Q&A: How to Combat Gossip

By JEREMY CAPLAN Wed Sep 17, 5:35 PM ET

Gossip is unavoidable. Wherever you go, rumors flow. Entire careers, in fact, have been dedicated to creating it, spreading it, quashing it and corralling it. In his new book, The Watercooler Effect, Nicholas DiFonzo, a professor of psychology at the Rochester Institute of Technology, examines the gossip that buzzes through every community, explaining why people feel so compelled to devour and perpetuate rumors, and what effect that has on society at large. DiFonzo spoke with TIME's Jeremy Caplan about some of history's worst rumors, the peculiarities of Web gossip, why "no comment" is the wrong answer and why certain presidential candidates should be more aggressive about battling rumors about them.

TIME: How do rumors change people's views?

DiFonzo: Hearing rumors, especially repeatedly, tends to increase our belief in them. In one study, hearing a rumor that "Sophie" had a mental illness tended to reduce participants' liking for her, desire to know her, and likelihood of voting for her in the student-government election. That rumor capitalized on a negative stigma associated with mental illness. Hearing the same rumor repeatedly tends to increase belief in that rumor along a "diminishing-returns" type of curve: One repetition increases belief the most, a second repetition increases belief next most, a third repetition increases it next most, and so on. These results are a cause for sober pause - merely hearing a rumor leads to increased belief in it.

What's the best way to quash a false rumor?

Several principles can be employed to squelch false rumors - true rumors should be confirmed, by the way - or limit their impact. First, respond quickly to the rumor; it becomes more difficult to counter after repeated circulation and wide dissemination. Second, it is generally best to respond to the rumor rather than use a "no comment" policy; "no comment" tends to increase uncertainty, further fueling the rumor. Third, diminish uncertainty by using a clear, point-by-point refutation with solid evidence. Fourth, the refutation should also come from a trusted, neutral, third-party source. Fifth, it is best to give context and explain what you are issuing a refutation to. [The statement], "Our food products are safe," offered without preamble or explanation, will make people wonder why you are making the statement.

Can you elaborate on why "no-comment" is a poor response?

Not commenting on a rumor tends to raise the question, "Why is the target not responding to this rumor?" Hearers alternately wonder if there is some merit to the rumor, or if the target of the rumor has something to hide. The net result is that uncertainty increases. In experiments, my colleague, Prashant Bordia, and I have found that the no-comment condition results in an increased sense of uncertainty and gives credence to the notion that the [target of the rumor] is attempting to cover something up.

However, uncertainty may not be increased if a no-comment policy is put into place prior to the rumor, is strictly followed, and is set forth as the reason for not commenting. Companies that are the frequent target of stock rumors sometimes point to their no-comment policy and are thus able to successfully avoid imparting information that would affect their stock price; by not commenting on anything, they reduce the uncertainty that would arise if they failed to comment on any one particular rumor.

Your book mentions that gossip has benefits. What are some of those?

Gossip - evaluative social chat about another person - may not be so nefarious when one desires to protect someone from harm. Hearing gossip that your son's friend is a drug-dealer may aid you in steering your loved one away from a destructive relationship. Gossip may also simply be a way to gather useful and helpful information about our social worlds without direct and embarrassing inquiry. Gossip - or the fear of gossip - may in this way serve to enforce the social norms that are necessary for any group to exist. And, of course, gossiping with someone signifies that they are your confidante or friend - we do not gossip with our enemies. Gossip thus bonds people together - even though in doing so it may tear others apart.

Why is it that just hearing a rumor, even if it's false, can strengthen people's belief in it?

It's the familiarity heuristic. Hearing a false rumor, especially if you hear it repeatedly, makes you more familiar with the rumor. All other things being the same, we seem to use a rule of thumb "if it sounds familiar, it is more likely to be true." Again, this finding should give us cause for a sober pause. What we hear often may in fact seem more plausible simply because we hear it often.

What kind of rumors tend to be the most harmful?

Rumors that foster conflict between groups are quite damaging. Racial rumors that lead to dehumanizing of other groups of people fall into this category ("group X eats humans" or "has cheated the majority"). Rumors that foster distrust between groups also belong here. More spectacular are the many rumors that spark riots in conflict-ridden situations: a civil-rights era government commission found that more than 65% of riots were set off by rumors.

Do you have some historical examples?

Sure, here are a few: In Sydney, Australia, a riot was sparked one summer day in 2004 by the rumor that an aboriginal boy on a bicycle had been chased by police and died after he was tragically impaled on a spiked fence; the rumor incited a group of 200 youths to throw home-made explosives at police, 40 of whom were injured in the melee. The late Saddam Hussein regularly spread rumors to discourage resistance to his dictatorship. In light of this, rumors that he possessed weapons of mass destruction may ironically have first originated from Hussein himself, as well as Hussein's opponents (like Ahmed Chalabi and other Iraqi defectors) who desired U.S. assistance in toppling him.

How do online rumors and gossip differ from traditional water-cooler gabbing?

We've found that Internet rumor discussions tend to follow the same "sense-making" path that face-to-face interactions do: People bring the rumor to the group, they set forth hypotheses and provide information, opposing camps sometimes arise, the hypotheses are evaluated, and either a consensus is achieved or the group splinters on this point. Online rumor can travel faster and farther than the office water-cooler circle; this has implications for the rumor's accuracy. If discussion is active and people of diverse opinions engage in it, the rumor stands a fair chance of becoming accurate. If, on the other hand, the rumor tends to circulate only among like-minded people, accurate rumors seems less likely to emerge.

The structure of the Web, however, doesn't typically lend itself to diverse discussion. Research has shown that liberal blogs are overwhelming hyperlinked to other liberal blogs, and that conservative blogs are overwhelmingly hyperlinked to other conservative blogs. Very few cross-links exist. This is thought to explain in part the emergence and survival of ideologically fueled rumors. For example, in the rancorous 2004 Presidential election, the same false rumor that a candidate had mistakenly quoted the Biblical verse John 16:3 as his favorite Bible passage - thus revealing hypocrisy about his being a believer - circulated about both John Kerry and George W. Bush. Presumably, the Kerry version flourished in the conservative blogosphere, and the Bush version gained traction in the liberal blogosphere. Each side has its own echo chamber.

Over the course of his presidential campaign, there have been a lot of rumors spread about Obama's religious background. To what extent might they affect his candidacy?

In a tight election, such rumors might make a meaningful difference, especially for those people who have been exposed to the rumors multiple times among their social network, have not received a refutation, and are not that involved in the political process.

So, how would you assess Obama's response, establishing a site to debunk myths?

Assuming that the rumors surrounding Obama are completely false, the Obama campaign's approach is overall appropriate and effective, though I think more could be done. Specifically, the campaign could tout credible third-party sources more strongly (for example, enlisting the help of a leading conservative in stating that Obama is not and never has been Muslim).

The campaign's rumor-rebutting website could enlist and prominently tout more help from trusted third-party sources. A March 27 Pew Research Center study found that the Obama-is-a-Muslim rumor was believed by only 10% of registered voters, but some subgroups were slightly more likely to believe it (conservative Republicans, conservative Democrats, those who did not attend college, voters from the South and Midwest, rural voters, and white evangelical Protestants).

The Obama campaign does have a letter from some religious leaders buried deep on the campaign site. In my opinion, more of these types of letters are needed, especially if the sources are regarded as trustworthy by the above populations. And again, they need to be displayed more prominently; such sources can speak more persuasively than the campaign is able to because of their neutral (or even negative) stakeholder status. McCain employed this tactic effectively when combating innuendo of an inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist by having his lawyer - a well-known Democrat - strongly defend his character on national TV. View this article on The Dems Finally Get Religion