Blackmailers are seen as ethically superior to gossipers

[great_bay]

Individuals who are perceived to engage in gossiping regularly are seen as having less social power and being less liked. The type of gossip being exchanged also affects likeability whereby those who engage in negative gossip are less liked than those who engage in positive gossip.[37] In a study done by Turner and colleagues (2003), having a prior relationship with a gossiper were not found to protect the gossiper from less favorable personality ratings after gossip was exchanged. In the study, two individuals were brought in to the research lab to participate. Either the two individuals were friends prior to the study or they were strangers scheduled to participate at the same time. One of the individuals was a confederate of the study and they engaged in gossiping about the research assistant after she left the room. The gossip exchanged was either positive or negative. Regardless of gossip type (positive versus negative) or relationship type (friend versus stranger) the gossipers were rated as less trustworthy after sharing the gossip.[38]

[39] Block has suggested that while gossip and blackmail both involve the disclosure of unflattering information, the blackmailer is arguably ethically superior to the gossip.

Block writes, "In a sense, the gossip is much worse than the blackmailer, for the blackmailer has given the blackmailed a chance to silence him. The gossip exposes the secret without warning." The victim of a blackmailer is thus offered choices denied to the subject of gossip, such as deciding if the exposure of his or her secret is worth the cost the blackmailer demands. Moreover, in refusing a blackmailer's offer one is in no worse a position than with the gossip. Adds Block, "It is indeed difficult, then, to account for the vilification suffered by the blackmailer, at least compared to the gossip, who is usually dismissed with slight contempt and smugness."

 

[Cloudpatrol]

Fascinating [MENTION=24085]great_bay[/MENTION]

Gossip is intriguing. I was raised: "small minds discuss people, good minds discuss events and great minds discuss ideas". But, talking about people (lives/behaviour) is so prevalent!

There are different forms of negative & positive grapevine meddling. Ie. Letting a friend know another friend has fallen ill VERSUS the sniping gossip culture found online and in magazines.

It strikes me as relative: If someone offers to kill by shooting OR drowning someone, should they be lauded for providing the victim a choice? Does the fact they openly identify as a killer thereby lessen the harm they intend?

Blackmailers are attempting to profit off the vulnerabilities of others. They should be cast as villains.

Gossip that exposes confidentiality or harms should also be viewed with contempt. When one is being gossiped to in a negative way a question inevitably arises: "If this person would speak of other's in such a way, what do they say regarding me when I am not around to hear it?"

 

[Masokissed]

Naturally, because the blackmailer can actually get something.