Gando tapsmas: komunikacinio ritualo etapai

LTStraipsnyje gando tapsmas aptariamas kaip procesas, kuriame dalyvauja trys pagrindiniai struktūriniai gando elementai – gando turinys, gando teikėjas (kūrėjas) ir gando perėmėjas (vartotojas). Parodoma, kad neformalios informacijos, gautos tarpasmeninio bendravimo metu, virtimas gandu galimas tik susiklosčius atitinkamai situacijai – gando situacijai, kuriai būtinos dvi sąlygos: pirma, tinkama vieta, kur žmonės gali dalytis neformalia informacija, antra, noras gauti papildomos informacijos apie asmenį, įvykį ar reiškinį, kuris individui rūpi. Informacijos pateikimas suvokiamas kaip vyksmas, apimantis kelis etapus, kurių metu aiškinamasi pašnekovo preferencijos, užmezgami patikimumo santykiai, pateikiama informacija ir „išeinama“ iš gando erdvės. Aptariamos esminės gando savybės, jo perteikimo kokybę nusakantys kriterijai. Analizuojami gando priėmimo sėkmei užtikrinti naudojami taktikos būdai, atskleidžiami jų pranašumai ir trūkumai.

ENArticle analyses the process of how informal information becomes a rumor. It is possible only in a certain situation which is called rumor situation. It has two main conditions: the right place where people can share informal information, and a wish to get additional information about a person, an event or a phenomenon interesting for an individual. Information presentation is conceived as a process of three stages. The first stage – pre-interaction: a conveyor contacts the talker and clears out his preferences. The second stage – presentation of information (content of rumor); in this stage, special attention is paid to: rumor “quality” which influences its acceptability, and tactics of rumor presentation. There are five criteria of rumor quality: information should be presented as a special communication and confidence value; information should not contradict the objective and obvious heart of the matter; information should be presented in an understandable and popular form; information should raise a wish to find out more details and particularities; information should be characteristic.On the ground of the above mentioned criteria it is possible to valuate the acceptability of rumor to the information receiver who sometimes turns to be an especially finicky and critical user. In order to clear these obstacles, a twofold tactics is used. First, criticism of the presented information should be neutralized using active and passive ways of rumor offering. Second, interest of the receiver should be stimulated proportionally and information should be presented considering the receiver’s psychological type. The third stage – “exit” from the rumor: rumor, unlike other forms of communication, has no accomplished mechanism because it is permanently “renewed”. Usually the rumor dies when the person ends it voluntarily. However, it is not simple to end the game of a rumor. All the participants of the rumor cycle (conveyor–receiver–conveyor) do not want or else are afraid to exit first. This disinclination is related with three circumstances. First, with exit he reduces his possibilities to find out more about a person or an event interesting to him, i. e. to satisfy his curiosity. Second, he does not feel safe because he himself may become “the third”, i. e. the object of rumors. Third, with exit from the rumor cycle he challenges common everyday communication where a rumor is an integral part. Rejection of such communication may grow into social isolation. That is precisely the thing an individual fears. It is true to say that rumor is a particular communicative game and an individual is inveigled into it by society. No wonder all people, whatever their social position, profession and living place, are bigger or smaller rumor conveyors (creators) and receivers.