As a child, you were probably told that Gossip was wrong, that if you wouldn’t say something to an individual’s face, you just shouldn’t say it at all.

But, an intriguing new study conducted by Researchers from the University of Maryland and the University of Stanford suggests that gossipers may not be the worst thing for social groups. Rather, the research highlighted how “spilling the tea” sometimes could actually have benefits.

According to the researchers, gossip – or the exchange of personal information about people who aren’t present – offers a social advantage, particularly in spreading info about individuals’ reputations. This enables those who hear the gossip to associate with more “cooperative” people as opposed to “selfish” people.

“When people are interested in knowing if someone is a good person to interact with, if they can get information from gossiping – assuming the information is honest – that can be a very useful thing to have,” said Dana Nau, the study’s co-author.

The study’s findings are the result of a computer simulation designed to address a long-held question in social psychology: Why has gossip become such a popular and widespread activity regardless of age, gender, and culture?

In a previous study, the team found that people spend about one hour each day discussing others – which represents a significant amount of day-to-day life. That’s why the researchers felt compelled to delve into this topic further.

Other past research has suggested that gossip may be able to bond large groups and encourage cooperation. However, it’s still unknown what benefits the individuals who gossip actually receive from these interactions.

“This has been a real puzzle. It’s unclear why gossiping, which requires considerable time and energy, evolved as an adaptive strategy at all,” said Michele Gelfand, another co-author of the study.

So, for their latest study, the researchers used an evolutionary game theory model that simulates human decision-making. By integrating principles from evolutionary biology and game theory, the researchers could observe how their virtual study subjects – known as “agents” – interacted and adjusted their strategies to gain rewards.

Sign up for Chip Chick’s newsletter and get stories like this delivered to your inbox.

The team aimed to determine whether agents would turn to gossip for self-protection or just to exploit others. Throughout the study, agents had the option to cooperate with gossipers, defect, or become gossipers themselves. They could adjust their strategies based on observing the outcomes or rewards of other agents’ actions.

Then, by the end of the simulation, a whopping 90% of the agents had actually become gossipers.

For the researchers, this suggests that individuals are more inclined to cooperate when they know a gossiper is present, as they want to safeguard their reputation and steer clear of becoming the focal point of any rumors. On the flip side, for the gossipers themselves, gaining the cooperation of another person can feel rewarding.

“If other people are going to be on their best behavior because they know that you gossip, then they’re more likely to cooperate with you on things. The fact that you gossip ends up providing a benefit to you as a gossiper. That then inspires others to gossip because they can see that it provides a reward,” Nau explained.

The researchers argue that gossip spreads so widely because sharing information about others’ reputations acts as a deterrent against selfishness among those who hear it. Essentially, individuals adjust their behavior based on the reputations they learn about through gossip. And because nobody wants to become the topic of future rumors, this discourages selfish behavior.

So, the team believes that gossipers gain an “evolutionary advantage” through their ability to influence and promote cooperation, thereby sustaining the cycle of gossip while also offering a valuable service to those who listen.

Of course, it’s widely known that the act of gossiping gets a bad rap. Still, the study’s first author, Xinyue Pan, underscored how information shared through gossip can be positive. Additionally, the nature of gossip doesn’t matter in a sense since it fulfills a useful role.

“Positive and negative gossip are both important because gossip plays an important role in sharing information about people’s reputations. Once people have this information, cooperative people can find other good people to cooperate with, and this is actually beneficial for the group. So gossiping is not always a bad thing. It can be a positive thing,” Pan detailed.

The study’s simulation considered various factors that could promote or inhibit the spread of gossip, confirming what previous studies have shown: the idea of small-town gossipers is not just a stereotype seen in movies.

According to Gelfand,  the model identifies situations where we can expect more gossipers to emerge, especially in social networks with high connectivity and limited mobility, which aligns with findings about rural settings. In other words, it offers insights into the environments where gossiping might be more or less prevalent.

Nau did acknowledge that their research doesn’t capture the entire complexity of human behavior and cannot substitute for behavioral studies. However, despite these limitations, computer simulations can still generate valuable theories that inspire further research with human subjects.

“People are very complicated, and we can’t come up with a simulation that does everything that people would do, nor would we want to. Since it’s an oversimplification, you can’t say conclusively that this is how people behave, but you can develop insights,” Nau noted.

“Those can then lead to scientific hypotheses that you can try to investigate through studies that involve human participants.”

Nevertheless, the researchers still plan to carry out a follow-up study to test a prediction from their simulation with human participants.

Their goal is to explore the idea that gossip becomes a crucial tool when people lack other means of learning about others’ reputations.

To read the study’s complete findings, which have since been published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, visit the link here.