Nicholas DiFonzo, psychology professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, has studied rumors, hearsay and gossip since 1992. DiFonzo is currently leading a project funded by the National Science Foundation to study how rumors spread through social networks. He is the author of “The Watercooler Effect: An Indispensable Guide to Understanding and Harnessing the Power of Rumors” (Penguin Group, 2009, $15).

Business Watch had a chance recently to visit with DiFonzo, who is considered one of the world’s experts on the extraordinary power of rumors. DiFonzo argues that as social beings, when confronted with an ambiguous or threatening situation, our natural response is to talk to one another.

Business Watch: What is the difference between rumor and gossip?

Nicholas DiFonza: Often it is difficult to tell the difference between rumor and gossip. Pure rumor is unverified information in circulation. Unverified means that the information lacks secure evidence. Often people can tell that they are hearing a rumor when they hear these phrases: “They say that …” or, “I heard that …”

Gossip is small talk about private individual matters. These matters are shared for entertainment purposes and are about people that the gossip and the listener both know. With rare exceptions, the person who is the target of the gossip is not present. We phrase gossip this way: “I heard it fourth-hand that Chuck’s new wife threw him out. Can you believe that?” Sometimes rumor and gossip intermingle. The rumors about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski are classic examples of this — important unverified bits of information with a gossipy flavor.

BW: How accurate are organizational rumors?

ND: In a landmark 1972 study, researcher Keith Davis found that rumors are accurate at least 85 percent of time for noncontroversial company matters. Organizational rumors tend to be extremely accurate if the right conditions exist in the organization. When there is a well established company grapevine, rumors have a higher tendency to be substantially true because rumors are more accurate when people have long-term relationships with each other, when they are able to check the source of information leaks, or if there are experts involved that know something about the issues surrounding the rumor. For example, employees familiar with the financial health of the organization would be experts on the accuracy of layoff rumors.

BW: What motivates people to tell rumors?

ND: In my research, I have identified several types of motivations and the types of rumors that they are associated with.

■ Fact finding. If, in an organization, you want to know the facts, you talk with others and speculate.

■ Attempting to make other people feel good. For example, you meet someone at a party from another university, and you say something complimentary like, “I heard your university increased in ranking in the US News.”

■ To make ourselves feel better. A positive rumor told about your own group will increase your self esteem. A negative rumor about another group can serve the same purpose. These are called wedge-driving rumors or negative-enhancing rumors. An example would be discussing an atrocity that another group supposedly committed that cost the company a lot of money.

■ Propaganda. Using rumors in a calculated fashion to gain a strategic advantage. For example, imagine that a workgroup doesn’t want its company to force it to adopt a new computer software system. Planning a misinformation campaign about the company consultant who is lobbying for the software might be an effective way to damage his or her status as an expert and thus, circumvent the change.

■ Pro-social rumors. The motivation here is to help people. These rumors can be good news or bad news. For example, letting someone know that you’ve heard that his child is hanging around with a known drug dealer. You are friends, so you share the rumor; you don’t necessarily wait to verify it.

■ Revenge. Finally, there is the motivation of revenge — sharing a rumor to get back at someone. You may be angry at your employer because, in your perception, they have mistreated you in some way. Perhaps you didn’t get the promotion that you were promised. Therefore, if you hear something bad about your organization, you will be much more likely to share the rumor throughout and outside of the company.

BW: How can managers prevent their employees from spreading rumors?

ND: Workplace rumors are prevalent and, unfortunately, in many organizations rumors are relied upon more than formal sources of information. Managers need to focus on building a culture of trust. Employees who don’t trust management spread rumors all the time. Rumor management should always be based on the truth. Telling the truth effectively steals the thunder from anyone wanting to gain from negative rumors. If you try to deny or rebut a rumor that is true, you will suffer a loss of credibility. Try to prevent harmful rumors by establishing a norm of transparency. Indicators of transparency in an organization are managers who ask, “What have you heard? I’ll try to find out if it’s true and get back to you.” I never recommend the “no comment” approach unless it is the weakest of rumors or company policy requires that you do not respond to rumors.

In organizations that are not transparent, employees discover very quickly that their questions are seldom welcomed by management. If the management’s response to questions [about rumors] is to either rebuff or ignore them, eventually, questions will not be brought forth in an appropriate, open manner; instead, they will go underground and become a serious problem. Thus, by not being transparent, companies are greasing the wheels for an active and destructive rumor mill.