Group-bounded indirect reciprocity and intergroup gossip

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Pub Date : 2024-06-25 DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104657
Hirotaka Imada , Nobuhiro Mifune , Hannah Zibell
{"title":"Group-bounded indirect reciprocity and intergroup gossip","authors":"Hirotaka Imada ,&nbsp;Nobuhiro Mifune ,&nbsp;Hannah Zibell","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104657","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Gossip, the exchange of information about absent others, is ingrained in the system of indirect reciprocity, in which participating members selectively interact and cooperate with others with a good reputation. Previous psychological theorizing suggests that indirect reciprocity is perceived to be bounded by group membership. We aimed to examine whether the group-bounded indirect reciprocity perspective explains intergroup gossip. We thus explored how group membership shapes the expectations about how gossip is used and willingness to gossip within and across group boundaries. We conducted three studies (total <em>N</em> = 986) and re-analyzed a published dataset (<em>N</em> = 690) and comprehensively investigated how willing people expect others to be to engage in within- and between-group gossip as well as how willing they themselves are to engage in both types of gossip, in minimal and university contexts. We found that consistent with the group-bounded indirect reciprocity perspective, people expected within group gossip to be more likely than intergroup gossip. In addition, in the minimal group context, we found that people were, in general, more willing to gossip towards in-group members rather than out-group members. However, in the university context, they were more willing to gossip about in-group and out-group members towards out-group and in-group members, respectively, suggesting that people may utilize intergroup gossip for strategic reasons. Our research was the first to experimentally elucidate the role of group membership in shaping expectations about gossip and willingness to gossip, and offers a promising starting point for future work on intergroup gossip and indirect reciprocity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103124000702/pdfft?md5=e5dce44e795e37bc4b930dd32270a241&pid=1-s2.0-S0022103124000702-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103124000702","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gossip, the exchange of information about absent others, is ingrained in the system of indirect reciprocity, in which participating members selectively interact and cooperate with others with a good reputation. Previous psychological theorizing suggests that indirect reciprocity is perceived to be bounded by group membership. We aimed to examine whether the group-bounded indirect reciprocity perspective explains intergroup gossip. We thus explored how group membership shapes the expectations about how gossip is used and willingness to gossip within and across group boundaries. We conducted three studies (total N = 986) and re-analyzed a published dataset (N = 690) and comprehensively investigated how willing people expect others to be to engage in within- and between-group gossip as well as how willing they themselves are to engage in both types of gossip, in minimal and university contexts. We found that consistent with the group-bounded indirect reciprocity perspective, people expected within group gossip to be more likely than intergroup gossip. In addition, in the minimal group context, we found that people were, in general, more willing to gossip towards in-group members rather than out-group members. However, in the university context, they were more willing to gossip about in-group and out-group members towards out-group and in-group members, respectively, suggesting that people may utilize intergroup gossip for strategic reasons. Our research was the first to experimentally elucidate the role of group membership in shaping expectations about gossip and willingness to gossip, and offers a promising starting point for future work on intergroup gossip and indirect reciprocity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有群体限制的间接互惠和群体间闲话
在间接互惠体系中,参与成员会选择性地与声誉好的人互动和合作。以往的心理学理论认为,间接互惠受群体成员身份的限制。我们的目的是研究受群体限制的间接互惠观点是否可以解释群体间的流言蜚语。因此,我们探讨了群体成员身份如何影响人们对如何使用流言蜚语的期望,以及在群体内部和跨越群体界限说流言蜚语的意愿。我们进行了三项研究(总计 = 986),并重新分析了一个已发表的数据集(= 690),全面调查了人们对他人参与群体内和群体间闲聊的预期意愿,以及他们自己参与这两种类型闲聊的意愿,研究的背景包括最小群体和大学群体。我们发现,与受群体约束的间接互惠观点一致,人们预期群体内闲聊比群体间闲聊更有可能发生。此外,我们还发现,在最小群体情境中,人们一般更愿意对群体内成员而非群体外成员说闲话。然而,在大学情境中,人们更愿意分别对组内成员和组外成员说组内和组外的闲话,这表明人们可能出于战略原因而利用组间闲话。我们的研究首次在实验中阐明了群体成员身份在影响人们对闲话的期望和闲话意愿方面的作用,为今后研究群体间闲话和间接互惠提供了一个很好的起点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology publishes original research and theory on human social behavior and related phenomena. The journal emphasizes empirical, conceptually based research that advances an understanding of important social psychological processes. The journal also publishes literature reviews, theoretical analyses, and methodological comments.
期刊最新文献
Brilliance as gender deviance: Gender-role incongruity as another barrier to women's success in academic fields The impact of social identity complexity on intergroup parochial and universal cooperation under different payoff structures and frames Bless her heart: Gossip phrased with concern provides advantages in female intrasexual competition Editorial Board Revisiting the moral forecasting error – A preregistered replication and extension of “Are we more moral than we think?”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1