Urban legends and rumors fuel conspiracy beliefs through shared truth-claims.

Evidence

The nature of conspiracy ideas can best be illuminated through the category of folklore known as the urban legend. According to one of its most prominent students, Jan Harold Brunvand, “Urban legends belong to the subclass of folk narratives, legends, that—unlike fairy tales—are believed, or at least believable, and that—unlike myths—are set in the recent past and involve normal human beings rather than ancient gods or demigods.” These stories are almost always false, “but are always told as true.” As Patricia A. Turner points out, urban legends—those that deal with distinctively modern themes—are closely related to rumors. Both purport to be true, or at least to be believable, and both circulate rapidly, though legends are likely to be more long-lived and complex. Beliefs that originally circulate as rumors may subsequently appear as elements of legends. — Michael Barkun, A Culture of Conspiracy, 113

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines urban legend through Brunvand’s formal criteria — believed but set in recent past among ordinary humans — and distinguishes it from rumor in longevity and complexity.
• XREF: Links to the social-reputation and rumor research in earlier reading on trust/social capital, and to ‘World of Strangers’ on rumor transmission speed. — connects to: Computer-Antichrist rumors grew so common even believers later repudiated them — Michael Barkun, A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic…, 259; Specific claims are subordinate to a superordinate conspiracy narrative — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 195

Broader Connections

• Specific claims are subordinate to a superordinate conspiracy narrative #expands (0.80) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 195