Edited by: Eva G. Krumhuber, University College London, United Kingdom
Reviewed by: Gary John McKeown, Queen's University Belfast, United Kingdom; Gordon Patrick Ingram, University of Los Andes, Colombia
This article was submitted to Personality and Social Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Gossip is condemned but also ubiquitous and thought to be essential for groups. This triggers the question of which motives explain gossip behavior. Hitherto, negative influence, social enjoyment, group protection, and information gathering and validation are established as motives to gossip. However, venting emotions—discussed as a potentially important motive—has been overlooked empirically. Furthermore, a lack of consensus about a definition of gossip may have affected previous conclusions about gossip motives. This study (
Gossip is omnipresent across societies, despite being condemned in public opinion (Wilson et al.,
To our knowledge, the MGQ is the only questionnaire assessing motives to gossip in a specific situation. However, several aspects required improvements. First, despite several authors arguing an important motive to gossip is venting emotions—to share emotionally evocative experiences (e.g., Grosser et al.,
Second, whereas growing evidence suggests the desire to protect group members against norm violators is a prominent driver of gossip (Beersma and Van Kleef,
Third, for reasons of parsimony, we removed four redundant items from the information gathering and validation scale
Finally, we tested the validity of the MGQ by assessing the invariance of the underlying factor structure of the MGQ against variations in gossip conceptualizations. Gossip has been defined differently across studies. Sometimes it has been broadly defined as information shared about a third party who has no knowledge of the communicated information (cf. Peters and Kashima,
The total sample comprised a diverse community sample of 493 participants recruited through Dutch panel agency Flycatcher. Thirty-three participants indicated not recalling gossip and were removed. Demographic information was available for 453 participants (50.4% females); age ranged from 18 to 91 (
Participants read one of three definitions of gossip in a broad (
We extended the original MGQ by including a five-item subscale measuring emotion venting, adding two items to the group protection subscale, and removing four items from the information gathering and validation subscale
After providing informed consent, participants were randomly assigned to read either the broad, narrow, or simple instructions. Participants described the most recent situation in which they shared gossip (first for the current day, if not, they recalled the next most recent situation). After this, participants completed the MGQ
To examine whether the added fifth emotion venting dimension statistically contributes beyond the original four dimensions of the MGQ, we tested the five-factor solution against four-factor solutions using confirmatory factor analysis where emotion venting indicators load on the other dimensions.
We used the R-package Lavaan (Rosseel,
Next, we tested whether factor structures were similar across different gossip definitions by examination of the measurement invariance of the MGQ across the three instructions conditions using the SemTools-package (Hirschfeld and Von Brachel,
To assess the five-factor model fit, we used the following criteria for at least a satisfactory fit: CFI > 0.90; TLI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.08, SRMR < 0.08, χ2/
Results showed that, for the complete sample, the five-factor model including a separate emotion venting dimension was satisfactory and significantly better than any four-factor model where the emotion venting items loaded on another latent factor (
Model fit statistics for the five-factor model tested against four-factor models including emotion venting in an existing dimension.
Five-Factor | 744.40 | 265 | 0.926 | 0.916 | 0.073 | 0.079 | ||||
Emotion venting in Information gathering and validation | 1585.70 | 269 | 0.800 | 0.777 | 0.119 | 0.113 | 928.33 | 4 | < 0.001 | −0.126 |
Emotion venting in Social enjoyment | 1842.59 | 269 | 0.764 | 0.737 | 0.129 | 0.169 | 1245.20 | 4 | < 0.001 | −0.162 |
Emotion venting in Negative influence | 1652.02 | 269 | 0.791 | 0.767 | 0.122 | 0.115 | 1161.00 | 4 | < 0.001 | −0.135 |
Emotion venting in Group protection | 1667.97 | 269 | 0.785 | 0.760 | 0.124 | 0.124 | 1031.50 | 4 | < 0.001 | −0.141 |
All standardized factor loadings were acceptable and were statistically significant (
Indicating configural variance, the model fit was acceptable in all three definition conditions (
Indicating weak invariance, strong invariance, and strict invariance, imposing the constraints of equal factor loadings, item intercepts, and residual variances did not lead to statistically significant differences in the fit of the five-factor model (
Measurement invariance statistics for the definition conditions.
Configural | 1365.38 | 795 | 0.916 | 0.905 | 0.079 | 0.087 | ||||
Weak | 1401.87 | 835 | 0.917 | 0.911 | 0.077 | 0.090 | 27.12 | 40 | 0.940 | 0.001 |
Strong | 1457.05 | 875 | 0.916 | 0.914 | 0.075 | 0.090 | 47.66 | 40 | 0.189 | −0.001 |
Strict | 1492.79 | 925 | 0.915 | 0.917 | 0.074 | 0.090 | 55.49 | 50 | 0.278 | −0.001 |
Factor means | 1513.38 | 935 | 0.914 | 0.917 | 0.074 | 0.092 | 24.71 | 10 | 0.006 | −0.001 |
Imposing the constraint of equal factor means led to a significantly worse model fit (
In summary, across definitions, the MGQ reliably measures gossip motives that can be clearly distinguished, despite positive inter-correlations.
The five-factor Motives to Gossip model showed satisfactory fit and good reliability across subscales, indicating the revised MGQ successfully distinguishes social enjoyment, information gathering and validation, negative influence, group protection, and emotion venting motives to gossip. Results support Beersma and Van Kleef's (
Furthermore, the MGQ factor structure was completely invariant across broad, narrow, and simple definitions of gossip, indicating the MGQ is a stable instrument unaffected by different gossip definitions, which is corroborated by the dimensions' equal internal consistency across definitions. This implicates the MGQ can be used regardless of how gossip is defined. Furthermore, this enables comparing results across studies such as in meta-analyses.
Our study also had limitations. Firstly, we do not consider criterion variables such as gossip frequency or intensity, therefore it remains unclear whether emotion venting improves the predictive validity of the MGQ and whether the MGQ motives can predict criteria similarly across gossip definitions. Therefore, future research should investigate the MGQ's predictive validity for relevant criterion variables. Secondly, we did not consider contextual variables (e.g., group characteristics, Grosser et al.,
Despite these limitations, our study is unique in its focus on measurement invariance across gossip definitions. We contribute to both understanding gossip motives and integrating gossip literature. Moreover, we used a large, diverse sample. This affords adequate power and allows generalizability beyond student or employee samples commonly used in gossip research. Lastly, asking respondents to report on real gossip events shows the motives captured in the MGQ are important in the natural setting where gossip occurs.
We demonstrated the MGQ is a stable and reliable instrument capturing several motives underlying gossip and aids our understanding of why people engage in the sometimes-puzzling behavior of gossip.
This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of Code of Ethics for Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Scientific and Ethical Review Board (VCWE) of the Faculty of Behavioral and Movement Sciences at the VU University Amsterdam with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the Scientific and Ethical Review Board (VCWE).
BB and GvK developed the MGQ. TD and DB collected the data. TD and ES analyzed the data. TD wrote the first draft of the manuscript. DB, ES, BB, GvK, MG, and TD commented and worked on sections resulting in the current manuscript.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The authors would like to thank Flycatcher for their kind service.
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at:
1Results did not differ using all items.
2An earlier adaptation of the MGQ (Dores Cruz et al., under review) measured emotion venting with seven items. For parsimony and because factor analysis demonstrated 2 items were redundant, we excluded two items from this earlier adaptation to create the current five-item subscale. Results did not differ using all items.
3Included in larger survey, see