It is the year 1921; a race riot is plaguing the Greenwood District of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Armed White American men are destroying the once thriving and vibrant community of African Americans. Looters enter the African American owned buildings and businesses and many homes and infrastructures are on fire. Large trucks roll down the road, carrying stolen household goods from African American houses. Buck Colbert Franklin, a black attorney, is watching all these commotion from outside his burning law office. It took only two days for the Tulsa Race riot to make over 10,000 black residents homeless, and destroy over 1,256 houses.
A rumored assault by a 19-year-old Black young man to a 17-year-old white young American girl sparked the Tulsa race riot. A local newspaper writer reported that a white girl slapped a Negro boy in a crowded elevator. However, upon police investigation, no concrete evidence surfaced to show that an assault really happened. There are speculations that the boy accidentally stepped on the girl’s foot. Other rumors say that they were young couple quarreling.
Whatever the case may be, the race riot fiasco clearly shows how rumors, regardless of its validity, can be potent and cause real and dire consequences. More so now, as the internet is increasingly available for many. It has become very easy to share information to large number of people in just a few clicks, more and more people share multitudes of ideas of the modern platforms we currently have now. Thus, it is interesting and relevant to think about how people form rumors, how they spread, and why they exist and is continuously passed on.
This essay will try to evaluate the different theories on rumors. Using the Toulmin approach, I argue that rumors and gossip have significant differences and that rumors presents more serious context and consequences.
Gossip versus Rumor
First, before understanding rumor, it is important to differentiate between rumor and gossip. According to DiFonzo and Bordia, laypersons and even professional scholars tend to use rumor and gossip interchangeably (19). At face value, gossip and rumor may have the same manner of transmission (through informal communication from one person to another). However, they have substantial differences in terms of form, function, and content.
Rosnow and Foster (n.d) argued that gossip is likely to form within groups. It has “an inner-circleness about it” as most of its content is about specific stories and information that is passed “between two people who share the common group, history, or interest” (Rosow and Foster, n.d). Guerin and Miyazaki further defined rumor as having “personal consequences and interest to listeners”, “difficult to verify”, “credible despite ambiguities”, “ short”, controversial, “new or novel”, “can be humorous” and “unusual or unexpected” (26).
DiFanzo and Bordia (25), on the other hand, defined gossip a form for social talk that aare created specifically for “social network formation, change and maintenance”. Gossip plays a substantial role in the group maintenance as it evaluates and establishes group norms and structures.
Defining Rumor: Forms and Context
With the definition of rumor, also come with the understanding its formation. Rumor, according to DiFanzo and Bordia is unverifiable, but its content is “instrumentally relevant” (19). Rumors arise due to lack of clear and official information. Rumors provide information, however unreliable in times of “ambiguity and potential threat” (20). This helps people cope with their anxieties and answers their need for security.
Allport and Postman are the first to study rumors during World War II. They wanted to see how rumors that are circulating among the civilians and soldiers affect their moral (as cited by Irving, 617). They argued that people spread rumors because they constantly endeavor to find meanings, and that they try to understand or form meanings through retelling the rumors they know.
Henslin (631) and Rosnow (as cited by Hinton, n.d) argued that rumors thrive because of three things: importance, ambiguity, and source. The content of the rumors are important to the listeners. This makes them pay attention to the rumor. Rosnow, like Allport and Postman (as cited by Guerin and Miyazaki, 24) argued that rumors answers ambiguity. Tis is because people listen to rumors and believes so that they can relieve their anxiety, especially in times when facts are sparse. Rosnow also argued that rumors needs to have some form of credibility before the listeners accepts it.
Allport and Postman also provided insights on how rumors changed as they progress from one person to another. They posit that rumors first leveled, or shortened. People sharpen rumors as some details change or left out. They are then, assimilated to the listeners so they become relatable and interesting (Allport and Postman as cited by Guerin and Miyazaki).
Rumors in Conversationalist Theory
Guerin and Miyazaki provides an alternative perspective on their theory on rumor. They used the conversational approach to understand and define rumor. They contest traditional views on rumors, specifically its function as an information source and anxiety reliever (24). Rather, they argued that people used rumors for conversational materials.
They define rumors accordingly (Guerin and Miyazaki, 26): Rumors are” generally interesting”, has a “personal consequence to listeners”, it is difficult to verify, “credible despite ambiguities”. Rumors are also short. Its content is controversial—either it is a horrific or scandalous information, and they are “new or novel.”
Guerin and Miyaziki aims to provide a more “social” aspect to the theory of rumors by arguing that people tell rumors as a way of communication. Specifically, they contend that people use rumors as conversational material, and most importantly as way to form good relationship. They agree with Allport and Postman that the creation of rumors is more likely when information is sparse. However, people tell rumors not because it helps in reducing anxiety, but it is exactly the opposite—because they are anxiety provoking (25).
Unlike DiFonzo and Bordia (27), Guerin and Miyazaki do not see gossip and rumor as fundamentally different from each other (30). They may be different in form specifically their conversational properties and effects to the relationship, but not in function. Guerin and Miyazaki compares telling rumors to sharing stories such as urban legends, telling jokes, complaining, or complimenting (26). Rumors, according to them, are simply materials use in discourse to help increase the speaker’s relationship with the listener.
Refuting Guerin and Miyazaki
Guerine and Miyazaki provides substantial insights to the conversational aspect of rumors. However, by denying the fundamental differences of gossip and rumors, they also fail to completely understand and effectively define rumor. DiFonzo and Brodia argued that there ae substantial differences with gossip and rumors. Although both are used in conversations and as “commodities” for communication exchanges, rumors invoke deeper and far more serious consequences than “a good relationship.”. For one, there are two kinds of rumors: the wish rumors and the dread rumors (Rosnow and Foster, n.d). Wish rumors usually inspires consequences that are desirable, while dread rumors do the opposite. These differences imply emotional cognition from both the speaker and listeners. While gossip functions as a material for social chat, rumors can provide “potentially threatening contexts” (DiFonzo and Brodia, 28), that can prompt people to act drastically so as they can manage threat or risk. Take for example the Tulsa race riot shown above. One rumor, spread by a local newspaper writer costs hundreds of lives and properties to ruin. Moreover, rumors many not always be a about individuals. For instance, rumors of a lay-off in an office can inspire job insecurities among employees. Its consequences are entirely different from say, a gossip that a boss and a co-worker are having an affair.
However, some hybrids are hard to categorize in either rumor or gossip. For example, personal affairs of powerful people, say the president of the country. They may involve personal and scandalous affairs of individuals, however, the social circumstances in which these individuals are situated in must be take into account in evaluating whether or not a piece of information is a rumor or a gossip.
Conclusion
The literatures that examine the formation and spread of rumors are continuing to expand. It is important to understand how rumors form and spread. We showed that the creation of rumors happens because of the high ambiguity and insecurity. Rumors thrive because it helps people to get some form of security and certainty through the information it provides. Most importantly, people use rumors in risk and threat management.
Although both gossip and rumors are useful materials in informal communication, they are contextually motivationally and functionally different. Gossip is a form of social talk that ca be useful in reinforcing social norms and group structure, while rumor can provide as potentially relevant information in threat management, and anxiety relief. Understanding the differences between these two can help in understanding both the effects and response of individuals and groups to gossip and rumor. It can also aid in creating strategies to better manipulate, intervene, or even correct information that the public consumes.
Works Cited
Guerin, Bernard, and Yoshihiko Miyazaki. “Analyzing Rumors, Gossip, and Urban Legends Through Their Conversational Properties.” The Psychological Record, 56.1 (2006): 23–34. <http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&context=tpr>
Hinton, Perry R. The Perception of People: Integrating Cognition and Culture. New York, NY: Routledge, 2015. Print.
Henslin, James. Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach. Boston, MA: Pearsons, 2012. Print.
Irving, John A. The Public Opinion Quarterly 11.4 (1947): 617-22. Web.
DiFonzo, Nicholas, and Prashant Bordia. “Rumor, Gossip and Urban Legends” DiogenesS 213 (2007): 19–35. Print.
Rosnow, Ralph L., and Eric K. Foster. “Rumor and Gossip Research.” American Psychological Association Apr. 2005: n. pag. <http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2005/04/gossip.aspx>.
