Might Memes Matter?
On the Relationship between Exposure to Internet Memes and Attitudes towards Global Issues
By Tom Willems (u1260314, ANR 677455)
MA Thesis Sociology Spring Semester 2020 Tilburg University
Under the supervision of Dr. Tim Reeskens Second Reader: Dr. Bram Peper
1 | P a g e
Abstract
This Master‟s Thesis aims to investigate the relationship between exposure to internet memes
about global issues, and a person‟s attitudes of concern towards said issues (or: their capacity
to take these issues seriously). A review of the available literature raises the suggestion that
internet memes may influence a person‟s attitudes of concern through the mechanism of humor. Humor, in turn relates to attitudes of concern through mechanisms of trivialization and
coping. Based on these expectations, a conceptual model and set of hypotheses are identified,
which are then tested through statistical analysis on data obtained through an experiment on
the topic of the global issue of climate change carried out amongst 224 students living in the
Netherlands. The results of this analysis reveal no significant effects of exposure to humorous
internet memes about the global issue of climate change on a person‟s attitudes of
environmental concern. However, the findings from the analysis do reveal new insights into
how internet memes might relate to (temporary) attitudinal changes and humor.
2 | P a g e
Table of Contents Abstract 2
[Chapter 1] Introduction 4
[Chapter 2] Theoretical Framework 9 [2.1] On Internet Memes and their Creator-Consumers 9 [2.2] On Attitudes towards Global Issues 15 [2.3] On Humor I: Defining Humor 17 [2.4] On Humor II: General Mechanisms 19 [2.5] On Humor III: Trivialization 24 [2.6] On Humor IV: Coping 25 [2.7] Conceptual Model 26
[Chapter 3] Methodology, Analysis & Results 28 [3.1] Research Design, Data Collection & Sample 28 [3.2] Measurement & Operationalization of Variables 32 [3.3] Analysis I: ANOVA 40 [3.4] Analysis II: EnvConcern Regressed 43 [3.5] Analysis III: Trivialization Regressed 46 [3.6] Analysis IV: Coping Regressed 49 [3.7] Analysis V: Final Model 52
[Chapter 4] Discussion & Conclusion 54
Reference List 62
Appendix: Questions Measuring Environmental Attitudes 71
3 | P a g e
Chapter 1: Introduction
There can be little doubt that amongst the many technological innovations made in the past few decades, one of the most impactful to the world has been the introduction of the internet.
Today, the internet is used by around 58.8% of the world population, and around 90% of
Europeans and Americans claim to regularly make use of it (Internet World Stats, 2019). The internet has provided the world with easy access to knowledge, communication and entertainment, and for many it is difficult to imagine a life without it.
Amongst the many novelties that have been introduced to the world with the rise of the internet, a curious phenomenon that has become increasingly wide-spread over the past decade is the „Internet Meme‟1: specific phrases, paragraphs, images or videos which are spread by internet users – typically because of their humorous nature – to other internet users
(Diaz & Mauricio, 2013; Kliger-Vilenchik & Thorson, 2016). Today, internet memes are created, spread, consumed and enjoyed by internet users throughout the world at a rapid pace: according to Wiggins & Bowers (2015, pp. 1890) “social networks distribute internet memes without cessation every moment of every day. Most Facebook users likely encounter a meme and/or distribute a meme daily.” Observing this reach and popularity internet memes have,
Segev et al. (2015, pp. 417-418) have noted them to be “part of the mundane „web diet‟ of many internet users, casually popping up in visits to platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit”. Internet memes can be created by anyone with “a minimum of required effort and added creativity” (Csordás et al., 2017, pp. 252), and can essentially relate to any imaginable topic, no matter how large or small they may be.
1 Today, it is common practice to abbreviate the phrase „internet meme‟ to simply the word „meme‟. Whilst the word „meme‟ is sometimes used to refer to other concepts (see also Chapter 1), in this Thesis, it will also refer to the concept of the „internet meme‟, unless stated otherwise.
4 | P a g e
Because of internet memes‟ common, effortless and easily-consumable nature, one may be quick to discount them as merely “insignificant embodiments of silliness and whimsicality”
(Shifman, 2014, pp. 340). However, as internet memes have grown more common and ingrained in our daily lives, “it has become increasingly important to see them as serious cultural objects” (Johnston, 2019) with impactful real-life effects on how certain issues are treated and perceived (Williams et al., 2016) and on how people shape their view of the world
(Huntington, 2017). Internet memes may very well not be “just funny” anymore (Klein,
2018), but phenomena with an actual widespread impact on societies worldwide. To illustrate, authors have noted that internet memes have played an influential role in shaping the 2012 presidential election in the United States (Klein, 2018; Heiskanen, 2017), with American news outlet The Independent even directly attributing (part of) Hillary Clinton‟s loss to political internet memes and warning that “politicians are ignoring them at their own peril”
(Denisova, 2016). Furthermore, internet memes have been noted to contribute to (online) racial discrimination (Williams et al., 2016), the creation of psychological biases (Diaz &
Mauricio, 2013) and opinion influencing (Kulkarni, 2017; Ross & Rivers, 2019)
Considering both the increasing popularity of internet memes and their notable real-life effects, it stands to reason that improving our understanding of this relatively novel phenomenon is a worthwhile endeavor. Whilst some researchers have picked up on this endeavor, a significant amount of the academic focus has been placed on the role internet memes play in shaping political attitudes specifically. Whilst this focus is certainly worthwhile, it is expectedly worthwhile to broaden this horizon in order to investigate to a greater extent different ways in which internet memes affect contemporary societies.
5 | P a g e
In line with this broadening of horizons, this Master‟s Thesis will focus on examining internet memes as relating to global issues. Like political internet memes, internet memes about serious topics oft on the minds of peoples like racism (Yoon, 2016), climate change (Davis et al., 2016), natural disasters (Marcus & Singer, 2017) and pandemics like the current COVID-
19 crisis (Haasch, 2020) are common. Also like with political internet memes, global-issues- related internet memes are expected to have a real-life impact on how global issues are treated and perceived, and how the place they are given in the world is shaped. Notably and importantly, it is possible that this real-life impact may be inherently problematic.
In 2013, Dominic Basulto expressed his concern about the impact of the prevalence of internet memes relating to global issues. He argued that when internet memes start making their way into areas of serious endeavor – like when they relate to global issues – the serious nature of the topics the memes are about may be overshadowed by the memes‟ humorous nature. In other words, internet memes may introduce humor to an area where humor should not have a place; when this occurs, Basulto argued, it “trivializes the big idea, and in the process, trivializes who we are as humans”.
Basulto‟s concern raises a valid point. Indeed, researchers have in the past found that when humor is introduced to serious topics, people tend to find it more difficult to continue to take these topics as seriously (Nabi et al., 2007; Moyer-Gusé et al., 2011; see also Chapter 2).
This poses a problem. With regards to global issues like the aforementioned racism and climate change, people taking them seriously is of high importance if these issues are to be solved. After all, it is difficult to see how a person or a people would allocate their attention, resources or time addressing racism, climate change etc. if they do not take these issues seriously. If humor indeed negatively affects people‟s capacity to take serious topics seriously, it is not difficult to see how humorous internet memes about global issues may negatively impact the capacity of people to take these global issues seriously.
6 | P a g e
With it being rather common to make memes about global issues, then, it is possible that unbeknownst to the many meme creators and consumers across the world, their enjoyment of global issues-related internet memes is actually eroding their ability to take said global issues seriously. If this is indeed the case, that would make these kinds of memes inherently problematic, arguably standing in the way of human progress.
Despite this, up to my knowledge no research aimed at investigating how exposure to internet memes about global issues relates to a person‟s capacity to take said issues seriously exists. Considering that internet memes are still a relatively novel phenomenon and the field of internet meme research is yet somewhat infantile, this is to an extent understandable.
Within the more established field of humor research, investigations into the effect of humor on a person‟s capacity to take serious topics seriously noticeably does exist to a larger extent, and hence this body of research will be drawn upon in this Thesis. However, the conclusions drawn by different authors in this field are often conflicting and fail to give a clear overall picture. Hence, investigating the above-mentioned relationship makes for a valuable opportunity for both providing clarification to an existing debate and for filling in a knowledge gap within a new and evolving field of research.
Besides increasing our scientific understanding of internet memes, it is also believed that the outcomes of this investigation may have real-world applications, as they may be of high value to any party with an interest in addressing (a certain) global issue(s); if it is found that it is indeed the case that exposure to internet memes about a global issue reduces the capacity of a person to take that issue seriously, such a party may want to make efforts to combat this phenomenon through spreading awareness, designing policy, etc. Individuals who find certain global issues important may also want to keep this relationship in mind whilst interacting with internet memes should it be found to exist, to avoid detrimental effects of those internet memes on their continued ability to take those issues seriously.
7 | P a g e
In this Master‟s Thesis, this investigation will be carried out. The research question - “How does exposure to internet memes about global issues relate to a person‟s attitudes of taking these issues seriously?” – will be answered by both a theoretical and analytical investigation.
As testing this relationship for a multitude of different global issues lies beyond the scope of the Thesis, the focus of the analysis shall be on one specific global issue: climate change.
Within this investigation, a particular focus will also be on the role which humor, specifically the extent to which an internet meme is found to be humorous, plays in this relationship.
The investigation will consist of several elements split up across several chapters.
Chapter 2 will entail the theoretical framework of the investigation. Within it, existing research from the fields of internet meme, attitude and humor studies will be discussed, concepts will be clarified, and (possible) mechanisms will be further explained.
Based on the critical examination of this literature, a set of hypotheses are created, which will also be discussed in detail in this chapter.
Chapter 3 will discuss the experiment which I have carried out between February and
April of 2020 amongst 224 students living in the Netherlands. This chapter will contain information on the collection and operationalization of the data, the distribution of certain variables of note, and the analytical strategy employed. The results of the analysis and brief notes on their indications are also noted in this chapter.
Chapter 4 will discuss the findings of Chapter 3 in a broader perspective; what they entail with regards to our society and scientific understanding about internet memes and their relationship to attitudes. It will also conclude this Master‟s Thesis by means of summarizing the results of the study, briefly discussing its limitations, as well as by noting possible avenues for future research.
8 | P a g e
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
[2.1] – On Internet Memes and their Creator-Consumers
The term „meme‟ was originally coined by English biologist Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene. In this original understanding of the concept, the term „meme‟ was meant to refer to a kind of viral „living idea‟ which spreads from one person to another – it is
“information which propagates, persists, and has impact” (Finkelstein, 2008, pp. 15). Most researchers in the field of memetics, or meme studies, argue that memes are a sort of „unit of culture‟ – a unit of cultural reproduction (Hales, 2008, pp. 897), evolution (Wilkins, 2008, pp.
1635) and/or transmission (Diaz & Mauricio, 2013). In this understanding, memes function similar to a virus. One host transmits the meme to a potential host, where – if the meme passes certain selection and fitness criteria within them (Davison, 2012, pp. 121) – the meme can find purchase. When this happens, the potential host‟s beliefs and attitudes are impacted
(ibid.), and they are turned from a potential into a realized host who will, in turn, replicate and transmit the meme to others.
Today, the term „meme‟ is hardly ever used to refer to this original, cultural-biological concept. Instead, it is generally used to refer to the previously-mentioned „internet meme‟, the humorous images and videos common on the internet today. Internet memes function largely similar to the „biological meme‟ as understood by Dawkins, in that they also spread through copying and imitation, passing from one host to another (Kliger-Vilgenchik & Thorson, 2016, pp. 1997). The „goal‟ of an internet meme, similarly to the „goal‟ of a biological meme, is to
“be known well enough to replicate within a group” (Diaz & Mauricio, 2013). However, the internet meme differs from the „biological meme‟ in two primary ways; first in that it propagates and replicates specifically through the internet, and second that it (often) comes in a specific, commonly recognizable form (Diaz & Mauricio, 2013), most commonly a variation on a specific „meme template‟.
9 | P a g e
Figure 2.1 is an example of one such template – Woman Yelling at Cat. In this meme, the
„underlying principle‟ or „idea behind the meme‟ is the humorous nature of various imaginable scenario‟s in which one person (represented by the woman) is heavily emotionally affected by something, whilst another (the cat) is not. The template can easily be altered to contain different scenarios offering entertainment to meme consumers.
Figure 2.1: ‘Woman Yelling at Cat’ – By Tom Willems
However, whilst variations on meme templates might be the most commonly recognizable internet memes, internet memes are not limited solely to variations on templates. In fact, what is and is not a meme is difficult to pin down by means of certain specific criteria. For instance, Figure 2.2 is not a variation on a template, but a „surreal meme‟, where the primary underlying nature is to be confusing and to arguably not carry any particular meaning.
10 | P a g e Figure 2.2: ‘THE MEATBALL MAN HAS ARISEN’ - By /u/I_Is_Borat Some internet memes, like Pepe the Frog (see Figure 2.3) have had many different meanings over the years, with Pepe specifically starting as a „normal‟ internet meme (Anderson &
Revers, 2018, pp. 9), then being used as a symbol for white nationalism (see Figure 2.4), and recently as somewhat of a mascot for the Hong Kong protest movement (Ko, 2019; see also
Figure 2.5).
Figure 2.3: ‘Pepe the Frog’ – By Matt Furie
Figure 2.4: ‘Smug Nazi Pepe’ – By Unknown Author
Figure 2.5: ‘Pepe as a Pro-Democracy Symbol’ By Mohd Rasfan / AFP
11 | P a g e
Also worth mentioning is that images that are clearly not memes in and of themselves (see
Figure 2.6) can easily be transformed into a meme by adding a specific, humorous context
(see Figure 2.7).
Figure 2.6: ‘Bliss’ – By Charles O’Rear Figure 2.7: ‘Bliss as a Meme’ – By Tom Willems
Nevertheless, most instances of what is generally considered to be an internet meme do have
one particular thing in common – the presence of an element of humor (Bjarneskans et al.,
2008; Davison, 2012; Marcus & Singer, 2016; Kanai, 2016). Some, like Davison, have argued
that humor is intrinsic to the definition of an internet meme: according to him, most (if not all)
internet memes are in some way (aimed at being) humorous. This observation will be leading
throughout the remainder of this Master‟s Thesis, and will be discussed in significantly more
detail in the chapters to follow.
For now, however, let us briefly set aside the topic of humor, and return for a moment to the
topic of internet memes. With an admittedly rough, but employable understanding of the
internet meme in hand, we may now for a moment turn to the question of who exactly it is
that creates and consumes internet memes.
12 | P a g e
Similarly to pinning down a definition of a meme, pinning down a definition of internet meme creators and consumers is difficult. According to Csordás et al. (2017, pp. 252), essentially anyone can be a meme creator as long as they have access to the internet, as a multitude of resources for the easy creation of memes is readily available there. In a similar vein essentially anyone can be a meme consumer, because of the wide reach and rapid spread memes are known to have (Segev et al., 2015; Wiggins & Bowers, 2015). That being said,
Wiggins & Bowers (2015) found that it is often the case that those who consume memes and those who produce memes are the same person. They refer to the people who interact with internet memes as „creator-consumers‟; a term which I shall embrace.
Despite it being admittedly difficult to state specific characteristics of internet meme consumer-producers, a few general observations can be made. The primary observation is that the creation/consumption of an internet meme pre-requires access to the internet. As such, it can be expected that those demographic groups with a higher rate of internet access are more likely to be consumer-producers of internet memes. As statistical data has shown that internet usage decreases with age (Eurostat, 2018; Pew Research Center, 2017), we may assume that younger people are more likely to be consumer-producers of internet memes.
Second, it may be noted that today, internet memes are overwhelmingly created in
English over any other language (Kostadinovska-Stojchevska & Shalevska, 2018). Hence, the reasonable assumption may be made that most internet meme consumer-producers will have some level of mastery of the English language.
Third and perhaps most important, internet meme consumption-production not only pre-requires access to the internet, but also a certain minimal level of internet participation.
To provide some examples, Csordás et al. (2017, pp. 253) have argued that “most memes might sound nonsensical to those unfamiliar with internet culture”. In a similar vein, Wiggins
& Bowers (2015) as well as Nissenbaum & Shifman (2017) have argued that being able to
13 | P a g e understand and/or create a meme presupposes certain knowledge and resources that can only be obtained by intensified internet usage, through interaction with memes and meme consumer-producers. Thus, we may make the reasonable assumption that those who spend more time on the internet are more likely to be a meme creator-consumer. As Eurostat (2018) found that “level of formal education has a significant impact on the use of internet by individuals”, we can expect one is more likely to be(come) an internet meme consumer- producer if one is higher educated.
Summing up, the typical meme creator-consumer is more likely to be younger, higher educated, and in possession of some level of English skills. Whilst to my knowledge no statistical research has been carried out specifically looking at demographical trends for internet meme creator-consumers, this conclusion is drawn on reasonable, logical assumptions. A demographical group which unites these three characteristics would be students – and hence, as we will see in Chapter 3, students have been selected as the target population for the experimental study discussed in this Master‟s Thesis.
14 | P a g e
[2.2] – On Attitudes towards Global Issues
Now that an understanding of internet memes and their creator-consumers is in our possession, we now turn to answer the question how exactly said memes relate to attitudes of concern about global issues. To do so, we must first note what exactly an „attitude‟ will be understood to be. Whilst it must be emphasized that the field of attitude research is vast, and the brief outline provided here admittedly does not do the intricate concept that is attitudes justice, it will serve the purpose of the research to provide a general understanding of how attitudes will be understood and employed.
Attitudes can be pragmatically understood as “an evaluation of an object of thought”
(Bohner & Dickel, 2011, pp. 392), as a person‟s tendency to respond positively or negatively to any discriminable aspect of their world (Ajzen, 1989, pp. 241). According to Ajzen (ibid.), three basic elements underlie attitudes: beliefs, emotions, and experiences. A change in any of these elements may also result in a change in attitudes. Some authors, like Jaap van Ginneken
(1999, pp. 29), take attitudes to be incredibly fluid because of this capacity for change: “every experience we have (even while asleep) can lead to a minuscule adjustment of the way we as individuals relate to the world”. Other authors (Schwarz, 2007; Conrey & Smith, 2007;
Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2007) make claims that are less extreme than Van Ginneken‟s, but do agree that attitudes are to a large extent constructed „on the spot‟ based on a momentary situation and state of the individual. In general, attitude researchers do tend to agree that at least to some extent “some independent variable has an impact on one‟s emotions, cognitions, or behavior toward some object, and this in turn has an impact on one‟s attitude towards that object” (Petty & Wegener, 2010, pp. 3). To provide a swift example, we may say that a person who becomes increasingly fearful of terrorism will have a (more) negative attitude towards terrorism, or a (more) positive attitude towards a world where terrorism does not exist, etc.
15 | P a g e
How, then, may attitudes of this positive/negative variety translate into „attitudes taking global issues seriously‟? I argue that when it comes to the attitudes towards a global issue a person possesses, the sum of these attitudes to a large extent mirrors what we may call the extent to which that person takes that issue seriously, or is concerned about that issue. A person with positive attitudes towards recycling and a negative attitude towards a world with irreversible climate change would, after all, be considered to take the global issue of climate change seriously, or be concerned about climate change. We may call attitudes of this nature
„Attitudes of Concern‟2, which will be the term used to henceforth refer to the subject of the research question. A person taking a global issue seriously will be understood as a person possessing attitudes of concern towards this issue.
2 The term „Attitudes of Concern‟ was selected because it is believed to be more succinct and clear than a term along the lines of „attitudes of seriousness‟ or „attitudes of taking serious‟. It is also believed to be more easily understood because of the colloquial nature of „concern for something‟. However, I emphasize that any of these terms would essentially refer to the same sum of attitudes.
16 | P a g e
[2.3] – On Humor I: Defining Humor
With an understanding of attitudes of concern now in hand, we may now ask the important question of how it might be that internet memes relate to these attitudes. To answer this question, let us remind ourselves that it has been noted that any kind of small experience can influence a person‟s attitudes through influencing that person‟s emotions, cognitions or behavior (Ajzen, 1989). With regards to one such kind of small experience – internet memes – it is admittedly not denied that an influence on attitudes through an influence on cognitions or behavior exists. However, considering the fact that humor has been noted to be an important, intrinsic characteristic of internet memes, I argue that out of the three different elements to attitudes noted by Ajzen, humor is the one most likely to influence attitudes (through influencing emotion). Thus, to understand the relationship between internet memes and attitudes of concern, it is important to determine what humor is and which role it plays in this relationship.
The task of defining the concept of humor is not an easy one, as throughout history researchers from a multitude of different fields – like anthropology, linguistics, psychology and sociology – have provided us with different understandings of what exactly humor is
(Attardo, 2010; Kuipers, 2008). Some researchers have even gone as far as to say that a theoretical definition of humor is impossible (Attardo, 2020, pp. 7). Hence, it is beyond the scope of this Master‟s Thesis to extensively focus on defining this evasive concept. Instead, I will follow the proposition made by Raskin (1985, as cited in Attardo, 2010, pp. 4) that humor should be considered “in the least restricted sense […] covering any event or object that elicits laughter, amuses, or is felt to be funny”. Relating this understanding to internet memes, we can consider that when exposure to an internet meme evokes such a response in a person, that meme can be considered to be humorous (to that person).
17 | P a g e
Next, a key characteristic to the concept of humor is that humor is not a universal concept; instead, it is inherently subjective (Kuipers, 2008). What is humorous to one person may very well not be (equally) humorous to another. Relating again to internet memes, it can thus be expected that when multiple people are exposed to the same internet meme, they are unlikely to find this meme equally humorous.
At this point we may draw an important conclusion from these observations about the definition of humor. If we accept that [1] humor is inherent to internet memes, [2] humor can influence a person‟s attitudes through an influence on that person‟s emotions, and [3] humor is subjective, the expectation follows that when multiple people are exposed to the same internet meme, as a result of subjective differences in the extent to which those people believe that the internet meme is humorous, different effects of exposure to that internet meme on those people‟s attitudes will arise. In other words, we may expect different effects of exposure to internet memes about a global issue on attitudes of concern towards that issue when perceptions of the humorous nature of that internet meme differ.
As such, humor is expected to have a moderating effect on the relationship between exposure to internet memes about a global issue and a person‟s attitudes of concern towards that issue. This expectation is represented by Hypothesis 1.
H1: The more humorous a recipient believes an internet meme about a global issue
is, the stronger the effect of exposure to this internet meme is on that recipient’s
attitudes of concern towards this global issue.
18 | P a g e
[2.4] – On Humor II: General Mechanisms
Considering how important humor has been noted to be to the understanding of what an internet meme is, additional mechanisms regarding the relationship between internet memes and attitudes are arguably best searched for in the field of humor research. Whilst as previously mentioned hardly any of the available literature addresses humor as relating to attitudes in the context of internet memes, the relationship and mechanisms at work between humorous messages and attitudes are well-documented.
Amongst these mechanisms, several have been found by humor researchers to be positive.
Eisend (2009) has, for instance, noted that humor has a powerful effect on attitudes through affective mechanisms of the psychological phenomenon known as „classical conditioning‟.
Classical conditioning entails that if one has a positive affective reaction towards humorous stimulus [A], and when stimulus [A] is related to a certain specific object of thought [B], the positive affective reaction is generalized from stimulus [A] to object [B] and changes that person‟s attitude towards object [B] for the positive. Classical conditioning has been especially well-documented in the sub-field of humor research that focuses on how humorous advertising affects customers‟ attitudes towards a certain brand or product. Researchers have with some consistency found that “through mere association, humor in advertising may elicit implicit product attitudes that predict product choice” (Strick et al., 2009). By using a funny message about a product, a person is more likely to have positive attitudes towards that product – and will thus be more inclined to purchase it.
Whilst classical conditioning is perhaps the most well-documented mechanism relating humor and attitudes, it is not the sole one which has been noted to be positive. For starters, Moyer-Gusé et al. (2011) found that humor is especially apt at attracting attention to certain messages which may be aimed at influencing attitudes. This finding has been echoed
19 | P a g e by Slater & Rouner (2002), who found that humor stimulates engagement with a message and the absorption of its content. Related to this, studies on humor in the political sphere like that by Lee & Kwak (2014) found that political humor has a positive effect on political engagement. This is not only because humor attracts attention and promotes interaction with political messages and narratives, but also because humor has been found to promote internal political efficacy (Baumgartner & Lockerbie, 2018) and increases trust in the political system
(Becker, 2011). Researchers have also found that humorous messages – in whatever context – stimulate the capacity of recipients of said messages to recall them at a later point in time, improving the connection between the contents of these messages and the cognition of these recipients (Young, 2008).
However, it is most certainly not the case that humor solely relates to attitudes in a positive manner. The ways in which humor is able to change a person‟s attitudes towards an object of thought for the negative is also well-documented. For example, whilst the aforementioned Eisend (2009, pp. 200) did find evidence for humor‟s positive classical conditioning effect, in the same article he additionally noted that exposure to a humorous message had a slightly negative effect on recipients‟ capacity to consciously process this message. In a similar vein, whilst in the aforementioned article by Moyer-Gusé et al. (2011, pp. 767) the authors did find that humorous messages are more capable of attracting attention than non-humorous messages, they also found that the application of humor reduces the extent to which people counter-argue with the content of said message. Whilst Young (2008) found evidence for a positive effect of humor on a recipient‟s capacity to recall messages, he also found that the same humor distracted cognitive capacity away from the actual content of the message. And finally, whilst some authors like Becker (2011) did argue that humor positively affects political trust, others have found evidence for the exact opposite relationship to hold (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; Baumgartner, 2007).
20 | P a g e
What is important to note about this overview of positive and negative effects humor is noted to have on attitudes, is that researchers – and often the same researchers – tend to find some effects that are positive as well as some effects that are negative. This observation was also noted by Baukes et al. (2015), whose investigation into the body of research on humor in politics found that most studies either noted mixed effects or no effect at all, and with regards to the latter, this might be explained as a result of the positive and negative processes – both conditional on humor – weighing approximately equally.
At this point we ought to remind ourselves that so far our discussion of the relationship between humor and attitudes has been primarily based on research investigating general humorous messages, political humorous messages, and humorous messages in advertisement.
Even though research on these specific topics reveals mixed mechanisms, does the same also hold for humorous messages about serious topics?
Finding an answer to this question is somewhat more difficult. When compared to research examining humor‟s effect on brand-, political- and general attitudes, the amount of research that has been carried out on the effect of humor on attitudes towards global issues is significantly smaller. Within this small sub-field, the most important author is arguably Robin
L. Nabi, whose 2007 article All Joking Aside may be seen as a key source. All Joking Aside details an experiment (N=212) carried out by Nabi and her colleagues in which they exposed participants to humorous messages on the topic of social issues. Nabi et al. then recorded the extent to which these messages were liked, processed, discounted, and counter-argued against, as well as participants‟ attitudes towards the message.
21 | P a g e
Like with general, political, and advertisement-related messages, this experiment also revealed a mixed set of effects. Consistent with their expectations, Nabi et al. (2007, pp. 40) found that – in the short run - “though humor may increase processing depth and source liking, which enhances persuasion, it simultaneously promotes message discounting, which impedes it”. Overall, they concluded that the effect of humorous social issue messages on a person‟s attitudes is essentially neutral in the short run. However, somewhat after their initial study, Nabi et al. also carried out a second study (N=204). This study showed some evidence for what the authors call a „Sleeper Effect‟: “even though the message may have been more likely to be initially discounted as a joke, the memorable nature of the message may have encouraged respondents to think more about it over time, which can increase persuasive effect” (Ibid., pp. 49). The possibility of such a „Sleeper Effect‟ was also echoed by Chattoo
(2019, pp. 514), who claimed that:
“Comedy offers a way for audiences to engage in complex social and civic issues by
simplifying and making them accessible […] entertaining or comedic portrayals of
serious issues open the door for audiences to pay increased attention to subsequent
serious treatment of issues in traditional news media. This concept has borne out in
comedic portrayals of serious civic and social issues; as individuals experience
comedy media treatment of serious issues, they then pay more attention to traditional
news sources on the same issues.”
Summing up, with regards to humor‟s effect on general, political, brand and – importantly – social issues attitudes, the researchers mentioned note mechanisms that work positively as well as ones that work negatively, resulting in an effect that is overall, in the short run, neutral. However, in the long run, the effect may be slightly positive.
22 | P a g e
With regards to the relationship between internet memes, humor, and attitudes towards global issues, it is expected that a similar relationship will hold. Due to time constraints, an investigation into any possible long-term effects was predetermined to be untenable. This second expectation is represented by Hypothesis 2:
H2: Overall, in the short run, exposure to internet memes about global issues has no
discernable effect on one’s attitudes of concern towards said global issues.
So far in this subchapter, two specific often-established mechanisms have been purposefully omitted from the discussion. The reason behind this decision is twofold. First, it is worthwhile to attribute some additional attention to these mechanisms, and second and primarily, it is believed to be worthwhile to specifically examine whether the effects that these mechanisms are often noted to have also hold when it comes to internet memes. If this can be confirmed, this would provide additional weight to the claim made so far that there is a relationship between exposure to internet memes about global issues and one‟s attitudes of concern towards said issues that is heavily connected to humor. In the next two subchapters, these two mechanisms shall be discussed.
23 | P a g e
[2.5] – On Humor II: Trivialization
The first of these two mechanisms is the so-called „trivialization effect‟ of humor. This effect refers to the phenomenon where if humor is attached to a serious message, the humor counter- balances, negates, or trivializes the message‟s seriousness, causing people to perceive the message as nothing more than a joke (Nabi et al., 2007; Samson et al., 2014). In the words of
Kirsch (2006, as cited in Moyer-Gusé et al., 2011, pp. 768), when humor is introduced to serious topics “a cognitive transformation occurs, rendering material that might otherwise be considered grave as whimsical”. The trivialization effect has been noted to make it possible for a humorous message, hoping to evoke positive attitudes and certain specific behavior in people, to have no effect or the exact opposite of the one intended (Fraustino & Ma, 2015).
Returning once more to All Joking Aside, Nabi et al. also found that when humor is applied to social issues messages, these messages are more swiftly seen as a form of entertainment, which leads to increased discounting and trivialization by those who are exposed to them. Similar trivializing effects of humor when it comes to political attitudes specifically were also noted by Young (2008).
Under the assumptions about the relationship between internet memes, humor and attitudes made so far, we may expect this trivialization effect to also be a present mechanism.
Considering the above, we may expect this effect to be a mediating effect between humor and attitudes of concern. Confirming or denying this expectation would provide more insight into how exactly this relationship is shaped. It is represented by Hypothesis 3:
H3: Exposure to internet memes about a global issue leads to increased
trivialization of the topic of that global issue.
24 | P a g e
[2.6] – On Humor III: Coping
The second mechanism deserving of additional attention is the much-researched „coping effect‟ of humor. This effect refers to humor‟s capacity to act “as a buffer against negative effects of stress and a means of dealing with negative situations in an adaptive way” (Abel,
2002, in Samson et al., 2014, pp. 517). Researchers on the coping effect have found that humor is able to increase resiliency against stress and trauma (Kuiper, 2012), to enhance positive life experiences (Ibid.), to moderate stress responses (Wanzer et al., 2005), to help maintain a positive perspective (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006) and to help create greater emotional distance to possibly distressing, serious topics (Samson et al., 2014; Strick et al.,
2009). The „coping effect‟ may also be seen as promoting what Cameron (2015, pp. 286) calls
“A sense of hope that change is possible, counteracting the effects of chronic stress
often confronted by social justice activists, all in ways that non-humorous approaches
cannot”
Like the trivialization effect, we may also expect this coping effect to be a present mechanism within the relationship between internet memes, humor and attitudes. Through the coping effect, a perceived humorous nature of an internet meme about a global issue may stimulate a person‟s attitudes towards that issue for the positive, by counter-acting negative and promoting positive emotions relating to that issue. Again like the trivialization effect, we may expect the coping effect to be a mediating effect between humor and attitudes of concern.
This expectation is represented in Hypothesis 4:
H4: Exposure to internet memes about a global issue leads to an increased capacity
to cope with the topic of that global issue.
25 | P a g e
[2.7] – Conceptual Model
As stated, following the mixed mechanisms and overall neutral effects of humor on attitudes by such authors as Nabi et al. (2007) and Eisend (2009), we may expect that overall, the relationship between the independent variable – exposure to an internet meme about a global issue – and the dependent variable – attitudes of concern towards this issue – is neutral. As explained in Chapter 2.3, due to the subjectivity of humor we expect the strength of this relationship to differ based on how humorous the person exposed to the internet meme believed that meme to be. Humor shall thus be a moderating variable in the conceptual model.
Furthermore, it is expected that the „trivialization effect‟ and the „coping effect‟ as discussed in Chapter 2.5 and Chapter 2.6 both serve as mediating variables between humor and attitudes. Higher levels of humor are expected to lead to higher levels of trivialization, as well as higher levels of coping. Higher levels of trivialization, then, are expected to affect a person‟s attitudes of concern negatively, whilst higher levels of coping do so positively.
Discovering whether or not these mechanisms indeed play a significant role within the conceptual model, and which of them – if any – weighs heaviest, will provide us with increased insight into the specifics of the relationship between internet memes and attitudes.
The graphical representation of this model can be found in Figure 2 on the following page.
26 | P a g e
Independent Variable Dependent Variable +/- Exposure to an internet meme Attitudes of concern towards about global issue [A] global issue [A]
+ +
-
Mediating Moderating Variable I
Variable I Humor + Trivialization +
+ Mediating Variable II
Coping
Figure 2: ‘Conceptual Model’
27 | P a g e
Chapter 3: Methodology, Analysis & Results
[3.1] – Research Design, Data Collection & Sample
To test the four hypotheses listed in the previous chapter, a cross-sectional experiment was designed, taking the form of an online questionnaire about environmental attitudes with one manipulated variable. The designed questionnaire was programmed into an online version through the online survey program Qualtrics. Considering the observations about internet meme creator-consumers made in Chapter 2.1, students at the tertiary level were selected as the target population. Participants for the study were recruited through the distribution of an
URL to the questionnaire in Qualtrics through both physical and online channels in the first half of March 2020. Online distribution of the URL occurred primarily through the social media communication platform WhatsApp, where acquaintances were approached with the request to participate in the study and share the URL with their personal friends and acquaintances. Through this method, participants from across the Netherlands could be approached. Physical distribution occurred through the delivery of paper-slip invites to over
1,000 individual mailboxes of students living at student housing centers Professor de
Moorplein, CobbenCampus and Talent Square in Tilburg, the Netherlands. Physical distribution of the URL occurred through paper invites to participate in the study, which were hand-distributed to over 1,000 mailboxes at student housing centers Professor de Moorplein,
CobbenCampus and Talent Square in Tilburg, the Netherlands. Participants were informed that all information would be treated anonymously and confidentially. As an incentive to participate in the survey, a 20-euro gift card to Bol.com was promised to one respondent, selected at random. The research design (see also Chapter 3.2) was approved for procedure by the Ethical Review Board of Tilburg University on April 3rd, 2020.
28 | P a g e
On April 1st, 2020, the questionnaire was locked for participation. The dataset on the resulting sample (N=224) was extracted into a .sps file. After removing all respondents who were not currently a student, as well as all respondents who had at least one missing value on any of the variables in the dataset, a final sample of (N=165) respondents remained.
The questionnaire each participant was requested to fill in was identical with the exception of one instance of manipulation. Using Qualtric‟s weighed randomization feature, each participant was randomly divided into one of four groups when they started the questionnaire.
Members of each group were exposed to a different image as part of the questionnaire. All participants were requested to consciously observe the image provided to them, and to not proceed until they believed they had observed the image sufficiently.
The first image participants could be exposed to was a drawn, black-and-white image of a desktop computer (see also Figure 3.1). This image – neither an internet meme, nor an image related to climate change or any other particular global issue - was selected as it was believed not to evoke any specific emotional or attitudinal response in the participant. Those who were shown this image formed Control Group I.
Figure 3.1: ‘A Drawn Computer’ – By Dawn
29 | P a g e
The second image participants could be exposed to was a vibrant image – not an internet meme, but one clearly related to the global issue of climate change (see also Figure 3.2). The image possessed a nature of duality, with a dry and barren field on the left transitioning into a lush green field on the right. The image was expected to evoke associations to the environment and climate change, but to not carry any particular judgment on this topic as both sides of the image were represented in equal measures. Those who were shown this image formed Experimental Group II.
Figure 3.2: ‘Cover Image of ‘Gender in Environment and Climate Change’ - By EIGE
30 | P a g e
The third image participants could be exposed to was a self-designed internet meme using the popular Surprised Pikachu meme template (see also Figure 3.3). This meme did not relate to any particular global issue, instead joking about how some students can react with surprise when they fail a course they didn‟t put any work into. This internet meme was expected to evoke a humorous response, but to not evoke associations to the Figure 3.3: ‘Surprised Study Pikachu’ – By Tom Willems environment and climate change. Those who were shown this image formed Experimental Group III.
Finally – and most important of all – the fourth image participants could be exposed to was a self- designed internet meme, also using the Surprised
Pikachu template (see also Figure 3.4). Rather than poke fun at students, this image joked about how people may act surprised when, after they ignore scientists‟ warnings about climate change, climate
Figure 3.4: ‘Surprised Underwater Pikachu’ change does indeed happen. Both this meme By Tom Willems and the study-related meme carried a similar tone (not taking any action, then being surprised at the outcomes of doing so). Like the previous Surprised Pikachu meme, this image too was expected to evoke a humorous response. Contrary to the previous meme, however, this image was also expected to evoke associations to the environment and climate change. Those who were shown this image formed Experimental Group IV.
31 | P a g e
[3.2] – Measurement & Operationalization of Variables
To measure the independent variable in the study, exposure to internet memes, each participant‟s survey answers were scrutinized to discover which image they were exposed to.
Based on this, the variable Group was created, where membership of each group was represented by the number 1, 2, 3 or 4. This variable was then recoded into dummy variables
Group2, Group3 and Group4, where Control Group 1 (which saw the image of the computer) is the reference group3. After analysis, it was found that the 165 participants remaining in the sample after deletion of missing values were approximately equally divided across the four groups.
Control Group I Computer image 39
Experimental Group II Environment image 39
Experimental Group III Study meme 40
Experimental Group IV Environment meme 47
As the first question in the survey, participants were asked about their average internet activity. This resulted in control variable InternetTotal. Next, participants were asked about their interest in politics and positioning on the left-right spectrum through two questions for which the phrasing was taken from the 2017 run of the European Values Study (EVS, 2017).
This resulted in control variable Politics and control variable LeftRight, respectively.
Next, participants were requested to briefly reflect on the image they were exposed to.
This question served to ensure that each participant adequately processed their respective images. It was not employed as a variable for the analysis.
3 For simplicity and brevity‟s sake, in the remainder of this document I shall refer to the group who saw the Computer image as „Control Group 1‟, whilst I will refer to the three experimental groups simply as „Group 2‟ (who saw the environment- related image), „Group 3‟ (who saw the study-related internet meme) and „Group 4‟ (who saw the environment-related internet meme).
32 | P a g e
Next, participants were requested to indicate their emotional responses to the image they saw on a scale from 1-10. This set of questions asked for the extent to which participants believed their image to be sad, funny, anger-inducing, scary, disgusting and surprising. For this set of questions, all but the question regarding the extent to which each participant believed their image was funny were designed to be decoy questions, and were not employed as variables for the analysis. This sole non-decoy question was coded into variable ImageFunny, which was selected to represent the moderating variable of humor (see also Chapter 2.7).
Next, participants were asked ten questions with regards to the topic of environmental protection. These questions can be found in the Appendix. The phrasing of questions 6a, 6c,
6d and 6e was taken from the 2017 run of the European Values Study (EVS, 2017). The phrasing of questions 6g and 6h was taken from the 2016 run of the European Social Survey
(ESS, 2016). Questions 6b and 6i were expected to measure the mediating variable trivialization, whilst questions 7h and 7j were expected to measure the mediating variable coping – the ability to cope with (the reality of) climate change. The remaining questions were expected to form a measure of the dependent variable; attitudes of environmental concern (see also Chapter 2.7).
Participants‟ answers to these questions were then coded into variables
EnvGiveIncome, EnvTakeSerious, EnvMoreImp, EnvProtPrio, EnvClaimExag,
EnvGlobalPrio, EnvPersRespo, EnvFutureWorry, EnvAmusement and EnvFutureHope, respectively. To test whether this set of variables indeed measured the constructs listed in the conceptual model as intended, an Exploratory Factor Analysis with OBLIMIN rotation was run on them.
33 | P a g e
Observing the Correlation Matrix, it was noted that some of the ten variables did not correlate significantly with one another at the a = .05 level, so caution was exercised to ensure that these variables would not be assigned to the same component. Observing the Total Variance
Explained table as well as the Scree Plot revealed that, as expected, the ten variables together could be extracted into three constructs with an Eigenvalue of > 1 (C1 = EV 3,212, C2 = EV
1,257, C3 = EV 1,071). The assignment of the 10 variables to the 3 constructs according to the Structure Matrix can be found in Table 1 below.
Table 1 Exploratory Factor Analysis of 10 Variables measuring Environmental Attitudes.
Items Component Dimension 1 2 3
EnvPersRespo .727 - .305
EnvMoreImp -.707 - - Attitudes of EnvFutureWorry .623 -.456 .317 care
EnvGlobalPrio .608 - .522
EnvFutureHope - .838 - Coping EnvClaimExag -.494 .590 -
EnvAmusement - - -.767
EnvProtPrio .469 - .692 Trivialization EnvGiveIncome .485 - .638
EnvTakeSerious - .391 -.570
34 | P a g e
It was noted that contrary to expectations, the constructs did not load as expected on the different sets of variables. Whilst it was expected that EnvFutureHope and EnvFutureWorry would measure coping and EnvAmusement and EnvTakeSerious measured trivialization, no support for this expectation was found in the results of the EFA. After closer inspection, however, it was decided that an argument could be made to maintain the original three underlying constructs of [1] Attitudes of environmental concern, [2] Trivialization and [3]
Coping.
With regards to coping, it can be argued that if one believes that most of the claims about environmental protection are exaggerated (EnvClaimExag), that person could be considered to show a high(er) capacity to deal with the stress and fear concerned with environmental issues and public warnings about them. Hence, EnvClaimExag could be taken together with EnvFutureHope, which measures a person‟s hope about the future, similarly reflecting a person‟s capacity to cope with environmental threats.
With regards to trivialization, the OBLIMIN-rotated EFA did reveal that (as expected) the same component loaded on the variables EnvAmusement and EnvTakeSerious, but that contrary to expectations, it also loaded on EnvProtPrio and EnvGiveIncome. After deliberation, it was decided that these latter two variables could be seen as a more relative form of trivialization, as they examine a person‟s environmental attitudes specifically relative to their attitudes towards the economy. One could argue that when one believes the environment to be less important relative to the economy or one‟s personal assets, they are trivializing the environment contra the economy or their personal assets, which they believe to be more important.
The remaining four variables (EnvPersRespo, EnvMoreImp, EnvFutureWorry and
EnvGlobalPrio) – as somewhat expected – were noted to represent attitudes of environmental concern.
35 | P a g e
After inversely coding those variables out of these ten which were phrased negatively, a
Reliability Analysis was performed on each of the three proposed scales.
A reliability analysis on the four variables which Component 1 was found to load on returned a Cronbach‟s Alpha of α = .660. It was decided that whilst this Alpha is not incredibly high (as a minimum of .7 is usually preferred), this is acceptable as the scale only contains 4 variables and is based on a relatively small sample size. It was also found that this
Alpha could not be increased by removing any of the four items from the scale. It was thus decided that the four variables could function as a scale measuring attitudes of environmental concern, and after combining them and recoding so to create a scale from 1-10, the variable
EnvConcern was created.
As Component 2 only loaded on two variables, a test for correlation was ran on
EnvClaimExag and EnvFutureHope. It was found that the two variables correlated significantly with one another at the a = .05 level (p = .016), although this correlation was found to be low (r = .187). Even so, the significant correlation validated the proposal of taking these two variables together as measuring coping. After compiling them together, the variable Coping was created.
A reliability analysis on the four variables on which Component 3 was found to load returned a Cronbach‟s Alpha of α = .623. Like with the first reliability analysis, whilst this
Alpha is not very high, it was considered to be acceptable considering the low number of variables compiling the scale and the relatively small sample size. It was also found that if any of the variables were removed from the scale, this would result in a significant drop in the
Cronbach‟s Alpha. After deliberation it was decided that the four variables together formed a sufficient measure of trivialization. After combining and recoding them to create a scale from
1-10, the variable Trivialization was created.
36 | P a g e
The descriptives of EnvConcern, Coping and Trivialization can be found in Table 2 below.
Table 2 Descriptives of EnvConcern, Coping, and Trivialization
Variable N Minimum Maximum M SD
EnvConcern 165 2,5 10 7,9333 1,41587
Coping 165 2 10 4,6121 1,63270
Trivialization 165 2 9,5 3,9394 1,44597
Returning to the questionnaire, as a final set of questions all participants were requested to answer a small set of five demographical questions, requesting to indicate their gender, age, current study status, highest obtained college- or university-level degree, and field of study.
The question regarding study status was employed so as to remove all non-students from the analysis. The question regarding field of study was initially thought to serve as an additional control variable, but it was found that certain fields (particularly Social Sciences & Business) were over-represented, whilst others had little to no members. Hence, this question was dropped from the analysis. The remaining questions were translated into three control variables: dummy variable Female (measuring gender, with men as the reference category), dummy variable MasterStudent (measuring level of education, with BA students as the reference category), and the variable Age.
The descriptives of InternetTotal, Politics, LeftRight, ImageFunny & Age are noted in Table 3 below. The frequencies of Group, Gender and MasterStudent are noted in Table 4 below.
37 | P a g e
Table 3 Descriptives of InternetTotal, Politics, LeftRight, ImageFunny & Age
Variable N Minimum Maximum M SD
InternetTotal 165 1 19 7,4970 3,00685
Politics 165 1 4 2,91 .916
LeftRight 165 1 9 4,0303 1,79574
ImageFunny 165 1 10 4,0364 3,03011
Age 165 18 32 22,4667 2,57221
Table 4 Frequencies of Group, Female and MasterStudent
Variable Classification N Percentage
Group Control Group 1 (Computer) 39 23,6 Exp. Group 2 (Environment) 39 23,6 Exp. Group 3 (Study Meme) 40 24,2 Exp. Group 4 (Env. Meme) 47 28,5
Gender Male 55 33,3 Female 106 64,3 Other 4 2,4
MasterStudent BA Student (Ref.) 102 61,8 MA Student 63 38,2
38 | P a g e
After comparing the variables noted above amongst groups by means of a set of ANOVA analyses, it was discovered that adequate randomization had taken place on all levels save for one. It was found that with regards to the variable Politics, members of Control Group 1 scored significantly higher than members of Group 3. Due to the employment of Qualtrics‟ randomization option this was not expected beforehand, nor controllable. It will be kept in mind throughout the remainder of the study.
As a final step in the preparation of the data, interaction terms were created from the combination of ImageFunny and the three dummies for group membership. This resulted in interaction terms Group2ImageFunny, Group3ImageFunny and Group4ImageFunny.
With all variables and scales prepared, the analysis was performed by a set of ANOVA analyses and regression analyses. These analyses, and their results, will be detailed in the following chapter.
39 | P a g e
[3.3] – Analysis I: ANOVA
As a first step in the analysis, it was decided to employ a set of ANOVA models to compare the four groups against one another (using variable Group) with regards to the four variables of note in the conceptual model: EnvConcern, Coping, Trivialization and ImageFunny.
Running an ANOVA on EnvConcern revealed no statistically significant differences between groups at the α = .05 level (F = 2,018, p = .113). A Tukey post hoc test revealed that no individual between-group difference was significant at the same level.
Running an ANOVA on Coping revealed no statistically significant differences between groups (F = 1,750, p = .159). Again, a Tukey post hoc test revealed that no individual between-group difference was significant.
Running an ANOVA on Trivialization revealed no statistically significant differences between groups (F = 1,429, p = .236). Again, a Tukey post hoc test revealed that no individual between-group difference was significant.
Finally, as expected/designed, running an ANOVA on ImageFunny did reveal a statistically significant difference between groups (F = 99,222, p = .000). A Tukey post hoc test revealed that no statistically significant difference in ImageFunny existed between
Control Group 1 and Group 2, but that all other between-group differences were significant (p
= .000). It was noted that Group 3 scored significantly higher on ImageFunny than both
Control Group 1 and Group 2, and that whilst Group 4 also scored significantly higher on the same variable than Control Group 1 and Group 2, members of Group 4 scored significantly lower on ImageFunny than members of Group 3. Thus, the environment-related internet meme was deemed significantly less funny than the study-related meme, although it was still deemed significantly more funny than the image of the computer and the non-meme environmental image.
40 | P a g e
Please see also Figure 3.5 on the following page.
10
9
8
7
6 Ctrl. Group 1 Exp. Group 2 5 Exp. Group 3 Exp. Group 4 4
3
2
1 EnvConcern Coping Trivialization ImageFunny
Figure 3.5: ‘Means of 4 ANOVA Analyses’
What these findings signify is that first, the experimental design was to a large part successful.
The significant differences in ImageFunny between Groups 3/4 and Groups 1/2 indicate that
as expected from literature, exposure to internet memes resulted in significantly higher levels
of humor in participants.
With regards to Hypothesis 2 (see also Chapter 2.4), it seems that exposure to the
internet meme about global warming (or: being a member of Group 4) did not result in
significant differences on EnvConcern as compared to Control Group 1. The ANOVA
analyses thus support this hypothesis. Similarly, with regards to Hypothesis 3 (see also
Chapter 2.5) no significant group-level differences emerged from the ANOVA with regards to
Trivialization. It thus seems that exposure to the internet meme about global warming did not
lead to increased levels of trivialization as compared to the control group. As such, the
ANOVA analyses do not support this hypothesis.
41 | P a g e
Third and finally, with regards to Hypothesis 4 (see also Chapter 2.6) once more no significant group-level differences emerged. As such, it can be concluded that exposure to the internet meme about global warming did not result in higher levels of coping as compared to the control group – The ANOVA analyses do not support this hypothesis.
Despite the insignificance of the effects found, the fact that members of Group 3 scored significantly lower on ImageFunny than members of Group 4 is a curious finding.
Considering humor‟s subjectivity, this was of course not predictable beforehand. It is possible that, had a funnier meme about the environment been created, the study would have returned different findings. However, we may also interpret this finding as the possibility that the reason in this significantly lower score on ImageFunny for Group 4 as compared to Group 3 is simply because the internet meme is about a global issue. It is possible that humor meant to poke fun at something serious is, on a general level, simply deemed less funny than humor meant to poke at a non-serious topic. This possibility will be returned to in Chapter 4.
42 | P a g e
[3.4] – Analysis II: EnvConcern Regressed
Following up on the ANOVA models, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested further through the creation of a Regression Model regressing EnvConcern on [1] the variables for group membership, [2] ImageFunny, [3] the set of control variables with regards to demographical statistics, political orientation and internet use, and [4] the three above-mentioned interaction terms of Group x ImageFunny (Group2ImageFunny, Group3ImageFunny &
Group4ImageFunny, see also Chapter 3.2). Variables were added in a step-by-step fashion, so four different models were created. Table 5 on the following page represents these models.
The regression models reveal that although a significant negative effect at the α = .1 level was found of membership of Group 3 in Model 1, this effect turned insignificant once
ImageFunny was introduced in Model 2. The significant, negative effect of ImageFunny in turn turned insignificant as soon as control variables were introduced in Model 3. In Model 3, a positive effect (.844) of Female, significant at the α = .01 level was found, indicating that women scored higher on EnvConcern than men. A negative effect (-.267) of LeftRight significant at the α = .01 level was also found, indicating that people who are more right-wing scored lower on EnvConcern. Finally, a positive effect (.211) of Politics was found significant at the same level, and as such, those more interested in politics scored higher on EnvConcern.
In Model 4, a negative effect (-.504) of interaction model Group2ImageFunny was found to be significant at the α = .05 level, indicating that members of Group 2 who scored higher on ImageFunny scored significantly lower on EnvConcern. Both other interaction terms were not found to be significant.
Model 2 was found to be significant at the α = .1 level. Both Model 3 itself and the step from
Model 2 to Model 3 were found to be significant. Whilst Model 4 itself was found to be significant, the step from Model 3 to Model 4 was not found to be significant.
43 | P a g e
Table 5 EnvConcern regressed on group membership, ImageFunny, control and interaction variables. Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
B SE B SE B SE B SE
Intercept 8.167*** .225 8.335*** .245 6.911*** 1,223 6.703*** 1,236
Group Control 1 ------Exp. 2 .038 .318 .017 .316 -.187 .296 .564 .478 Exp. 3 -.642* .316 -.079 .457 -.352 .425 .038 .746 Exp. 4 -.305 .304 .096 .384 -.027 .361 -.153 .653
ImageFunny -.103* .061 -.027 .058 .152 .150
Age .051 .048 .051 .048
Gender Male (Ref) - - - - Female .844*** .229 .853*** .230
Politics .211* .118 .199* .117
LeftRight -.267*** .056 -.268*** .056
Student BA (Ref) - - - - MA -.056 .251 -.063 .254
InternetTotal .020 .035 .014 .036
Group2Image- Funny -.504** .252
Group3Image- Funny -.194 .175
Group4Image- Funny -.169 .179
R2 .036 .053 .254 .275 F 2,018 2,245 5,119 4,280
Model p .113 .067* .000*** .000*** *p < 0,1 ** p < 0,05, *** p < 0,01
44 | P a g e
What the model reveals is that, as expected from the findings of the ANOVA analysis, there are indeed no significant effects of exposure to an internet meme about global warming on people‟s attitudes of environmental concern. Rather than group membership, significant predictors of EnvConcern are Female (with women scoring significantly higher on
EnvConcern than men), Politics (where those with a greater interest in politics scoring significantly higher on EnvConcern) and LeftRight (with those who are more right-wing scoring significantly lower on EnvConcern).
Combining the evidence from the ANOVAs in the previous subchapter with this evidence, it can be firmly concluded that Hypothesis 2 is supported. Overall, in the short run, exposure to the internet meme relating to climate change had no significant effect on people‟s attitudes of environmental concern. Furthermore, the regression model above offers additional evidence for the rejection of Hypothesis 1. Whilst the ANOVA analyses did reveal significant differences in ImageFunny – with those in Group 3 and Group 4 finding their images significantly funnier than those in Control Group 1 and Group 2 – no significant effect of ImageFunny was found in the regression model above. Interaction terms
Group3ImageFunny and Group4ImageFunny were also not found to be significant. At this point, Hypothesis 1 is not immediately rejected, for ImageFunny may still have significant effects mediated through Trivialization and Coping. This will be discussed in the following two chapters.
A surprising finding emerging from the model above, however, is the significant negative (-
.504) effect of interaction term Group2ImageFunny. Thus, for Experimental Group 2,
ImageFunny had a significantly more negative effect on EnvConcern as compared to other groups. This finding will be returned to in more detail in Chapter 4.
45 | P a g e
[3.5] – Analysis III: Trivialization Regressed
Next, Hypothesis 3 was tested further through the creation of a Regression Model regressing
Trivialization on the similar variables as the regression model in Table 5 above. Variables were added in a step-by-step fashion once more, so again four different models were created.
Table 6 on the following page represents these four models.
The regression models reveal that although we can observe a positive effect (.620) of membership of Group 3 that is significant at the α = .1 level in Model 1, this effect disappears once ImageFunny is introduced in Model 2. However, none of the individual effects
(including that of ImageFunny) are significant in this second model. Adding control variables in Model 3 revealed a negative effect (-.276) of Politics significant at the α = .05 level, as well as a positive (.326) effect of LeftRight significant at the α = .01 level. This indicates that those who are more interested in politics score significantly lower on Trivialization, and that those who are more right-wing score significantly higher on this variable. None of the interaction terms in Model 4 was found to be significant.
Models 1 and 2 were both not found to be significant. Both Model 3 itself and the step from
Model 2 to Model 3 were found to be significant at the α = .01 level. Whilst Model 4 itself was found to be significant at the same level, the step from Model 3 to Model 4 was not found to be significant.
46 | P a g e
Table 6 Trivialization regressed on group membership, ImageFunny, control and interaction variables. Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
B SE B SE B SE B SE
Intercept 3,718*** .231 3,724*** .253 1,460 1,177 1,139 1,215
Group Control 1 ------Exp. 2 .154 .326 .153 .327 .094 .308 -.023 .501 Exp. 3 .620* .324 .638 .474 .671 .441 1,423* .781 Exp. 4 .122 .312 .136 .398 -.027 .375 .016 .684
ImageFunny -.003 .063 -.027 .061 .012 .157
Age .061 .050 .061 .050
Gender Male (Ref) - - - - Female .200 .238 .226 .241
Politics -.276** .122 -.276** .123
LeftRight .326*** .058 .333*** .059
Student BA (Ref) - - - - MA .068 .036 .115 .266
InternetTotal .020 .036 .035 .038
Group2Image- Funny .077 .264
Group3Image- Funny -.136 .184
Group4Image- Funny .032 .187
R2 .026 .026 .227 .236 F 1,429 1,065 4,405 3,499
Model p .236 .375 .000*** .000*** *p < 0,1 ** p < 0,05, *** p < 0,01
47 | P a g e
What this model reveals is that, as expected from the ANOVA analyses, there are no significant group-level differences with regards to Trivialization. Thus, it must be concluded that exposure to the climate change-related internet meme did not lead to increased trivialization of the topic of climate change. Instead, the model reveals that significant predictors of Trivialization are Politics and LeftRight. Those more interested in politics show significantly lower levels of (environmental) Trivialization, and those who are more right- wing show significantly higher levels of (environmental) Trivialization.
Based on these findings, it may at this point be concluded that Hypothesis 3 is rejected. With regards to exposure to the climate change-related internet meme, there doesn‟t seem to be such a thing as a „trivialization effect‟.
Furthermore, this model also reveals additional evidence for the rejection of Hypothesis 1, as no significant effects of ImageFunny or any of the three interaction terms was found with regards to Trivialization. This finding contradicted the expectations from literature, and hence an additional test for correlation between ImageFunny and Trivialization was performed. This test revealed that ImageFunny and Trivialization are not significantly correlated at the α = .05 level (r = .094, p = .228). Explanations for this unexpected finding will for the moment be set aside, as it may be worthwhile to first examine the other mechanism expected to mediate between ImageFunny and EnvConcern: Coping. It will thus be returned to in the following chapter, as well as in Chapter 4.
48 | P a g e
[3.6] – Analysis IV: Coping Regressed
Next, Hypothesis 4 was tested through the creation of a Regression Model regressing Coping on the similar variables as the regression model in Table 5 and Table 6 above. Variables were added in a step-by-step fashion once more, so again four different models were created. Table
7 on the following page represents these four models.
The models reveal that whilst Model 1 and Model 2 both reveal a negative effect
(-.692 / -.681) of being a member of Group 2 that is significant at the α = .1 level, this effect turns insignificant once control variables are added in Model 3. In Model 3, a negative (-.526) effect for Female was found that is significant at the α = .1 level, cautiously indicating that women score lower on Coping than men. A significant positive (.241) effect for LeftRight was also found in this model. Noticeably, variable Politics was not found to have a significant effect on Coping. Once more, none of the interaction terms in Model 4 were found to be significant.
Models 1 and 2 were both not found to be significant. Both Model 3 itself and the step from
Model 2 to Model 3 were found to be significant at the α = .01 level. Whilst Model 4 itself was found to be significant at the α = .05 level, the step from Model 3 to Model 4 was not found to be significant.
49 | P a g e
Table 7 Coping regressed on group membership, ImageFunny, control and interaction variables. Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
B SE B SE B SE B SE
Intercept 4,846*** .260 4,755*** .285 5,506*** 1,411 5,181*** 1,459
Group Control 1 ------Exp. 2 -.692* .367 -.681* .327 -.574 .369 -.749 .601 Exp. 3 .054 .365 -.251 .532 -.119 .529 .644 .937 Exp. 4 -.293 .351 -.510 .447 -.175 .450 -.441 .821
ImageFunny .056 .071 .014 .073 .058 .189
Age -.063 .060 -.064 .060
Gender Male (Ref) - - - - Female -.526* .285 -.506* .290
Politics -.148 .147 -.147 .148
LeftRight .241*** .069 .247*** .071
Student BA (Ref) - - - - MA .194 .313 .249 .319
InternetTotal .003 .043 .018 .046
Group2Image- Funny .119 .316
Group3Image- Funny -.142 .221
Group4Image- Funny .016 .225
R2 .032 .035 .143 .151 F 1,750 1,464 2,497 2,004
Model p .159 .216 .008*** .024** *p < 0,1 ** p < 0,05, *** p < 0,01
50 | P a g e
What this model reveals is that, as expected from the ANOVA analyses, there are no significant group-level differences with regards to Coping. Exposure to the internet meme about the global issue of climate change did not lead to increased capacity to cope with the topic of climate change. Instead, the model reveals that significant predictors of Coping are
Female and LeftRight. Women show significantly lower levels of (environmental) coping than men, and those who are more right-wing show significantly higher levels of (environmental) coping.
Based on these findings, it may at this point be concluded that Hypothesis 4 is rejected. No evidence was found that exposure to an internet meme about climate change leads to higher levels of coping with the global issue of climate change. There thus doesn‟t seem to be such a thing as a „coping effect‟.
Furthermore, this model also reveals additional evidence for the rejection of Hypothesis 1, as like with Trivialization, no significant effects of ImageFunny or any of the three interaction terms was found with regards to Coping. Similarly to the previous subchapter, this finding let to the decision to run a test for correlation between ImageFunny and Coping. Like
Trivialization, it was found that ImageFunny and Coping are not significantly correlated at the
α = .05 level (r = .105, p = .179).
As a result, we may now conclude that Hypothesis 1 is rejected. Humor, as measured by ImageFunny, does not seem to be significantly related to EnvConcern. No significant moderating effects (as represented by the interaction terms), nor direct effects, nor effects mediated through Trivialization or Coping could be found. This finding is intriguing, and will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. Whilst we may reject the mediation between
ImageFunny and Trivialization/Coping, however, perhaps it is too soon to reject the connections between Trivialization/Coping and EnvConcern. Let us turn to this topic now.
51 | P a g e
[3.7] – Analysis V: Final Model
As a final step in the analysis, it was decided to further investigate the connection which
Trivialization and Coping play in determining EnvConcern. To do so, a final Regression
Model was created with EnvConcern as the dependent variable. Model 3 as listed in Chapter
3.4 (see also Table 6), containing ImageFunny as well as the control variables, was re-created.
As an additional step, Coping and Trivialization were added to the model, after which the interaction terms were also re-added to the model. The resulting regression model can be observed in Table 8.
The table reveals that adding Coping and Trivialization to Model 3 results in a jump in
R2 (from .254 to .383). This increase was found to be significant at the α = 0.01 level. In this final model, the effect of Coping was not found to be significant. The negative effect (-.396) of Trivialization, however, was found to be significant at the α = .01 level. It can thus be said that those who score higher on Trivialization, score lower on EnvConcern. The same, however, cannot be said for Coping.
Adding the interaction terms to the model now also containing Coping and
Trivialization revealed again a negative effect (-.471) of interaction term Group2ImageFunny that is significant at the a = .05 level. None of the other interaction terms were found to be significant. Once more, we see that members of Group 2 who reported higher levels of
ImageFunny scored significantly lower on EnvConcern (see also Chapter 3.2).
From this final model, we may conclude that in line with expectations from literature, a „trivialization effect‟ does exist, as it reveals that higher levels of Trivialization indeed significantly and negatively affect levels of EnvConcern. However, as previously stated, the fact remains that Trivialization and ImageFunny were not found to be significantly correlated.
Contrary to expectations from literature however, the model reveals evidence contra the existence of a „coping effect‟, as the effect of Coping was not found to be significant.
52 | P a g e
Table 8 EnvConcern regressed on group membership, ImageFunny, control variables, Coping, Trivialization and interaction variables. Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 B SE B SE B SE
Intercept 6,911*** 1,223 7,700*** 1,090 7,379*** 1,105
Group Control 1 ------Exp. 2 -.187 .296 -.160 .274 .541 .439 Exp. 3 -.352 .425 -.088 .392 .618 .689 Exp. 4 -.027 .361 -.254 .332 -.155 .597
ImageFunny -.027 .058 -.038 .054 .158 .137
Age .051 .048 .074* .044 .074* .044
Gender Male (Ref) ------Female .844*** .229 .914*** .213 .934*** .213
Politics .211* .118 .099 .110 .086 .109
LeftRight -.267*** .056 -.134** .057 -.130** .058
Student BA (Ref) ------MA -.056 .251 -.025 .230 -.012 .232
InternetTotal .020 .035 .028 .061 .028 .033
Coping -.018 .061 -.018 .073
Trivialization -.396*** .073 -.399** .061
Group2Image- Funny -.471** .230
Group3Image- Funny -.251 .161
Group4Image- Funny -.156 .163
R2 .254 .383 .404 F 5,119 7,663 6,547
Model p .000*** .000*** .000*** *p < 0,1 ** p < 0,05, *** p < 0,01
53 | P a g e
Chapter 4: Discussion & Conclusion
At the start of this investigation, the influential role of internet memes and their prevalence on the way society and its issues are treated and perceived was noted. Initially, it was expected that internet memes about global issues – like the topic of climate change focused on in this research – might problematically have a detrimental impact on peoples‟ capacity to take these issues seriously. Following Basulto (2013), the possibility was raised that internet memes about global issues may introduce humor to an area where it should not have a place, limiting humans‟ capacity to address these issues, arguably standing in the way of human progress and trivializing “who we are as humans”. Now having reached the end of the investigation, we may ask ourselves the question whether this expectation has proven to hold.
According to this exploratory study, the probability that internet memes about global issues have detrimental effects on peoples‟ capacity to take these issues seriously is small. The primary finding of this research is that exposure to an internet meme about climate change was not found to have any significant effect on [1] one‟s attitudes of environmental concern,
[2] one‟s (level of) trivialization of climate change, and [3] one‟s (level of) coping with climate change. This overall insignificant effect falls in line with expectations from literature
(see also Chapter 2.4), and suggests that the concerns raised by Basulto (2013) are unwarranted.
The confirmation that this arguably possible threat to human progress and identity is unlikely to be a threat after all is reassuring. Furthermore, considering the popularity of internet memes and their noted influences (see also Chapter 1), the discovery that climate change-related internet memes do not significantly impact environmental attitudes is noteworthy. Those parties involved with addressing global issues, for who a proven detrimental effect could be cause for concern, need thus not be concerned after all.
54 | P a g e
Possibly of more note than the above, however, is what this study has indicated regarding the role which humor plays in the relationship between internet memes and attitudes. The fact that the extent to which the internet memes in the study were deemed to be funny had almost no significant effects on levels of environmental concern, trivialization and coping is striking, especially considering the body of literature supporting the humor-trivialization and humor- coping relationships. Notably, the only significant effect of humor was found within
Experimental Group 2, the group which did not significantly differ from Control Group 1 with regards to the extent to which its members believed their image was funny. The fact that participants in Experimental Group 3 and Experimental Group 4 did find their image significantly funnier also entails that the insignificant effects of humor did not stem from the fact that the internet memes in the study were simply not thought to be funny.
How may we explain this finding? A first possibility could be to follow Baukes et al.
(2015) in their suggestion that there might be numerous mechanisms underlying humorous internet memes, of which some work positively and some work negatively in influencing attitudes of concern. As levels of humor increase or decrease, attitudes of concern would thus remain stable overall, despite the individual mechanisms carrying significant influence. This research has examined two of these mechanisms – trivialization and coping – and found that they do not play such a significant role in the humor-attitude relationship. However, it is possible that other mechanisms that do significantly affect the humor-attitude relationship have flown under the radar in this study. Had they been specifically examined in a similar vein to the trivialization and coping mechanisms, it is possible that significant effects could have been discovered. This explanation would embrace the idea that humor and attitudes are significantly related – as per the consensus of humor studies – even if in the greater picture no significant effect is found – as per the findings of this study.
55 | P a g e
A second possibility would be to reject the humor-attitude relationship noted by humor theorists, at least where climate change-related internet memes, humor, and attitudes of environmental concern are concerned. This approach would follow from the fact that – contrary to expectations from the field of humor research – this study found no significant relationship between humor and trivialization, nor between humor and coping. One could argue why other mechanisms could and should be expected, if these already oft-noted mechanisms were not found to play a significant role. Nevertheless, it is recommended that future studies do focus on exploring alternative mechanisms in the relationship between internet memes about global issues, humor, and attitudes of concern about those issues, as this would help us to decide on whether Baukes et al.‟s (2015) suggestion should be followed, or whether the humor-attitude relationship should be debunked.
As a side note, in such future studies it may also be worthwhile to delve deeper into how exactly internet memes relate to humor. In this research, it has been argued that humor is inherent to internet memes (see also Chapter 2.3). To some extent, the two have been treated synonymously because of this. However, it is possible that this relationship may need to be made somewhat more nuanced. The fact that internet memes take a very specific visual, image-or-video-based shape and pre-require some knowledge about internet memes to „get‟ them (Csordás et al., 2017) suggests that perhaps there is something that sets apart internet memes from sources of humor as employed by humor research. This suggestion does not deny that there is a very strong association between internet memes and humor, which this study has shown support for. Nevertheless, a complete understanding of the relationship between internet memes, humor and attitudes of concern may benefit from a more nuanced investigation regarding how exactly internet memes relate to humor.
56 | P a g e
Setting aside the primary finding of this research and its implications for a moment, this research has also presented a set of sub-findings which warrant additional focus. The first of these sub-findings is the discovery of a significant negative effect of humor on attitudes of environmental concern specifically for members of Experimental Group 2, who saw the non- meme, environment-related image. This finding was unexpected, for this image was not initially thought to evoke a humorous response (see also Chapter 3.1); furthermore, comparing the four groups members of Experimental Group 2 reported the lowest levels of humor out of all groups (and did not differ significantly from Control Group 1). What this entails is that those who had a humorous response to the environment-related image, scored significantly lower on attitudes of environmental concern compared to other groups for equal levels of humorous responses. However, it is also possible that for Experimental Group 2, those with higher levels of attitudes of environmental concern responded with significantly less humor to their image than members in any of the other groups. Either or both possibilities may hold to be true, but this research has not elected to delve deeper into this investigation.
The second notable sub-finding concerns the mechanisms of coping and trivialization as relating to attitudes of environmental concern. In the final regression model created in this study (see Chapter 3.7), a significant negative effect of trivialization was found to exist.
However, the same could not be said for coping. What may hence be concluded is that if one is better able to cope with the topic of climate change, this does not entail that they find this topic less important. This sub-finding carries interesting implications for how parties with an interest in promoting attitudes of environmental concern may want to approach doing so.
Generally speaking, parties aiming to achieve this goal elect to do so through strategies that could be considered as „attacking coping‟: using fear- and worry-enhancing messages that place emphasis on the terrible scenarios that may or will occur if people do not concern themselves with climate change. But if coping is unrelated to attitudes of environmental
57 | P a g e concern – as this research suggests – taking this kind of approach may not be necessary.
Instead, such parties may want to consider fostering hope or optimism that climate change can be effectively addressed. Strategies that do not disguise the severity of the situation, but focus on enhancing coping rather than reducing it are expected to reduce environment-related fear, worry and stress society-wide. Since this research has found no significant relationship between coping and attitudes of environmental concern, such an approach would reap the benefits of reducing fear, worry and stress without sacrificing such parties‟ goal of stimulating attitudes of environmental concern.
It is notably important to the existence and development of a society that its inhabitants possess attitudes of concern which are to some extent proportionate to the (global) issues which that society experiences. The concluding message offered by this research with regards to a possible threat to these attitudes of concern – following authors like Basulto (2013) – is one of reassurance. It reveals that internet memes are unlikely to have detrimental effects on attitudes of concern, at least concerning the global issue of the environment. We thus need not fear internet memes as standing in the way of human progress, or as trivializing our human identities. When internet memes address global issues – at least with regards to the global issue of climate change – they do not diminish the attitudes of concern towards that issue of a person who is exposed to them, and do not overshadow their capacity to take these issues seriously. Hence, it may be concluded that internet meme creator-consumers may continue to create, consume, and be entertained by internet memes (about global issues).
58 | P a g e
Should we, then, conclude that internet memes truly are “insignificant embodiments of silliness and whimsicality”? (Shifman, 2014, pp. 340) Arguably, this would be a step too far.
Internet memes have undoubtedly ingrained themselves in contemporary society at a rapid pace, and ignoring them outright in all dimensions might be, in Denisova‟s (2016) words, “at our own peril”. At this point in time, there is, as argued by Chattoo (2019, pp. 517), still a large amount we do not know about internet memes. Whilst this research has offered some evidence against a perceived relationship between internet memes about global issues and attitudes of concern about those issues, this does not entail that no relationship between internet memes and attitudes might exist in different societal spheres. Much remains to be investigated with regards to the novel phenomenon of the internet meme.
Nevertheless, this research has taken some steps in the advancement of the new and developing field of internet meme research. As – up to my knowledge – one of the first few bodies of research examining specifically the relationship between exposure to internet memes and attitudes, it is also one of the first to examine findings from well-established fields of attitude and humor research and examining them as relating to this novel internet phenomenon. In doing so, it has offered some pieces to the yet-incomplete puzzle that is the internet meme, and has offered possibilities in which both individuals and organizations may benefit from these findings, as well as further avenues for future scientific research. The removal of reasons for concern about how internet memes may inhibit human progress and identity is, I argue, the primary contribution of this research.
Rounding off, we may note a few limitations to the study. First, there are a few issues related to the time constraints of the study.
The first of these issues is the fact that the conclusions drawn by this research are based on a relatively small sample size (N=165), of which only (N=47) were exposed to a
59 | P a g e single instance of a climate change-related internet meme. Ideally, the size of every group in the sample would have been bigger, and the research would have been carried out using multiple variations of (climate change-related) internet memes. This would have allowed for interesting comparisons between climate change-related internet memes, particularly regarding humor. Comparing multiple climate change-related internet memes, noting different levels of humor, and seeing how they resulted in different attitudes of environmental concern could have yielded fruitful results.
A second time-constraint related issue is that this research could not investigate the effect of exposure to internet memes in the long term. It could not confirm nor deny what
Nabi et al. (2007) coined the „Sleeper Effect‟, the possibility mentioned in Chapter 2.4 that argues for a slightly positive effect of exposure to internet memes in the long run contra a neutral effect in the short run. Considering how common internet memes are today, we may expect people to be exposed to them on a regular basis over time, contrary to exposure being a one-time occasion as employed in this research. An investigation into the long-term effects of
(repeated) exposure to internet memes would have ideally been a part of this research, and it is unfortunate that this was not tenable. Future research may want to replicate the study as carried out here (more) along the lines of Nabi et al.‟s (2007) longitudinal research design.
A third and final time-related limitation is that this research solely focused on the global issue of climate change, whilst internet memes about other topics such as racism and pandemics (see also Chapter 1) are also notably common. Broader, stronger conclusions about the relationship between internet memes about global issues and attitudes of concern towards those issues could have been drawn had these other kinds of global issues also been investigated. Future research may benefit from following this avenue.
60 | P a g e
Besides time-related limitations, a circumstantial factor that may be worth mentioning is the impact of the worldwide COVID-19 crisis on this research. In the first half of 2020 – within which this research was designed and carried out – this global health crisis dominated daily life. News cycles and daily conversations predominantly focused on COVID-19, and it was arguably the global issue suddenly at the forefront of the thoughts of many during this time period. Although no precise claims about the exact impact of this health crisis on this study can be made, the possibility must be raised that the presence and impact of this unnaturally large global issue to some extent influenced average levels of attitudes of environmental concern. Had this research been carried out half a year earlier, or had it focused on the suddenly-relevant global issue of COVID-19 rather than the suddenly-less-relevant global issue of climate change, it is possible that the results emerging from this study would have been very different.
61 | P a g e
Reference List
Ajzen, I. (1989). Attitude Structure and Behavior. In Pratkanis, A.R., Breckler, S.J. & Greenwald, A.G. (Eds.), Attitude Structure and Function (pp. 241-274).
Attardo, S. (2010). Linguistic Theories of Humor (Vol. 1). Walter de Gruyter.
Basulto, D. (July 5th, 2013). Have Internet Memes Lost Their Meaning? The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2013/07/05/have-internet- memes-lost-their-meaning/
Baukes, M., Boomgaarden, H.G., Moorman, M. & De Vreese, C.H. (2015). At Odds: Laughing and Thinking? The Appreciation, Processing, and Persuasiveness of Political Satire. Journal of Communication, 65, pp. 721-744.
Baumgartner, J. (2007). Humor on the Next Frontier: Youth, Online Political Humor, and the JibJab Effect. Social Science Computer Review, 25(3), pp. 319-338.
Baumgartner, J. & Lockerbie, B. (2018). Maybe it Is More Than a Joke: Satire, Mobilization, and Political Participation. Social Science Quarterly, 99(3), pp. 1060-1074
Baumgartner, J. & Morris, J.S. (2006). The Daily Show Effect: Candidate Evaluations, Efficacy, and American Youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), pp. 341-367
Becker, A.B. (2011). Political Humor as Democratic Relief? The Effects of Exposure to Comedy and Straight News on Trust and Efficacy. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 19(5), pp. 235-250.
Bjarneskans, H., Grønnevik, B. & Sandberg, A. (2008). The Lifecycle of Memes. In Finkelstein, R. (Eds.), A Memetics Compendium (pp. 127-147)
62 | P a g e
Bohner, G. & Dickel, N. (2011). Attitudes and Attitude Change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, pp. 391-417.
Chattoo, C.B. (2019). A Funny Matter: Toward a Framework for Understanding the Function of Comedy in Social Change. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 32(3), pp. 499-523
Conrey, F.R. & Smiuth, E.R. (2007). Attitude Representation: Attitudes as Patterns in a Distributed, Connectionist Representational System. Social Cognition, 25, pp. 718- 735.
Csordás, T., Horváth, D., Mitev, A., & Markos-Kujbus, É. (2017). User-Generated Internet Memes as Advertising Vehicles: Visual Narratives as Special Consumer Information Sources and Consumer Tribe Integrators. Berlin, DE: De Gruyter Publishing.
Davis, C.B., Glantz, M. & Novak, D.R. (2016). “You Can‟t Run Your SUV on Cute. Let‟s Go!”: Internet Memes as Delegitimizing Discourse. Environmental Communication, 10(1), pp. 62-83.
Davison, P. (2012). The Language of Internet Memes. In Mandiberg, M. (Eds.), The Social Media Reader (pp. 120-134). Retrieved from http://fall2015.veryinteractive.net/content/6-library/20-the-language-of-internet- memes/davison-thelanguageofinternetmemes.pdf
Dawkins, R. (1989). The Selfish Gene. In Finkelstein, R. (Eds.), A Memetics Compendium (pp. 378-393). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.731.4497&rep=rep1&type= pdf#page=378.
Dawn. (October 9th, 2008). How to Draw a Computer, Tower, Keyboard, Screen, Mouse [Image]. In Dragoart. Retrieved from https://dragoart.com/tut/how-to-draw-a- computer-tower-keyboard-screen-mouse-971
63 | P a g e
Denisova, A. (September 12th, 2016). Memes, Not Her Health, Could Cost Hillary Clinton
the US Presidential Race. In The Independent. Retrieved from
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-health-pneumonia-political-
memes-a7238581.html
Díaz, C., & Mauricio, C. (2013). Defining and Characterizing the Concept of Internet Meme. CES Psicología, 6(2), pp. 82-104.
EIGE. (2017). Cover [Image]. In Gender in Environment and Climate Change. Retrieved from https://eige.europa.eu/publications/gender-environment-and-climate-change
Eisend, M. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Humor in Advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, pp. 191-203
European Social Survey. (2016). ESS Round 8 Source Questionnaire. London, UK: ESS ERIC Headquarters c/o City University London.
European Values Study. (2018). European Values Study – EVS 2017 Master Questionnaire. Retrieved from https://europeanvaluesstudy.eu/methodology-data- documentation/survey-2017/pre-release-evs-2017/documentation-survey-2017/
Eurostat. (2018). Archive: Internet Access and Use Statistics – Households and Individuals. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php?title=Archive:Internet_access_and_use_statistics_- _households_and_individuals&oldid=379591
Finkelstein, R. (2008). A Memetics Compendium. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.731.4497&rep=rep1&type= pdf#page=378
64 | P a g e
Fraustino, J.D. & Ma, L. (2015). CDC‟s Use of Social Media and Humor in a Risk Campaign – “Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse”. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 43(2), pp. 222-241.
Furie, M. (2005). Pepe the Frog [Image]. Retrieved from https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pepe-the-frog
Gavronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2007). Unraveling the Processes Underlying Evaluation: Attitudes from the Perspective of the APE Model. Social Cognition, 25, pp. 687-717.
Haasch, P. (April 20th, 2020). How Coronavirus Memes Have Traced the Timeline of the Pandemic, from Panic to the New Normal. In Insider. Retrieved from https://www.insider.com/coronavirus-memes-timeline-progression-handwashing- nature-tiktok-twitter-new-normal-2020-4
Hales, D. (2008). Belief Has Utility – An Intentional Stance. A Commentary on Gather‟s Paper: “Why the Thought Contagion Metaphor is Retarding the Progress of Memetics”. In Finkelstein, R. (Eds.), A Memetics Compendium (pp. 897-899). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.731.4497&rep=rep1&type= pdf#page=378
Heiskanen, B. (2017). Meme-ing Electoral Participation. European Journal of American
Studies, 12(2).
Huntington, H.E. (2017). The Affect and Effect of Internet Memes: Assessing Perceptions and
Influence of Online User-Generated Political Discourse Media. Retrieved from
https://mountainscholar.org/bitstream/handle/10217/183936/Huntington_colostate_00
53A_14303.pdf
Internet World Stats. (2019, June 30th). Internet Usage Statistics: The Internet Big Picture. Retrieved from https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
65 | P a g e
Johnston, A. (2019). A TED Talk: Internet Memes as Prosumption Objects and Prospective
Photographs. In London School of Economics [Blog Post]. Retrieved from
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/researchingsociology/2019/06/19/a-ted-talk-internet-memes-as-
prosumption-objects-and-prospective-photographs/
Kanai, A. (2016). Sociality and Classification: Reading Gender, Race, and Class in a Humorous Meme. Social Media + Society, 2(4), pp. 1-12.
Klein, O. (2018). Manipulative Memes: How Internet Memes Can Distort the Truth. In
Oxford Internet Institute [Blog Post]. Retrieved from
https://connectedlife.oii.ox.ac.uk/manipulative-memes-how-internet-memes-can-
distort-the-truth/
Kliger-Vilenchik, N. & Thorson, K. (2016). Good Citizenship as a Frame Contest: Kony2012, Memes, and Critiques of the Networked Citizen. New Media & Society, 18(9), pp. 1993-2011.
Ko, C. (August 17th, 2019). How Pepe the Frog Became Face of Hong Kong Protests – Despite Cartoon Being a Symbol of Hate in US. In South China Morning Post. Retrieved from https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/article/3023060/how- pepe-frog-became-face-hong-kong-protests-despite-cartoon
Kuiper, N.A. (2012). Humor and Resiliency: Towards a Process Model of Coping and Growth. Europe‟s Journal of Psychology, 8(3), pp. 475-491.
Kuipers, G. (2008). The Sociology of Humor. In Raskin, V. (Ed.), The Primer of Humor Research. New York, USA: Mouton de Gruyter.
66 | P a g e
Kulkarni, A. (2017). Internet Meme and Political Discourse: A Study on the Impact of
Internet Memes as a Tool in Communicating Political Satire. Journal of Content,
Community & Communication, 6(3), pp. 13-17.
Lee, H. & Kwak, N. (2014). The Affect Effect of Political Satire: Sarcastic Humor, Negative Emotions, and Political Participation. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), pp. 307-328.
Marcus, O.R. & Singer, M. (2016). Loving Ebola-chan: Internet Memes in an Epidemic. Media, Culture & Society, 39(3), pp. 341-356.
Moyer-Gusé, E., Mahood, C. & Brookes, S. (2011). Entertainment-Education in the Context of Humor: Effects on Safer Sex Intentions and Risk Perceptions. Health Communication, 26(8), pp. 765-774
Nabi, R.L., Moyer-Gusé, E. & Byrne, S. (2007). All Joking Aside: A Serious Investigation Into the Persuasive Effect of Funny Social Issue Messages. Communication Monographs, 74, pp. 29-54.
Nissenbaum, A. & Shifman, L. (2017). Internet Memes as Contested Cultural Capital: The Case of 4chan‟s /b/ Board. New Media & Society, 19(4), pp. 483-501.
O‟Rear, C. (1996). Bliss [Image]. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliss_(image)#/media/File:Bliss_(Windows_XP).png
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D.T. (2010). Attitude Change: Multiple Roles for Persuasion Variables. Advanced Social Psychology: The State of the Science, pp. 217-259.
Pew Research Center. (2017). Internet Use by Age. Retrieved from https://www.pewinternet.org/chart/internet-use-by-age/
67 | P a g e
Rasfan, M. (2019). Pepe as a Pro-Democracy Symbol [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/10/03/hong-kong-protesters-transform-alt-right- pepe-frog-pro-democracy-symbol/
Romero, E.J. & Cruthirds, K.W. (2006). The Use of Humor in the Workplace. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), pp. 58-69.
Ross, A.S. & Rivers, D.J. (2019). Internet Memes, Media Frames, and the Conflicting Logics
of Climate Change Discourse. Environmental Communication, 13(7), pp. 975-994.
Samson, A.C., Glasco, A.L., Lee, I.A. & Gross, J.J. (2014). Humorous Coping and Serious Reappraisal: Short-term and Longer-term Effects. Europe‟s Journal of Psychology, 10(3), pp. 571-581
Schwarz, N. (2007). Attitude Construction: Evaluation in Context. Social Cognition, 25, pp. 638-656
Segev, E., Nissenbaum, A., Stolero, N. & Shifman, L. (2015). Families and Networks of Internet Memes: The Relationship Between Cohesiveness, Uniqueness, and Quiddity Concreteness. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20, pp. 417-433.
Shifman, L. (2014). The Cultural Logic of Photo-Based Meme Genres. Journal of Visual
Culture, 13(3), pp. 340-358.
Slater, M.D. & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment – Education and Elaboration Likelihood: Understanding the Processing of Narrative Persuasion. Communication Theory, 12(2), pp. 173-191.
Smug Nazi Pepe [Image]. Retrieved from https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/861025-smug-frog
68 | P a g e
Strick, M., Holland, R.W., Van Baaren, R.B. & Van Knippenberg, A. (2009). Finding Comfort in a Joke: Consolatory Effects of Humor Through Cognitive Distraction. Emotion, 9(4), pp. 574-578.
/u/I_Is_Borat. (2019). THE MEATBALL MAN HAS ARISEN [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.reddit.com/r/surrealmemes/comments/ekswea/the_meatball_man_has_ari sen/
Van Ginneken, J. (1999). Brein-Bevingen: Snelle Omslagen in Opinie en Communicatie [Brain-Tremors: Rapid Turnarounds in Opinion and Communication]. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Uitgeverij Boom.
Wanzer, M., Booth-Butterfield, M. & Booth-Butterfield, S. (2005). “If We Didn‟t Use Humor, We‟d Cry”: Humorous Coping Communication in Health Care Settings. Journal of Health Communication, 10(2), pp. 105-125.
Wiggins, B.E. & Bowers, G.B. (2015). Memes as Genre: A Structural Analysis of the Memescape. New Media & Society, 17(11), pp. 1886-1906.
Wilkins, J.S. (2008). What‟s A Meme: Reflections from the Perspective of the History and Philosophy of Evolutionary Biology. In Finkelstein, R. (Eds.), A Memetics Compendium (pp. 1634-1669). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.731.4497&rep=rep1&type= pdf#page=378
Willems, T. (2019). Bliss as a Meme [Image]. Retrieved from https://imgflip.com/memegenerator
Willems, T. (2020). Surprised Study Pikachu [Image]. Retrieved from https://imgflip.com/memegenerator
Willems, T. (2020). Surprised Underwater Pikachu [Image]. Retrieved from https://imgflip.com/memegenerator
69 | P a g e
Willems, T. (2019). Woman Yelling at Cat – Example [Image]. Retrieved from https://imgflip.com/memegenerator
Williams, A., Oliver, C., Aumer, K. & Meyers, C. (2016). Racial Microaggressions and
Perceptions of Internet Memes. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, pp. 424-432.
Yoon, I. (2016). Why is it Not Just a Joke? Analysis of Internet Memes Associated with Racism and Hidden Ideology of Colorblindness. Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education, 33, pp. 92-123.
Young, D.G. (2008). The Privileged Role of the Late-Night Joke: Exploring Humor‟s Role in Disrupting Argument Scrutiny. Media Psychology, 11(1), pp. 119-142.
70 | P a g e
Appendix: Questions Measuring Environmental Attitudes
Q6 Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.
Fully Slightly Neither Slightly Fully Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree a) I would give part of my income if I were certain that the money would be used to protect the environment. b) I find it difficult to take the topic of environmental protection seriously. c) There are more important things to do in life than protect the environment. d) Protecting the environment should be given priority, even if it causes slower economic growth and some loss of jobs. e) Many of the claims about environmental threats are exaggerated. f) Protecting the environment needs to be a top priority for countries everywhere. g) I feel a personal responsibility to try to protect the environment. h) If I think about the future of the environment, I feel worried. i) I can‟t help but be amused by how much some people care about the environment. j) I believe that humanity will be able to restore the damage that has been done to the environment in the foreseeable future.
71 | P a g e