Have You Heard About Hairy-Armed Killers, Defiled Steaks and Contaminated Condiments? Affect, Interpersonal Relationships and Urban Legend Transmission

The aim of the present thesis is to test a model of urban legend transmission by examining patterns of transmission, the interpersonal functions of transmission, and the role of affect. Urban legends are virulent and persist despite efforts to prevent, cease, or reduce their transmission. The thesis reviews existing explanations for urban legend transmission before presenting the current model to be tested. The model in the present thesis incorporates core social motives (Fiske, 2000, 2004), conversational pragmatics (Grice, 1975), and rationality of purpose (Evans, Over, & Manktelow, 1993) to examine the transmission process within the social context. The model proposes that urban legends are transmitted for the purpose of achieving core social motives such as belonging, by increasing social bonding and affiliation between known others. The model draws on rationality of purpose and conversational pragmatics to help explain the unusual behaviour of the teller (transmitting implausible stories as though they are true) and receiver (failing to question the plausibility of the legend) respectively, in the transmission process. Chapter 2 presents Study 1, which aimed to examine the primary motivation for transmitting an urban legend (meeting core social motives), the optimal social distance for transmission, the role of affect, and the likelihood of transmission of an urban legend when compared to a vivid and neutral story. Study 1 found a clear pattern of transmission of urban legends to particular characters, with close friends the most preferred receivers followed by acquaintances and then strangers. The legend was rated as more likely to be transmitted to the close friend than were the vivid or neutral stories; the legend was rated as equally likely to be transmitted to the acquaintance as was the vivid story, but the legend was rated as more likely to be transmitted to the acquaintance than was the neutral story. There were no differences in the rated likelihood of transmission between stories for the stranger. Further, the presence of negative affect alone did not predict the likelihood of transmission. The legend was rated as the least believable story and the most likely to be told to the close friend (over the vivid story which was a more plausible account of danger), suggesting that warning others is not the primary motivation for transmission. Chapter 3 presents Study 2, in which the legend type was changed, using a fear based legend rather than the disgust based legend used in Study 1. However, the findings from Study 2 were generally consistent with Study 1. The main difference was that Study 2 found that the legend was rated the most likely story to be told to all characters, followed by the vivid, then the neutral, stories. Chapter 4 presents the qualitative information relating to the reasons for legend transmission obtained from Studies 1 and 2. Coding the open-ended responses provided valuable information about specific motivations of transmission that could be measured. This chapter outlines how the materials for Study 3 were developed. Chapter 5 presents Study 3, which aimed to test specific motivations of transmission based on the relationship the teller has with the receiver, and legend type. This study found that motivations of transmission such as gauging the other person’s reaction, sharing their own reaction, and the story being disturbing, shocking, or alarming were rated highly across all three characters. These motivations may be consistent with a social sharing of emotion explanation. This explanation suggests that people share emotional events with others because the sharing experience brings about interpersonal benefits such as the strengthening of social bonds and the improvement of interpersonal relationships (Zech & Rime, 2005). A teller sharing an urban legend and expressing their reaction to it or encouraging the receiver to share his or her own reaction, may lead to a positive social sharing experience, which may be beneficial for relationship maintenance. The diffuse transmission of legends and their spread across social networks may be explained by the receivers’ engaging in secondary social sharing. Urban legend transmission becoming a form of social sharing in an interaction, would be beneficial in meeting core social motives, such as belonging, by developing and enhancing affiliation and social bonds. Chapter 6 presents the main findings and implications and the directions for future research. Overall, there was support for some aspects of the model. There was some support for the hypothesis that the motivation for transmission is the need to meet core social motives by enhancing affiliation and strengthening social bonds. This finding also supports the rationality of purpose component of the model which suggests that if people are meeting goals through transmission, then their behaviour is in fact rational. There was also support for the hypothesis that the presence of negative affect alone is not sufficient motivation for transmission. There was no support in any of the studies for the hypothesis that acquaintances would be preferred targets for transmission. The current thesis did not examine transmission from the receiver’s perspective and this would be a useful direction for future research. The pattern of transmission was clearly established in this thesis and it is clear that interpersonal relationships have an important role in urban legend transmission. It is hoped that future research examines further the functions and consequences of urban legend transmission to understand the role of transmission in the social context and ultimately to prevent the negative outcomes that can be associated with constant recirculation of these legends.