Do gossip and ostracism have hidden group benefits in the arena of holistic health and/or general society? Conventional wisdom holds that gossip and social exclusion are always malicious, undermining trust and morale in groups. But sharing this kind of “reputational information” could have benefits for society, according to a new study published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.
Robb Willer, an associate professor of sociology at Stanford University, explored the nature of gossip and ostracism in collaboration with co-authors Matthew Feinberg, a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford, and Michael Schultz from the University of California–Berkeley.
Their research shows that gossip and ostracism can have positive effects, serving as tools by which groups reform bullies, thwart exploitation of “nice people,” and encourage cooperation
“Groups that allow their members to gossip sustain cooperation and deter selfishness better than those that don’t, said Feinberg, according to the January 27, 2014 news release, Gossip and ostracism may have hidden group benefits, "And groups do even better if they can gossip and ostracize untrustworthy members. While both of these behaviors can be misused, our findings suggest that they also serve very important functions for groups and society.”
The researchers divided 216 participants into groups, asking them to play a game and make financial choices that would benefit their respective groups. Researchers commonly use this public-goods exercise to examine social dilemmas because individual participants will benefit the most by selfishly free-riding off everyone else’s contributions while contributing nothing themselves.
Before moving on to the next round with an entirely new group, participants could gossip about their prior group members. Future group members then received that information and could decide to exclude – ostracize – a suspect participant from the group before deciding to make their next financial choices.
‘Invest in the public good’
The researchers found that when people learn about the behavior of others through gossip, they use this information to align with those deemed cooperative. Those who have behaved selfishly can then be excluded from group activities based on the prevailing gossip. This serves the group’s greater good, for selfish types are known to exploit more cooperative people for their own gains.
“By removing defectors, more cooperative individuals can more freely invest in the public good without fear of exploitation,” the researchers noted, according to the news release. However, there is hope for the castaways.
What do the castaways learn from the experience?
When people know that others may gossip about them – and experience the resulting social exclusion – they tend to learn from the experience and reform their behavior by cooperating more in future group settings. In contrast, highly anonymous groups, like many Internet message boards, lack accountability and thereby allow antisocial behavior to thrive.
“Those who do not reform their behavior, behaving selfishly despite the risk of gossip and ostracism, tended to be targeted by other group members who took pains to tell future group members about the person’s untrustworthy behavior,” Willer said, according to the news release. “These future groups could then detect and exclude more selfish individuals, ensuring they could avoid being taken advantage of.”
The very threat of ostracism frequently deterred selfishness in the group
Even people who had been ostracized often contributed at higher levels when they returned to the group. “Exclusion compelled them to conform to the more cooperative behavior of the rest of the group,” the researchers wrote. The study reflects past research showing that when people know others may talk about their reputation, they tend to behave more generously.
Where reputational concerns are especially strong, people sometimes engage in “competitive altruism,” attempting to be highly pro-social to avoid exclusion from a group. The same appears to hold true for those returning from “exile” – the incentive is to cooperate rather than risk more trouble. “Despite negative connotations, the pairing of the capacity to gossip and to ostracize undesirable individuals from groups has a strong positive effect on cooperation levels in groups,” Willer said in the news release.
Looking ahead, Willer and his colleagues are conducting field experiments on how the threat of gossip and exclusion affect behavior in real-world settings – in one study, for instance, they’re calling car repair shops for estimates, with one group of callers stating they are active users of Yelp, the online review service that can make or break reputations.
As Willer points out, whether one calls it gossip or “reputational information sharing,” as sociologists and psychologists do, this behavior, along with ostracism, seems fundamental to human nature. People pass on information about how others behave in workplaces, student workgroups, business and political coalitions, on the Internet, in volunteer organizations and beyond. While much of this behavior may be undesirable and malicious, a lot of it is critical to deterring selfishness and maintaining social order in groups. “I think it does speak to the mechanisms that keep people behaving honestly and generously in many settings and, where behavior is entirely anonymous, helps explain when they don’t,” Willer said, according to the news release.
Do brain connections help shape religious beliefs?
Building on previous evidence showing that religious belief involves cognitive activity that can be mapped to specific brain regions, a new study has found that causal, directional connections between these brain networks can be linked to differences in religious thought, says a new article, “Brain Networks Shaping Religious Belief,” published in the journal Brain Connectivity, a bimonthly peer-reviewed journal from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers, and is available on the Brain Connectivity website. The new research also is summarized in a January 27, 2014 news release, "Do brain connections help shape religious beliefs?"
Building on previous evidence showing that religious belief involves cognitive activity that can be mapped to specific brain regions, a new study has found that causal, directional connections between these brain networks can be linked to differences in religious thought.
Dimitrios Kapogiannis and colleagues from the National Institute on Aging (National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, MD) and Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, IL, analyzed data collected from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies to evaluate the flow of brain activity when religious and non-religious individuals discussed their religious beliefs. The authors determined causal pathways linking brain networks related to “supernatural agents,” fear regulation, imagery, and affect, all of which may be involved in cognitive processing of religious beliefs.
What gets activated when the brain contemplates a religious belief?
Dr. Kapogiannis explains in the news release that “When the brain contemplates a religious belief,” it's activating three distinct networks that are trying to answer three distinct questions: 1) is there a supernatural agent involved (such as God) and, if so, what are his or her intentions; 2) is the supernatural agent to be feared; and 3) how does this belief relate to prior life experiences and to doctrines?”
“Are there brain networks uniquely devoted to religious belief? Prior research has indicated the answer is a resolute no,” continues study co-author Jordan Grafman, according to the news release. Grafman is Director, Brain Injury Research and Chief, Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago. “But this study demonstrates that important brain networks devoted to various kinds of reasoning about others, emotional processing, knowledge representation, and memory are called into action when thinking about religious beliefs. The use of these basic networks for religious practice indicates how basic networks evolved to mediate much more complex beliefs like those contained in religious practice.” Also, you may wish to check out the website, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc./Genetic Engineering News.