom noise, rather than by agents who intentionally send false information. In summary, from most perspectives including sociology, psychology, and evolutionary biology, the primary focus is on the positive functions of gossip, especially the detection of norm violators or free riders (e.g., non-cooperators). Little work has addressed the possibility of false and manipulated gossip, although the strategic use of gossip to increase power is sometimes mentioned as a function. When manipulated gossip is considered, proposed solutions usually involve trusting gossip only when it is received from multiple sources (e.g., Hess & Hagen, 2006; Laidre et al., 2013; Sommerfeld et al., 2008). Social-Psychological Considerations Utility of Gossip As would be expected from the functional benefits discussed earlier, people do frequently engage in gossip (Foster, 2004). Most obviously, information from others may reveal insights into targets that would be difficult or impossible for the per￾ceiver himself or herself to obtain, such as knowledge about rare negative behaviors. For example, learning from others that a target occasionally flies into an aggressive rage allows the individual to avoid this target, at considerably less risk and cost compared with experiencing such behaviors first￾hand. In effect, a social network is a distributed surveillance system, monitoring the behavior of members of the network more effectively than a perceiver could alone (Craik, 2008). Indeed, people have been shown to rely on gossip in prefer￾ence to target’s direct self-reports, in a context where a posi￾tive self-report might be exaggerated (Stiff & Van Vugt, 2008). Other studies likewise show that gossip about targets’ behaviors can be even more influential than direct observa￾tions of that behavior (Sommerfeld, Krambeck, Semmann, & Milinski, 2007). People evidently recognize the group-serv￾ing and norm-defense functions of gossip, passing gossip along to benefit others even when there is no possibility of reciprocal or other benefit to the self (Feinberg, Willer, Stellar, & Keltner, 2012). Potential Unreliability of Gossip Despite its usefulness, gossip has weaknesses as well. Most obviously, information from others may be less reliable than information observed firsthand. There are several reasons for this. First, targets may actually treat different individuals dif￾ferently. If a target is pleasant with most people but harbors a strong dislike for a specific individual, gossip from others will be questionably useful in allowing the individual to pre￾dict the target’s behavior. Second, different perceivers apply different biases, stereotypes, and schemas in the process of person perception (e.g., Mohr & Kenny, 2006). As a result, even if the target behaves consistently, Perceiver A’s impres￾sion (communicated through gossip) may differ from Perceiver B’s impression, rendering it less useful to B. Third, biases may enter into the communication process itself, as when information communicated from person to person becomes more stereotypic (Lyons & Kashima, 2003). And communicated information about a target’s behavior may leave out important situational information, producing more extreme impressions (Gilovich, 1987). None of these types of biases involve intentional distortion. Of course, gossip can also be intentionally biased, as when people praise their allies and bad-mouth their enemies. McAndrew et al. (2007) found just such patterns in a study of college students, who were especially likely to pass on nega￾tive information about their romantic rivals, or positive items about friends or romantic partners. Motives behind such biased gossip obviously include the desire to increase one’s own status or power within a group (see Farley, 2011), as discussed earlier. Avoiding Influence From False Gossip How can people avoid being influenced either by uninten￾tionally biased or intentionally manipulated gossip? One approach is to identify individuals who transmit false gossip and tag them as unreliable, avoiding incorporating their reports into one’s own impressions of targets. However, I Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at Remen University of China on September 6, 2015