Rumor Has It

* * *

The Internet is just the latest evolution of a habit that goes back millions of years. British anthropologist Robin Dunbar links the grooming practices of apes to the gabbing practices of humans, activities that express friendship and loyalty.

"We begin with self-disclosure," says Monique Turner, a professor of communication at the University of Maryland. "We tell people about us. When we talk about ourselves, we see how receptive people are and if they share back. So now we've developed a relationship where we share about each other. As that grows, we feel more comfortable about disclosing about others, which is essentially gossip. It's just a way to bond with people. It's brain candy."

In the past eight years, Turner has gathered data on how we view gossipers by putting more than 400 students (averaging 20 years of age) in situations where they are gossiped to by either friends or strangers, positively or negatively.

Turner found positive gossip (especially if it's humorous) increases trust and likability in a gossiper, while negative gossip (again, especially if it's humorous) does the opposite. Amusing scuttlebutt does not have the negative consequences usually associated with gossip, as long as the information being shared is positive. Another factor to keep in mind is the pertinence of gossip, which was also part of the experiment.

"Your gossip will be better off if it's relevant to your life, if you have the right to be talking about that," Turner says. "You should stray from sharing other people's personal information that has nothing to do with you."

Some may argue that as long as you're interested in a topic, it's your business. This is certainly the case in a workplace, a petri dish for gossip. Sharing personal information about others helps us to map out the territory, to fill out personality sketches of co-workers and to maneuver our way from one goal to the next. For example, hearing that a manager has a short temper and a disdain for small talk can help you properly prepare for an interview with him or her.

* * *

With gossip mutating on the Internet and getting face time in academic studies, what about good, old-fashioned ethics -- the stuff by which Moses and Heidegger drew their own conclusions? As befits our era, there is a flowchart for navigating the murky waters of gossip ethics.

Professor of philosophy Emrys Westacott, who teaches at Alfred University in New York and is working on a book of essays tentatively titled "The Virtues of Our Vices," was having dinner with friends several years ago when someone began to inveigh against gossip. It was always wrong, the friend said. Westacott disagreed and found himself spending several hours the next morning drafting an argument that eventually turned into an article titled "The Ethics of Gossiping" in the International Journal of Applied Philosophy.

The article includes a flowchart. It starts with a simple question: Is the gossip a lie? If so, stop. If it isn't, ask yourself more questions until you arrive at an ethical diagnosis.

The dynamics of discourse are changing, and with it the rules of etiquette, Westacott says. Gossip spreads quickly and voluminously online, but in many ways this proliferation and the accompanying anonymity dilute its impact. Sure, someone can gossip virtually about someone else's sexual promiscuity, but does it really bear any social currency besides being crude and unfortunate?

"In some ways there's a greater possibility to do harm, but in other ways we sort of adjust to the fact that so much goes into the public domain now," Westacott says. "I'm not sure a site like [JuicyCampus] violates people's privacy any more than someone writing graffiti violates privacy. . . . As far as free speech goes, I suppose people have that right. I think what will change is our take on gossip, our perspective, our skepticism, our willingness to believe it. Perhaps also our sense of how importan t it is."