GOSSIP, RUMOURS, URBAN LEGENDS

Abstract: According to some researchers, rumour, gossip and urban legend share a
common territory. They are spread by word-of-mouth in several versions and typically refer to
contemporary events or persons. European scholars, like Jean-Nol Kapferer, would rather
use the term rumour instead of urban legend which he calls floating myth or
exemplary story. We shall therefore explore in this article the relationship of urban legends
with gossip and rumour.
Key-words: gossip, rumour, urban legend, credibility, truth.
According to some researchers, rumour, gossip and urban legend share a common
territory. They are spread by word-of-mouth in several versions and typically refer to
contemporary events or persons. The three terms are used interchangeably: one single piece of
information that is unconfirmed is, simultaneously, considered to be an urban legend by
folklorists, a rumour by the mass-media, gossip by a group or community or true occurrence
by the one telling it.
Gossip
American sociologists Ralph L. Rosnow and Gary Alan Fine defined gossip as a
piece of information that circulates within the limited circle of acquaintances, regards aspects
of their private lives and may be relatively easy to verify as being true or false (Rosnow, Fine
1976 apud Eretescu 2007: 187), unlike rumour which conveys information of general interest
the veracity of which cannot be easily proved. According to Jean-Nol Kapferer, gossip
relates to people: it recounts the joys and sorrows of those around us, whether rich or poor,
important or insignificant. Generally, gossip is not malicious and is practised especially for
the sake of chatting, of having a conversation topic: the interest raised is short-lived, hence
gossip must be quickly replaced by a new, spicier one (Kapferer 1993: 42). Therefore, gossip
reflects a moral code of a small group whereas rumour expresses a public moral code and may
be less spontaneous than gossip.
Gossip is an unverified message about some one while rumour is an unverified
message about some thing, either trite or of great importance (de Vos 1996: 21).
All three forms of communication, gossip, rumour and urban legend, rely on the
transmission from one person to another of a piece of information presented as true. All of
them are forms of entertainment, expression of fears and anxieties and justification for various

actions or beliefs, providing clues about the participants opinions or their sources of
information. All three of them use concrete details in order to increase credibility, claiming to
transmit inside information; have a content which relates to extraordinary events or
experiences, being rooted in real experiences and focusing on events that are relevant for both
the teller and the listener; are reports which can be updated with contemporary facts and, at
the same time, make use of traditional materials and folk beliefs.
Jan Harold Brunvand, the American expert on urban legends, believes that, despite
the similarities between legends and rumours, and although contemporary legends may
explain or incorporate rumours, legends tend to attach themselves to different local settings,
have a longer life-span, and have a wider acceptance than rumours and gossip (Brunvand
1980: 51 apud de Vos 1996: 22).
As regards the functions of gossip, Rosnow and Fine identified three types:
informative (gossip outlines a picture of the social environment), moralising (gossip as an
instrument of manipulation through which one seeks to gain social control over another) and
entertaining (gossip told for the amusement of participants) (Rosnow, Fine 1976: 130 apud de
Vos 1996: 23).
Rumour
The first systematic studies on this phenomenon each of us is acquainted with (and
which probably emerged with the first human communities) appeared during World War II
and belong to American researchers. To Allport and Postman, rumour is a statement related to
up-to-date events, intended to be believed, spread from person to person, usually by word-ofmouth, in the absence of concrete evidence to certify its accuracy (Allport, Postman 1946
apud Kapferer 1993: 27), while Peterson and Gist state that rumour is an unverified account
or explanation of events, circulating from person to person and pertaining to an object, event,
or issue of public concern (Peterson, Gist 1951: 159). Jean-Nol Kapferer defines rumour as
the emergence and circulation among the members of society of pieces of information that are
either still unconfirmed publicly by official sources or denied by them (Kapferer 1993: 39).
Furthermore, according to the Romanian folklorist Constantin Eretescu, rumour is a statement
which conveys unsubstantiated information. Rumours, he says, are born and circulate when
information dissemination channels are blocked or discredited, when no one is in possession
of full information and when the resources that might validate the truth are absent (Eretescu
2004: 300).
Starting from the rumour sources, Kapferer devised a typology which includes six
basic types (Kapferer 1993: 288):

Rumour source

Occurrence

Spontaneous
Provoked
(deliberate)

an event

a detail

pure imagination

The first type comprises rumours that are the spontaneous result of an uncertain or
ambiguous event:
[] In the absence of quick and acceptable official responses, the spectators at the
event have formed their own personal and collective view of the facts (Ibid. 289).
Type 2 rumours, provoked or deliberate, result from the involvement of actors
seeking to take advantage from an event by willingly and intentionally introducing certain
situations (Ibid.), varying from deliberate misinformation to a search of sensationalism. In
other words, events are deliberately misinterpreted and spread for social or political gain.
With type 3, rumours are based on details or signs, not noticed initially, which
suddenly draw the attention of the community. These previously hidden realities are revealed
due to the selective attention of people, for details have always been there but havent
received special meaning. The fourth type of rumours occurs when the interpretation of signs
is purposely inoculated into the body of society (Ibid. 290).
Type 5 rumours, Kapferer states, develop from scratch. These accounts emerge
without having been based on a fact, sign or detail that is subject to interpretation, that is, in
other words, contemporary legends. These rumours are like collective dreams that are
spontaneously born and reborn here and there, always enjoying high credibility (Ibid.).
Finally, type 6 category rumours are invented by the teller in order to provoke a certain
reaction in the audience.
Several conditions are necessary for a rumour to grow: ambiguity and anxiety about
a subject, a need for news on a certain event and a lack of trustworthy information or solid
evidence. Rumours emerge and flourish in unusual or unfamiliar circumstances, such as major
disturbances (natural disasters, wars) or local intrusions (such as that of a stranger in a
community or the disappearance of a child). Rumour must come from a reliable source within
the group, its content must be plausible and in accordance with the existing mood (Shibutani
1966: 199). Rumour can only survive if the person spreading the message is credible or does
not violate the community system of values and beliefs.

Rumours are, usually, short-lived. Many go out by themselves either because people
get bored with the topic or the rumour is proven unfounded. Rumours about disasters cease to
exist because they have been denied by a credible source, while those that haven not been
proved groundless become part of traditional folklore and evolve into urban legends, with
much wider circulation. Canadian researcher Gail de Vos provides the example of the stolen
kidney legend, which reflects the fears and anxieties of urban life, a legend that, she states,
originates in rumours based on real cases of violent attacks followed by robbery. The rumour
is embellished with additional details so that it ultimately results in organ theft for illegal
transplants. The rumour becomes an urban legend circulating on a wider scale. These
legends often go into hibernation until a new rumour awakens the legend and starts it
circulating again (de Vos 1996: 26).
Jean-Nol Kapferer presents the six reasons why we spread rumours (Kapferer
1993: 67-77):
1. Rumours are news. News is not an account or anecdote, but information that has
pragmatic interest to the public. The first reaction of a reader or listener to news is to repeat it
and discuss it with someone else, to try to understand it. Attention shifts very quickly from
repeating the news to interpreting it and drawing conclusions (de Vos 1996: 27).
2. We speak in order to know. We talk about topics in order to understand them and, as
readers trust the press, they think facts are authentic and verified. However, the information
conveyed orally is not believed instantly and the listener needs to discuss the details so as to
know what to believe. According to Kapferer, what the group to which we belong considers to
be true is true: To speak is to start up a process of discussion and elaboration on the basis of
news, with the aim of arriving at a collective definition of reality. And, furthermore, It is
through rumours that the group communicates to us what we must think if we are to continue
to be part of it (Kapferer 1993: 71)
3. We speak in order to convince. The speaker is fully involved in the content of the rumour
and wants to make others be aware of the facts. This happens when rumours exploit personal
anxieties or solve conflicts. [] rumours become an attempt to convert people to ones own
views: the more the circle of believers expands, the more one feels one is right (Ibid. 72).
4. We speak in order to release tension. Speaking about such things is the first step towards
reducing anxiety: our interlocutors may prove that the rumour is groundless or meaningless
(Ibid.).
5. We speak in order to be liked. Rumours are conveyed because they are startling, amusing
or shocking and the teller seeks to entertain the audience. The passing of a rumour, just like

the telling of a joke, is done for entertainment and prestige, only rumour claims to be real.
Therefore, Kapferer says, urban legends resist and perpetuate in time: they are savoured at
the end of a meal, or in a bar while sipping on an after-dinner drink. They provide a certain
momentary pleasure in consuming (Ibid. 74).
6. We speak for the sake of speaking. Rumours break the ice and fill in conversation gaps.
They are transmitted because people need to talk about something. That is why washing
places, markets, hairdressers, hallways and cafeterias are the hubs of rumours. [] it is here
that information, whether true or false, born of the need to arouse interest, converse or say
something entertaining, is created and transmitted (Kapferer 1993: 76).
The power of rumours must not be underestimated. Strong rumours shape or limit
the effectiveness of political, economic and cultural institutions. They are markers of public
attitudes and concerns (Fine 1991: apud de Vos1996: 28). Periods of tension and unrest,
such as wars or disasters, fuel rumours and fall prey to racial prejudice (sometimes otherwise
latent), leading to the revival of folk beliefs, creation of new myths or lunching of rumours.
Rumour lies at the basis of narratives that have become urban legends after the
generation that witnessed the real events had disappeared (Eretescu 2007: 191). Furthermore,
Kapferer includes urban legends, which he calls floating myths or exemplary stories, in
the category of rumours (Kapferer 1993: 56), explaining that are intended to give examples
which have moral implications. Both urban legend and rumour convey facts demanding the
audience to accept them as true. And for facts to be credible and doubts removed, the teller of
the rumour/legend resorts to claiming proximity to the centre of dissemination: I know it from
a reliable source, X, who is a close friend of., told me (Eretescu 2004: 303).
In a study published in 1972, American folklorist Patrick B. Mullen associates the
theory of rumours with the study of contemporary legends. According to him, rumours
consolidate already existing legends: [...] a legend which does not have oral circulation but
exists in the memory of the people of a community may spring back to life when a suggestive
rumor becomes current (Mullen 1972: 98). To Mullen, the difference between rumour and
legend consists mainly in the traditional content and stereotypical epic form of legend.
However, both rumour and legend have two functions in common. First of all, a cognitive
function: in the absence of official information to clarify ambiguous situations, participants
try to explain those things which are not evident, to fill in the gaps (Mullen 1972: 108), or in
Tamotsu Shibutanis words, men caught together in an ambiguous situation attempt to
construct a meaningful interpretation of it by pooling their intellectual resources (Shibutani
1966:17). The second common function is the emotional one that refers to stress and anxieties

deriving from crises. In such circumstances, immediate relief of tension is sought, and since
ordinary modes of communication do not provide enough information quickly, rumours and
legends become the tools meant to dissipate the feeling of uncertainty and insecurity (Mullen
1972: 105).
Some scholars consider the rumour to be urban legend, as is Janet Langlois:
Urban legend is also related to rumor, the passing on of unverified or unsecured
information in statement form. Some scholars see rumor as incipient legend and legend as
elaborated rumor, and so interpret these contemporary communication patterns in similar
ways, regardless of whether or not their information is later verified, or whether or not they
are believed by the people transmitting them. (Langlois 2008: 1004)
Urban legends are closer to the definition of rumour than gossip for both (i.e. legend
and rumour) relate to events at a greater scale, with a much wider audience than gossip. Two
essential characteristics of rumour and legend are credibility of the content and of the teller
and a homogenic culture within which to transmit the item (de Vos 1996: 29).
As credibility is, in general, missing in rumours, the personal confirmation of the
truth is required in order for the listener to accept the information. This confirmation is,
usually, indirect information from a friend known to have been witness to the event the
friend of a friend of the urban legend. Rumours always reach us through a friend,
colleague, or relative who was not himself the firsthand witness of the event in question, but a
friend of that witness (Kapferer 1993: 30). Both rumour and legend make use of several
devices to capture the publics attention, such as beginning, introduction formulas meant to
certify to the credibility of the source and information. This confirmation of legend or rumour
credibility is important because it can trigger discussions within the group whose members
decide whether the information is reliable or not.
In order to be sustained, rumour must comply with the communitys current
anxieties, attitudes, expectations. This common cultural background is equally needed for the
dissemination of urban legends. Even if logic may discourage beliefs in both types of
communication, rumours and legends transmit a moral or symbolic truth relevant to the
audience and the teller as well. And if the public does not share the cultural convictions of the
teller, the rumour or legend will not be believed or transmitted further.
It is the capacity to influence our perceptions and make sense of facts we have
overlooked or the meaning of which has not been obvious to us that the power of rumours and
urban legends consists in. This process is illustrated by a Chinese parable from the 3 rd century
BC:

A man could not find his axe. He suspected the neighbours son had taken it and
started to watch him. The way he walked and talked clearly showed he was an axe thief. His
manners and behaviour betrayed the man who had stolen an axe. However, suddenly, while
digging the earth, the man found his axe. The next day, when he looked at the neighbours son
again, he saw that nothing in the way the boy walked or behaved suggested an axe thief.
(Delumeau 1986: 87).
References
ALLPORT, Gordon W. and POSTMAN, Leo (1946): An Analysis of Rumor in The Public
Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 4 (1946-1947), pp. 501-517 apud Kapferer, JeanNol (1993): Zvonurile. Cel mai vechi mijloc de informare din lume (transl. by
Marina Vazaca), Bucureti, Ed. Humanitas.
BRUNVAND, Jan Harold (1980): Heard about the solid cement Cadillac or the nude in the
camper or the alligator in the sewer or the snake in the K-Mart? apud de Vos, Gail
(1996): Tales, Rumors, and Gossip: Exploring Contemporary Folk Literature in
Grades 7-12, Westport, Libraries Unlimited.
DELUMEAU, Jean (1986): Frica n Occident (secolele XIV-XVIII): o cetate asediat, Vol. I,
Bucureti, Editura Meridiane.
DE VOS, Gail (1996): Tales, Rumors, and Gossip: Exploring Contemporary Folk Literature
in Grades 7-12, Westport, Libraries Unlimited.
ERETESCU, Constantin (2007): tima apei. Studii de mitologie i folclor , Bucureti, Ed.
Tehnologic.
ERETESCU, Constantin (2004): Folclorul literar al romnilor: o privire contemporan,
Bucureti, Ed. Compania.
KAPFERER, Jean-Nol (1993): Zvonurile. Cel mai vechi mijloc de informare din lume
(transl. by Marina Vazaca), Bucureti, Ed. Humanitas.
LANGLOIS, Janet (2008): Urban Legend in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Folktales
and Fairy Tales (editor Donald Haase), Westport, Connecticut London,
Greenwood Press.
PETERSON, Warren A. and GIST, Noel P. (1951): Rumor and Public Opinion in American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Sept. 1951), pp. 159-167, The University of
Chicago Press, available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2772077, accessed on
04.08.2014.

MULLEN, Patrick B. (1972): Modern Legend and Rumor Theory in Journal of the
Folklore Institute, Vol. 9, No. 2/3 (Aug. - Dec., 1972), pp. 95-109, Indiana
University Press, available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3814160, accessed on
04.08.2014.
ROSNOW, Ralph L. and FINE, Gary Alan (1976): Rumor and Gossip: The Social Psychology
of Hearsay apud Eretescu, Constantin (2007): tima apei. Studii de mitologie i
folclor, Bucureti, Ed. Tehnologic; apud de Vos, Gail (1996): Tales, Rumors, and
Gossip: Exploring Contemporary Folk Literature in Grades 7-12, Westport,
Libraries Unlimited.
SHIBUTANI, Tamotsu (1966): Improvised News: A Sociological Study of Rumor, New York,
The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.