RUMORS, URBAN LEGENDS AND INTERNET HOAXES.pdf

RUMORS, URBAN LEGENDS AND INTERNET HOAXES

Henry B. Dunn, Stephen F. Austin State University

Charlotte A. Allen, Stephen F. Austin State University

ABSTRACT

This paper will examine those specific areas of rumor theory which serve as a connection

between urban legends and Internet hoaxes. Subject areas to be highlighted include: why rumors

or hoaxes are created and why they are transmitted, with specific emphasis on computer

mediated communication. We will also examine the possible impacts that rumors, urban legends

and Internet hoaxes may have on the business community.

INTRODUCTION

Did you hear that Joe is going to be fired? Delete this file from your computer because it

is a virus (and then forward this to everyone in your address book). Put in your social security

number on this website and it will search the FBI records and give you any information about

you that is in the FBI records. Our company needs to verify your account information, please

reply to this email with the account number and password. Gossip, rumors, and hoaxes have been

around for ages, but computers and the Internet have elevated the passing of information to a

new art form with sometimes disastrous consequences. In researching the literature for this

paper it was discovered that a substantial amount of academic research has been done in the area

of rumors; with much less having been conducted in the area of urban legends and Internet

hoaxes. Throughout the literature on urban legends and Internet hoaxes, a common theme of

rumor research and theory can be seen even though many theories have been proposed regarding

rumor generation and transmission. Within these theories are two different schools of thought:

psychology-based theories focusing on the individual and sociology-based theories focusing on

group or societal factors (Rosnow 1988). Regardless of the focus, there are a number of

common factors that continue to present themselves across the literature (whether it is from a

psychological or sociological basis) as being necessary for the creation and/or transmission of

rumors. This paper will examine those specific areas of rumor theory which serve as a

connection between rumors, urban legends and Internet hoaxes. We will also examine the

possible impacts that rumors, urban legends and Internet hoaxes may have on the business

community.

EARLY RUMOR RESEARCH

Rumor research is not new, with the study of rumors by psychologists dating back over

seventy years (Bordia and DiFonzo 2002). There are two particular sets of early theory (Allport

and Postman 1947; Prasad 1935) that are frequently referenced across the literature. Part of what

makes these theories significant are certain key elements which tend to be reiterated as important

in the majority of subsequent research; even in those that present themselves as being in

opposition.

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association of Collegiate Marketing Educators (2005) . . . page 85

One of the early detailed studies of rumor generation and transmission was performed by

Jamuna Prasad in 1935. The keystone of Prasad’s theory was the requirement for anxiety to

exist for the transmission of rumors (Bordia and DiFonzo 2002; Prasad 1935). According to

Prasad, rumor transmission frequency was directly linked to the level of experienced anxiety,

with rumors spreading the most at peak anxiety and diminishing as anxiety levels subsided.

Three additional key elements Prasad proposed were uncertainty, importance and belief: Prasad

felt that rumors provide a sense of meaning and answers when situations do not permit clear

understanding and control, particularly concerning issues not easily verifiable. Prasad further

theorized that in order for rumors to persist, the subject matter must be important to those

individuals within the transmitting group. In addition, as the uncertainty and anxiety levels

increase, those group members who find importance in the subject matter are less able to

critically analyze the rumor’s credibility and veracity. Prasad’s work was originally ignored by

many researchers, but was eventually recognized as having validity (Bordia and DiFonzo 2002).

In 1947, Gordon Allport and Leo Postman published The Psychology of Rumor , which

would become the definitive study of rumors for the next thirty years. In their analysis, Allport

and Postman (1947) outlined what they called “the basic law of rumor”, which concluded that

the level of rumor transmission varied proportionally with the subject matter’s importance to the

group, multiplied by the uncertainty of the evidence available . As with Prasad (1935), Allport

and Postman (1947) theorized that rumor creation and transmission was an attempt at finding

meaning and answers in unclear situations, as well as recognizing the impact that importance to

the group has (Bordia and DiFonzo 2002; Rosnow 1988). Accordingly, Allport and Postman

(1947) felt that rumors were an attempt to lessen anxiety levels and their accompanying tensions

(Bordia and Rosnow 1998). One of the primary limiters of Allport and Postman’s research

methodology was their use of the serial reproduction paradigm (Cornwell and Hobbs 1992),

which is a one-way communication process not allowing for cross-examination by the receiver

(Bordia and Rosnow 1998). This served to ignore the dynamics normally witnessed in face-to-

face communication and its possible influences on rumor transmission. More recent research has

recognized the importance of this dynamic and has taken it into consideration. The result is a

more comprehensive understanding of the influences on why rumors live or die.

RUMORS AS A FORM OF COMMUNICATION

It is generally agreed that the formation of rumors are usually attempts at sense-making

and filling the void created by the absence of information in unclear situations. For the

purposes of this paper, we offer the following definition of rumor: A rumor is a hypothesis

offered in the absence of verifiable information regarding uncertain circumstances that are

important to those individuals who are subsequently anxious about their lack of control resulting

from this uncertainty.

As such, there appears to be a general consensus among researchers, with some

dissension, as to how rumors are typically born. A review of the literature seems to indicate that

the real question of interest to researchers, more-so than how and why rumors are born, is how

and why rumors are passed along. It is important to note, however, that rumor generation and

rumor transmission cannot be viewed strictly as necessarily having separate and distinct

causations.

The basic structure of communication consists of a sender (the one speaking or writing)

creating a message by encoding their intended meaning, who then transmits/sends that message

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association of Collegiate Marketing Educators (2005) . . . page 86

to a receiver (the one listening or reading), who in turn decodes the message by assigning

meaning to the words received. Words themselves may have no meaning since meaning is

assigned by the receiver. It is the assignment of meaning by the receiver that can be one possible

factor in a rumor’s creation and transmission. In other words, a rumor can begin simply by the

receiver’s misinterpretation of the intended message, which is then transmitted to others

(Kapferer 1992). In addition, the real or perceived absence of complete information can lead to

the receiver filling in the blanks, thus altering the original intended message which is

subsequently passed on (Kapferer 1992). It could likewise be postulated that the failure to fill in

the blanks of a misunderstood message could act as a contributing factor to a rumor’s continued

transmission. In such a case, instead of acting as an offered explanation for an uncertain event or

circumstance, it actually creates uncertainty through its incompleteness of information,

prompting receivers to ask why and possibly leading to their filling in the blanks, further altering

the message’s original intent.

Sociological researchers recognized the importance of examining and understanding the

role of communicative patterns in rumor transmission. University of California at Berkley

sociologist Andrew Noymer concluded that “rumor transmission is one of the most natural forms

of social communication” (Noymer 2001). In recent research, sociologists have proposed that

within groups, opinions, explanations and predictions are exchanged until “an acceptable

interpretation emerges” regarding a rumor’s content and believability (Bordia and Rosnow

1998). In fact, studies have shown that the primary goal of such collective communication to be

the determination of a rumor’s veracity. Sociologists have termed this interaction as a “group

problem-solving activity” (Bordia and Rosnow 1998).

THE STUDY OF COLLECTIVE COMMUNICATION ONLINE

The study of collective communication in a naturalistic setting has always been

problematic for researchers. Among the issues faced in conducting this type of research are the

problems of observation, data collection and recording, and remaining unobtrusive (Bordia

1996). The advent and proliferation of the Internet, referred to as computer-mediated

communication (CMC) networks by researchers, has significantly reduced these constraints,

making it not only easier to collect and record data, but also allowing researchers to effectively

eaves-drop in an ethical manner. Researchers are able to find and observe rumor discussions by

monitoring the various newsgroups, bulletin boards and chat rooms that are located on the

Internet. Participants in these online discussion groups recognize that their communications are

of a public nature, thus permitting researchers to avoid the issue of privacy violation more

typically associated with attempting to observe face-to-face communication unnoticed (Bordia

1996).

CMC based research indicates that individuals participate in these discussion groups for

the purpose of discussing the veracity of the rumor in question (Bordia 1996). Among other

things, researchers have been able to determine that rumor discussion participants in a CMC

environment exhibit the same group development characteristics as outlined in group

development literature (Bordia and Rosnow 1998). In addition, discussions within the CMC

environment exhibit many of the same fundamental communicative patterns and characteristics

found in face-to-face communication (Bordia 1996), further validating the position sociologists

have held concerning the importance of communicative patterns in rumor transmission.

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association of Collegiate Marketing Educators (2005) . . . page 87

THE URBAN LEGEND CONNECTION

A not so removed subset of rumor research is the study of urban legends. Many

researchers contend that urban legends are not really a distinctly separate form of sociological

communication, rather they are actually a form of narrative rumor. In fact, in most instances in

the literature, urban legends tend to be referred to as rumor-legends. For the sake of brevity, we

will simply refer to them as legends. As a point of connection, while legends tend to be more

complex and story-like than rumors, both are transmitted with the intention of being believed, are

told as being true, and are difficult to verify (Heath, Bell, and Sternberg 2001). In addition, in

the course of studying legends and rumors, many of the stories analyzed share many similarities

(Heath, Bell and Sternberg 2001). One key difference that separates legends from rumors is the

fact that legends tend to have a significantly longer shelf life (or online life) than rumors

(Noymer 2001).

Legends employ the use of an ironic twist to convey a message that typically reinforces

social mores and norms by warning the receiver that negative results are likely should these

norms and mores be violated (Donavan, Mowen and Chakraborty 2001; Kamins, Folkes and

Perner 1997). Legends, in much similar fashion to most rumors, typically contribute to an

increased transmission within groups by conveying negative information and may at times be

centered around a particular product type or brand (Donavan, Mowen and Chakraborty 2001).

Many times these legends are transmitted within groups as a way of warning other group

members to avoid certain situations or actions, including the avoidance of particular products or

brands (Donavan, Mowen and Chakraborty 2001; Kamins, Folkes and Perner 1997). The

primary transmission vehicle of legends, as with rumors, is face-to-face communication

(Llewllyn 1996). As with rumors, through the course of transmitting legends, information may

be changed. One of the biggest differences is that typically with legends, the changes made are

peripheral in nature, updating the time and location of the story, while the core message remains

unchanged (Llewllyn 1996). This is in fact what helps contribute to the longevity of legends. Of

particular importance in the transmission of legends is the use of the Internet, which makes it

possible to communicate with thousands almost instantly (Donavan, Mowen and Chakraborty

2001).

INTERNET HOAXES

A hoax is defined as “an act, document or artifact intended to deceive the public.”

(Emery 2004). Internet hoaxes can be viewed as a subset of folklore legends; however, the key

factor that separates an urban legend from a hoax is that a hoax is a deliberate deception (Emery

2004, West 1999). Most hoaxes found on the Internet can be classified as either Internet chain

letters, computer virus/software hoaxes, medical hoaxes, rumors, jokes, or legends (Hoaxbusters

2004a). Internet chain letters may take on many forms: some require that the receiver pass on

information to others in a group (usually by way of warnings or threats if information is not

directly passed on to a certain number of people) while some tie into a receiver’s greed or play to

a receiver’s sympathy. While the proliferation of the Internet, the computer virus/software hoax

has quickly become one of the most prevalent forms of hoaxes. The first documented virus (2400

baud modem virus) occurred in October 1988 and since that time, not only has the frequency of

virus hoaxes increased, but many continue to circulate on the Internet for years (Hoaxbusters

2004b).

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association of Collegiate Marketing Educators (2005) . . . page 88

WORD OF MOUTH COMMUNICATIONS

The communication process coupled with the transmission of rumors, hoaxes, and

legends can and do have a direct impact on business, particularly when the subject involved is a

firm’s product. Marketers term the communication between consumers as word-of-mouth

(WOM) (Kamins et al. 1987). The study and understanding of the impact and significance of

WOM communications, whether the information that is being transmitted is true or false, is of

great concern to marketers. One reason for this is due to consumers being influenced more by

WOM than by any other source; including Consumer Reports, which is the best known objective

source of consumer product information (Kamins, Folkes and Perner 1997). As with legend

research, relatively few studies have been conducted concerning rumors in the marketplace. The

research that has been conducted seems to indicate that, as with rumors and legends in general,

negative product rumors tend to be transmitted more readily than positive rumors due to negative

information being considered more indicative of actual product performance (Kamins, Folkes

and Perner 1997). Factoring in the ease of dissemination of rumors and legends via CMC

(especially through forwarded email) along with the issue of trust between communicating

parties (i.e. “I trust the person that sent this to me, so this could be true”), word of mouth

communication can spread as quickly as any computer virus.

BUSINESS IMPLICATIONS

As rumor research has evolved toward the practice of exploring CMC as a research tool,

so has legend and marketing research. One reason for this is the increased use of CMC by

consumers searching for information before making a purchasing decision (Kozinets 2002). This

need to understand consumer WOM is further enhanced by the knowledge that consumer support

acts as a key factor regarding positive brand equity. More and more, consumers are utilizing

CMC as a vehicle to discuss and voice their opinions concerning product preference and

performance (Kozinets 2002; Mudhar 1999).

Negative product rumors also abound on the Internet in the form of hoaxed web sites and

e-mails. Among the more prevalent Internet hoaxes are those that center around aspects of

everyday life such as food safety and public health (Dayly 2004). These subject areas are

especially fertile ground for rumor transmission in that they are considered as important by the

receiving group members. With more and more consumers using the Internet as a source of

information, hoaxed web sites are particularly problematic in that they more closely resemble

legitimate information sources. The result is consumer confusion and a very real potential for

firms and their products being harmed as a result of lost customers and damaged reputation. The

issue has become such a problem that governmental agencies, such as the Food & Drug

Administration, have implemented information programs in an attempt to combat many of these

hoaxes and rumors (Dayly 2004). The Department of Energy’s Computer Incident Advisory

Capability staff estimated that the costs associated with a single virus hoax (note hoax, not a real

virus) to be more than $40 million (Bedell 2002). Furthermore, the rise of popularity of internet

websites which deal with the evaluation of the validity of internet rumors and hoaxes (ex.,

www.snopes.com) hint at the need for rational thought and evaluation of said rumors along with

their associated costs. While it may be difficult to place an exact monetary amount on what

internet rumors, hoaxes and legends cost each year, more research needs to be done to address

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association of Collegiate Marketing Educators (2005) . . . page 89

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: