2019年至2020年間，網路迷因(meme)開始被大量運用於台灣公部門的粉絲專頁中，一些學者指出迷因的幽默與感染力等特質，使得它能激發民眾對於政治事務的興趣，因而成為一種政治遊說工具。然而國內仍鮮少有相關研究探討當政策行銷使用網路迷因時，是如何影響受眾對於政策的態度，甚至改變其行為意願，且網路迷因是否在不同面向的效果指標影響有異，也值得加以測試。本研究透過實驗法，結合幽默研究與推敲可能性模型，探討當訊息傳播者透過網路進行政策行銷時，使用迷因貼文對於受眾的政策興趣、政策態度、行為意願與傳播意願之影響，並且比較不同幽默風格與訊息論點品質的迷因貼文之效果差異，同時，也考量政策類型的干擾。本研究以一個實驗驗證八項假說，採取[2（政策類型：一般性vs.爭議性）x 2（迷因貼文幽默風格：親和型vs.侵略型）x2（迷因文字訊息論點品質：高vs.低） ] + 2非迷因貼文（政策類型：一般性vs.爭議性）的多因子受測者間實驗設計，共形成10個實驗組。

　　研究結果顯示，迷因的政策行銷效果不如預期，只與非迷因貼文相當，進一步發現原因可能與在政策行銷中，論點品質更是影響受眾政策興趣、政策態度、行為意願和傳播意願的重要變數有關，幽默元素僅為錦上添花之用。此外，使用迷因進行政策行銷時宜挑選適當的幽默風格，例如相比侵略型幽默風格，親和型幽默風格在政策行銷上的政策興趣、政策態度、傳播意願效果更佳。至於政策類型（一般性政策 vs. 爭議性政策）的干擾之於幽默類型、論點品質，僅在某些情況下支持預期的效果。舉例來說，在一般性政策的情況下，採親和型幽默風格會具有較佳的政策行銷效果(作用於政策興趣、政策態度、傳播意願)；然而，在爭議性政策的情況下時，侵略型幽默風格並未如同假說預測的具有更好的成效。而在論點品質的部分，本研究發現在受眾涉入度較高的爭議性政策裡，會強化越高的論點品質在政策行銷時，對受眾的行為意願和傳播意願的正向影響效果。本研究成果可增加迷因傳播理論的學術貢獻，也能提供未來政府公部門在執行網路政策行銷時的參考方針。

Internet memes began to be widely used in Facebook fan pages of Taiwan’s government departments from 2019 to 2020. Some scholars pointed out that the humor and infectiousness of Internet memes can arouse people’s interest in political affairs and thus memes become a political lobbying tool. However, there are still few relevant researches on how the use of Internet memes in policy marketing affects the audience’s attitude towards the policy and even changes their behavioral intention. Moreover, it is worth testing whether Internet memes have different effects on the effect indicators in different aspects. Combining with humor research and the elaboration likelihood model, this experimental study attempts to analyze how Internet meme posts influence the audience’s policy interest, policy attitude, behavior intention, and transmission intention when government departments engage in policy marketing via the Internet. This study also deals with the impact of different humor style (affiliative vs. aggressive) and argument quality of Internet memes. In addition, policy style is investigated as the moderating factor. One experiment with a [2 (policy style: ordinary vs. controversial) x 2 (humor style of meme posts: affiliative vs. aggressive) x 2 (argument quality of meme posts: high vs. low)] +2 non-meme posts (policy style: ordinary vs. controversial) between-subject design was conducted to test eight hypotheses.

The results show that the effects of Internet memes used as a tool of policy marketing are not as good as expected, only similar to the effects of non-memes. This might be because in policy marketing, argument quality is the more important factor to influence the audience’s policy interest, policy attitude, behavior intention, and transmission intention. The humor element is only the icing on the cake. Besides, when using Internet memes in policy marketing, it’s better to choose affiliative humor style than aggressive style, so that the effects on policy interest, policy attitude, and transmission intention are much better. As for the moderation of policy style, Internet memes with affiliative humor style (vs. aggressive humor style) have better effects on policy interest, policy attitude, and transmission intention under the condition of the ordinary policy. However, when it comes to the controversial policy, Internet memes with aggressive humor style don’t attain better effect as anticipated. Considering the argument quality, the controversial policy (vs. ordinary policy) would strengthen the positive impact of argument quality on the audience’s behavior intention and transmission intention. The results of this study can add to the academic contribution of meme communication theory, and also provide a reference for government departments to carry out Internet policy marketing in the future.

論文審定書 i
致謝 ii
中文摘要 iii　　　　　　　
英文摘要 iv
第壹章　緒論 1
第一節　研究背景 1
（一）網路社群與公民參與 1
（二）政策行銷網路化、百家爭鳴的公部門小編 2
圖1-1：Facebook粉絲專頁「蘇貞昌」的政策行銷迷因貼文。 4
圖1-2：網友重製再發布的迷因貼文。 4
第二節　研究動機 5
第三節　研究目的 9
第貳章　文獻探討 10
第一節　迷因與網路迷因 10
（一）成功迷因的三大特質 10
（二）迷因的複製階段與準則 11
（三）網路迷因與數位文化 11
（四）政治型網路迷因國外相關研究 12
（五）政治型網路迷因台灣相關研究 13
第二節　幽默訴求於政治傳播之運用 17
第三節　政策行銷 23
（一）政策行銷概述 23
（二）政策行銷效果指標 24
第四節　推敲可能性模型（elaboration likelihood model，ELM） 26
（一）推敲可能性模型概述 26
（二）推敲可能性模型相關研究 27
第三章　研究架構與研究假說 29
第一節　研究架構 29
第二節　研究假說 30
第四章　研究方法 38
第一節 研究方法 38
（一）樣本和實驗設計 38
（二）實驗刺激和前測 39
(三)實驗程序 50
（四）變數衡量 50
第三節 分析結果 53
（一）研究樣本 53
（二）研究變數之操弄性檢定： 55
(三)假說驗證 58
第四節 結果討論 77
第五章 結論與建議 82
第一節 主要研究發現與討論 82
第二節 理論意涵 84
第三節 實務意涵 87
第四節 研究限制與未來研究方向 89
參考文獻 91
附錄 106

中文資料：

網路文章：
1. DailyView網路溫度計（2019年12月31日）。神回顧／全台小編的靈感來源都在這！2019十大政治梗王。聯合新聞網。取自https://udn.com/vote2020/story/12702/4259006
2. deepView 深視數位行銷（2020年04月14日）。2020品牌經營：Facebook還是Instagram？。取自https://www.deepview.com.tw/2020branding-facebook-or-instagram/
3. 李順德、張家豪（2020年4月8日）。新新聞》小編鍵盤治國時代，政府網路行銷預算爆增>。風傳媒。取自https://www.storm.mg/article/2497081?page=1
4. 英國在台辦事處（2020年9月21日）。台灣第一份企業氣候行動調查報告出爐！2050年台灣淨零碳排？近7成企業沒綠電購買計畫，恐慢半拍。天下雜誌。取自 https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5118124
5. 財團法人台灣網路資訊中心（2019）。2019台灣網路報告。檢自https://report.twnic.tw/2019/assets/download/TWNIC_TaiwanInternetReport_2019_CH.pdf
6. 郜敏（2020年04月13日）。全國上網人數首度突破兩千萬人！臉書是最愛社群平台。新頭殼。取自https://newtalk.tw/news/view/2020-04-13/390508
7. 張嘉玲（2020年4月26日）。跟風鼓譟、迷因競技大賽過後，公部門下一步該何去何從？。Inside。取自https://www.inside.com.tw/article/19628-whats-behind-this-meme-trend
8. 許伯崧（2020年9月3日）。迷因、哏圖與跟風：公部門社群小編生死鬥 ft.溫拿安德烈。鳴人堂。取自 https://opinion.udn.com/opinion/story/121057/4832213
9. 許雅綿（2020年5月7日）。靠小編鍵盤治國？公部門社群經營的三大省思！。遠見電子報。取自 https://www.gvm.com.tw/article/72596
10. 喬瑟芬（2020年5月6日）。演算法下的台灣公權力——迷因與梗圖，是公民社會的助力還是阻力？。端傳媒。取自https://theinitium.com/article/20200506-opinion-taiwan-public-authortity-fbpage-meme/
11. 劉建邦（2020年1月19日）。推直播蘇貞昌：透過影片讓人民了解施政。中央社。取自https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/201901190153.aspx
12. 蔡芷琦（2020年06月08日）。連登是大腦、Telegram當四肢：網路媒體在反送中運動的角色。關鍵評論網。取自 https://www.thenewslens.com/article/136136
13. 鄭仰哲（2019年12月08日）。「迷因工程」是對付網軍的好辦法！唐鳳：1小時內及時澄清。新頭殼。取自 https://newtalk.tw/news/view/2019-12-08/337558
14. 蘇彥誠（2018年08月10日）。善用「迷因行銷」，Gucci創新品牌形象、引爆話題。今周刊。取自https://reurl.cc/vgREvj

期刊論文與書籍：
1. 丁興祥、李美枝、陳皎眉 （1989）。社會心理學。台北：國立空中大學。
2. 王柏青、侯錦雄（1995）。關渡濕地遊客環境態度類群之研究，觀光研究學報，1（4），1-13。
3. 王泰俐（2011）。政府訊息置入電視新聞性節目的文本分析與閱聽人研究。中華傳播學刊，20，25-43。
4. 王泰俐（2013）。「臉書選舉」？2012年台灣總統大選社群媒體對政治參與行為的影響。東吳政治學報，31， 1-52。
5. 王凱、王存國、范錚強（2006）。線上環境中廣告情境呈現與執行手法對廣告效果的影響：廣告變化、訊息訴求與導引效果。資訊管理學報，13，1-28。
6. 王瑞慶（2014）。爭議性政策運用政策行銷之思辨：以十二年國民基本教育政策為分析個案。臺灣大學政治學研究所（未出版之碩士論文），臺北市。
7. 丘昌泰（2009）。甚麼是公共管理個案教學方法？──教案、教師、教法、學員角度的解析。地方政府公共管理個案選輯，第一輯，台中：行政院人事行政局地方行政研習中心。
8. 田治平（2006）。角色代言人在推敲可能性模式的影響途徑。中央大學企業管理學系，桃園市。
9. 吳定（2003）。 政策管理。台北：聯經。
10. 吳重禮、湯京平、黃紀（1999）。我國『政治功效意識』測量之初探。選舉研究，6(2)，23-44。
11. 吳淑鶯、陳瑞和（2013）。綠色消費知覺價值語意圖之前因與實踐之關係。企業管理學報，99，45-73。
12. 李家瑩、李淑美、黃偉珉（2015）。以推敲可能模式探討消費者創新與新產品採用之影響：以智慧型手機應用程式為例。中華民國資訊管理學報，22(1)，1-30。
13. 杜炎磬（2015）。我國核能發電政策之研究-以政策論證架構為觀點。國立暨南國際大學公共行政與政策學系（未出版之碩士論文），南投。
14. 汪子錫（2014b）。E化民主的政策行銷挑戰分析：以反服貿學生運動新媒體運用為例。中國行政評論， 20（2），73-106。
15. 沈怡伶（2015）。失業給付政策之評估與改善。逢甲大學公共政策研究所（未出版之碩士論文），台中。
16. 周軒逸、練乃華(2016)。品牌，代言人熟悉度於前導廣告效果之探討。管理評論，35(4) ，1-29。
17. 林彥廷（2016）。太陽花學運與政治效能感之初探：以中部地區大學生為例。東海大學政治學系（未出版之碩士論文），台中。
18. 林雯旋（2010）。新聞標題的語言分析以中國時報娛樂版（2006）為範圍。高雄師範大學國文教學（未出版之碩士論文），高雄。
19. 姚繽勝（2011）。黑色行銷：透過模仿行為建構真實性。國立臺灣大學國際企業學研究所碩士論文（未出版之碩士論文），台北。
20. 范偉銘（2017），使用者評論對購買電競筆電的影響─以涉入程度、認知需求為干擾變數，中原大學企業管理研究所（未出版之碩士論文），桃園市。
21. 唐日新、葉耀仁（2011）。應用推敲可能性模型探討部落格行銷效果：以旅遊部落格為例。中山管理評論，19(3)，517-555。
22. 徐美苓（2017）。再生能源的公眾支持及使用意願：環境信念、行動及議題傳播模式初探。中華傳播學刊，32，9-44。
23. 徐寧（2015）。感性廣告型態對廣告效果與品牌態度之影響──以產品涉入及名人代言人為干擾變數，國立中山大學企業管理學系研究所（未出版之碩士論文），高雄市。
24. 高浩剛、鄭秀芬、江長唐、楊銘賢（2014）。社群網站上訊息轉載意願影響因素之研究。中華民國資訊管理學報，21(4)，365-390。
25. 高婉瑜（2014）。網路語言的語音模因及其傳播──以宅女小紅的作品為例。淡江中文學報，30， 277 -315。
26. 國家發展委員會(2020)。108 年持有手機民眾數位機會調查(AE080006)【原始數據】。取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。
27. 康濰瓘（2016）。誤解式產品論證如何影響低涉入消費者透過中央路徑處理說服訊息，國立臺灣師範大學管理學院管理研究所（未出版之碩士論文），臺北市。
28. 張世賢（2002）。電子化政府的政策行銷。國政研究報告，台北市：財團法人國家 政策研究基金會。
29. 張春興（1994）。教育心理學──三化取向的理論與實際。台北：東華。
30. 梁祐菱（2018），社群媒體行銷活動對PAZZO消費者購買意願與信任之影響──以訊息論點品質為調節變項，淡江大學企業管理學系（未出版之碩士論文），臺北市。
31. 許原榮（2017）。臺灣民眾社群媒體的政治性使用對政治參與的影響。國立臺北大學社會所碩士論文（未出版之碩士論文），臺北市。
32. 陳佩珊（2001）。廣告中動機訴求與說服路徑設計對廣告效果之影響，國立政治大學廣告學系（未出版之碩士論文），臺北市。
33. 陳婉琪、張恒豪、黃樹仁（2016）。網絡社會運動時代的來臨？太陽花運動參與者的人際連 帶與社群媒體因素初探。人文及社會科學集刊，28(4)，467-501。
34. 陳雅玫（2016）。學生臉書使用與政治參與：以太陽花學運為例。中國行政評論，22(4)，1-34。
35. 陳燕玲、陶聖屏（2015）。新聞事件之網路模因研究:探討洪仲丘案所引起的網路謠言傳播。復興崗學報，106，43-68。
36. 傅文成、陶聖屏（2018）。以大數據觀點探索網路謠言的「網路模因」傳播模式。中華傳播學刊，33，99-135。
37. 傅文成、黃琝戩（2020）。募兵行不行？國軍招募廣告的效能檢驗：調節焦點與社會距離的觀點。復興崗學報，116，1-40。
38. 程沐真（2018）。社群媒體對選民政治態度及政治參與之影響。國立臺灣大學政治學研究所（未出版之碩士論文），臺北市。
39. 程新雨(2001)。產品屬性、產品知識、認知需求對消費者反遞移律決策行為之影響。國立台灣大學商學研究所（未出版之碩士論文），臺北市。
40. 項靖、羅晉、許雲翔、楊東謀（2016）。網路社群媒體時代政府公共諮詢與政策行銷之規劃。行政院國家發展委員會委託研析報告（編號：NDC-104-035-002）。臺北：行政院國家發展委員會。
41. 黃惠萍（2016）。公民團體倡議策略與論述分析：以臺灣動物社會研究會反海豹油個案為例。傳播研究與實踐，6(2)，243-283。
42. 黃意能、黃曉琪（2016）。以網路模因理論分析「泛舟哥」張吉吟爆紅事件中的圖像與影像模因，中華傳播學會。
43. 楊善茵（2019）。數位原生與數位移民代間資訊行為比較。臺灣師範大學圖書資訊學研究所（未出版之碩士論文），臺北市。
44. 葉明坤（2017）。我國公務人員運用社群媒體於政策行銷與公共諮詢之研究──以科技接受模型為應用。東海大學行政管理暨政策學系（未出版之碩士論文），臺中市。
45. 詹孟傑（2008）。國小教師幽默感與教學效能關係之研究──以屏東縣為例。國立高雄師範大學碩士（未出版之碩士論文），高雄市。
46. 趙淑妙譯（2020）。《自私的基因》。臺北：天下文化出版社。（原書：Dawkins, Richard (1976). The Selfish Gene. London: Oxford University Press.）
47. 劉玉玲（2014）。數位原生與數位移民的網路科技運用。臺灣教育評論月刊， 3(7)，4-8。
48. 劉兆隆（2011）。政策溝通與政策行銷的理論及實務。研習論壇月刊，129，14-24。
49. 練乃華、蘇文達、曾杏如（2005）。個人因素在幽默廣告勸服途徑中之角色研究。行銷科學學報，1（1），23-41。
50. 鄭伊純(2013)。社群廣告對廣告效果、消費者購買意願與態度之影響──以7-ELEVEN Facebook粉絲專頁為例，國立中山大學企業管理學系（未出版之碩士論文），高雄市。
51. 魯炳炎（2007）。《公共政策行銷理論之研究》。新北：韋伯文化國際出版有限公司。
52. 蕭伃伶、謝佳容、劉淑娟（2006）。護理人員幽默與健康狀況之研究。新台北護理期刊，8（2），53-62。
53. 蕭瑞貞（1998）。遊客重遊行為與其對遊樂區屬性忠誠度關係之研究──以劍湖山世界為例。逢甲大學土地管理學系（未出版之碩士論文），臺中市。
54. 龍吟欣（2019）。都市能源轉型治理發展：臺北市與首爾特別市之比較分析。臺灣大學公共事務研究所（未出版之碩士論文），臺北市。
55. 謝孟珊、楊宗文（2018）。「運動i 臺灣」政策Facebook 粉絲專頁行銷之研究。臺灣體育學術研究，64，1-16。
56. 謝思亭（2018），社會企業產品屬性、政策行銷工具對消費動機影響之研究，臺灣師範大學社會教育學系（未出版之碩士論文），臺北市。
57. 鍾易昇（2018），探討公部門社群媒體之行銷──以NPA署長室粉絲專頁為例，國立中興大學國家政策與公共事務研究所（未出版之碩士論文），臺中市。
58. 簡娉亭（2019）。政治人物社群媒體展演與群眾回覆。政治大學傳播學院傳播碩士學位學程（未出版之碩士論文），臺北市。
59. 嚴思祺（2012）。臺灣英文報紙的新聞框架分析──以開放美國牛肉進口爭議新聞為例。臺灣大學新聞研究所（未出版之碩士論文），臺北市。


英文資料：
1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
2. Akpinar, E., & Berger, J. (2017). Valuable virality. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(2), 318-330.
3. Bauckhage, C. (2011). Insights into internet memes. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media,5(1),42-49.
4. Baumgartner, J. C. (2007). Humor on the next frontier: Youth, online political humor, and the JibJab effect. Social Science Computer Review, 25(3), 319-338.
5. Baumgartner, J. C., & Morris, J. S. (2008). One “nation” under Stephen? The effects of the Colbert Report on American youth. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 622-643.
6. Baumgartner, J. C., & Morris, J. S. (2016). The serious business of late-night political humor: Foreign policy issue salience in the 2014 midterm elections. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
7. Beard, F. K. (2008). Advertising and audience offense: The role of intentional humor. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(1), 1-17.
8. Bebić, D., & Volarevic, M. (2018). Do not mess with a meme: The use of viral content in communicating politics. Communication & Society, 31(3), 43-56.
9. Becker, A. B., & Copeland, L. (2016). Networked publics: How connective social media use facilitates political consumerism among LGBT Americans. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(1), 22-36.
10. Berger, J. (2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research.Journal of Consumer Psychology,
24(4), 586-607.
11. Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012).What makes online content viral?.
Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192-205.
12. Bode, L., & Dalrymple, K. E. (2016).Politics in 140 characters or less: Campaign communication, network interaction,and political participation on Twitter. Journal of Political Marketing, 15(4), 311-332.
13. Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5),
524-538.
14. Brown, T. J., Barry, T. E., Dacin, P. A., & Gunst, R. F. (2005). Spreading the word: Investigating antecedents of consumers’ positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors in a retailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 123-138.
15. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116-131.
16. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306-307.
17. Campbell, A., Gurin, D. and Miller, W.E. (1954) The Voter Decides.　NewYork, NY: Row, Peterson, and Company.
18. Cann, A., Cann, A. T., & Jordan, J. A. (2016).Understanding the effects of exposure to humor expressing affiliative and aggressive motivatios.
Motivation and Emotion, 40(2), 258-267.
19. Catanescu, C., & Tom, G. (2001). Types of humor in television and magazine advertising. Review of Business-Saint Johns University, 22(1), 92-95.
20. Caufield, R. P. (2008). The influence of “infoenterpropagainment”: Exploring the power of political satire as a distinct form of political humor. In Baumgartner, J. C., Morris, J. S. (Eds.). Laughing matters,
Humor and American politics in the media age (pp. 3-20). New York, NY:
Routledge.
21. Cheung, M. F., & To, W. M. (2019). An extended model of value-attitude-behavior to explain Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior.Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50, 145-153.
22. Chiesi, F., Morsanyi, K., Donati, M. A., & Primi, C. (2018). Applying
item response theory to develop a shortened version of the need for cognition scale. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 14(3), 75.
23. Chmielewski, T. L. (2012). Applying the Elaboration Likelihood Model to Voting. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6(10),33-47.
24. Chou, H. Y. (2014). Effects of endorser types in political endorsement advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 391-414.
25. Christensen, H. S. (2011). Political activities on the Internet: Slacktivism or political participation by other means?. First Monday, 16(2),1-10.
26. Christensen, M., & Christensen, C. (2013).The Arab Spring as meta-event and communicative spaces. Television & New Media, 14(4), 351-364.
27. Çiftçi, D. (2018). Communication, persuasion and cognition: The review on application of the elm-model in political communication of North Cyprus. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29, 133-142.
28. Cottrell, C. A., Richards, D. A., & Nichols, A. L. (2010). Predicting
policy attitudes from general prejudice versus specific intergroup
emotions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 247-254.
29. Cyr, D., Head, M., Lim, E., & Stibe, A. (2018). Using the elaboration
likelihood model to examine online persuasion through website design.
Information & Management, 55(7), 807-821.
30. Davis, J. L., Love, T. P., & Killen, G. (2018). Seriously funny: The
political work of humor on social media. New Media & Society, 20(10),
3898-3916.
31. Doll, W. J., & Torkzadeh, G. (1988). The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction. MIS Quarterly,12(2), 259-274.
32. Driscoll, K., Leavitt, A., Guth, K. L., Bar, F., & Mehta, A. (2018). Beyond Big Bird, binders, and bayonets: Humor and visibility among connected viewers of the 2012 US presidential debates. Social Media+ Society. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2056305118761201.
33. Duchscherer, K. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2016). When memes are mean: Appraisals of and objections to stereotypic memes. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 2(3), 335-345.
34. Enis, B. M., Kangun, N., & Mokwa, M. P. (1978, February 24) Public
policy development: A marketing perspective. Marketing News, pp. 4.
35. Fam, K. S., Waller, D. S., & Erdogan, B. Z. (2004). The influence of
religion on attitudes towards the advertising of controversial
products. European Journal of marketing, 38(5), 537-555.
36. Ferguson, M. A., & Ford, T. E. (2008). Disparagement humor: A theoretical and empirical review of psychoanalytic, superiority, and social identity theories. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 21(3),
283–312.
37. Festinger, L., & Maccoby, N. (1964). On resistance to persuasive
communications. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68(4),
359–366.
38. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley.
39. Frazer, R., & Carlson, B. (2017). Indigenous memes and the invention of a people. Social Media+ Society. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2056305117738993
40. Fu, L., Sun, Z., Zha, L., Liu, F., He, L., Sun, X., & Jing, X. (2020). Environmental awareness and pro-environmental behavior within china’s road freight transportation industry: Moderating role of perceived
policy effectiveness. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, 119796.
41. Gass, R. H. (2014). Persuasion: Social Influence and Compliance Gaining: Pearson New International Edition/Persuasion: Pearson New International Edition Access Card: Without EText.UT: Pearson Education Limited.
42. Geddes, J. (2016). Elaboration likelihood model theory-using ELM to get inside the user’s mind. Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/elaboration-likelihood-model-theory-using-elm-to-get-inside-the-user-s-mind
43. González, E. M. & Meyer, J. H. (2020). Memes and politics. Why some politicalmemes goviraland others don’t? ResearchGate. Advance online publication. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338865248_MEMES_AND_POLITICS_WHY_SOME_POLITICAL_MEMES_GO_VIRAL_AND_OTHERS_DON'T
44. Hapsoro, L, S. (2018). Beyond the “lulz” Audience engagement with political memes in the case of Indonesia. (master's thesis). Retrieved from https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8946724&fileOId=8947009
45. Heiskanen, B. (2017). Meme-ing electoral participation. European Journal of American Studies, 12(2), 1-26.
46. Heiss, R., & Matthes, J. (2021). Funny cats and politics: Do humorous context posts impede or foster the elaboration of news posts on social media?. Communication Research, 48(1), 100-124.
47. Heylighen, F. (1998). What makes a meme successful? Selection criteria for cultural evolution. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th International Congress on Cybernetics, Namur, Belgium.
48. Holbert, R.,Hmielowski, J. ,Jain, P., Lather, J.& Morey, A.(2011). Adding Nuance to the Study of Political Humor Effects: Experimental Research on Juvenalian Satire Versus Horatian Satire. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(3), 187-211.
49. Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4),
635-650.
50. Huntington, H. E. (2013). Subversive Memes: Internet Memes as a Form of Visual Rhetoric. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research, 3. Retrieved from https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/spir/article/view/8886
51. Janes, L. M., & Olson, J. M. (2000). Jeer pressure: The behavioral effects of observing ridicule of others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 474-485.
52. Johann, M., & Bülow, L. (2019). One does not simply create a meme:
Conditions for the diffusion of internet memes. International Journal
of Communication, 13, 1720-1742.
53. Kann, M. E., Berry, J., Grant, C., & Zager, P. (2007). The Internet and youth political participation. First Monday, Advance online publication. Retrieved from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_8/kann/index.html
54. Karou-ei, R.A. & Doosti, Y.A. & Dehshiri, Gholam Reza & Heidari, M.H.. (2009). Humor styles, subjective well-being, and emotional intelligence in college students. Journal of Iranian Psychologists, 5(18), 159-169.
55. Kazarian, S. & Martin, R. (2006). Humor styles, culture-related personality, well-being, and family adjustment among Armenians in Lebanon. Humor-international Journal of Humor Research - HUMOR, 19(4), 405-423.
56. Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2007). Online memes, affinities, and cultural production. A New Literacies Sampler, 29, 199-227.
57. Kobayashi, T., & Ichifuji, Y. (2015). Tweets that matter: Evidence from a randomized field experiment in Japan. Political Communication, 32(4), 574-593.
58. Kuiper, N. A., McKenzie, S. D., & Belanger, K. A. (1995). Cognitive appraisals and individual differences in sense of humor: Motivational and affective implications. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(3), 359-372.
59. Kulkarni, A. (2017). Internet meme and Political Discourse: A study on the impact of internet meme as a tool in communicating political satire. Journal of Content, Community & Communication Amity School of Communication, 6, 13-17.
60. Kuznetsov, I.S., & Soldatkinda, Y.V. (2017). Political media memes’ persuasion and functioning in social media. RUDN Journal of Studies in Literature and Journalism, 22(2), 333-339.
61. LaMarre, H. L., & Landreville, K. D. (2009). When is fiction as good as fact? Comparing the influence of documentary and historical reenactment films on engagement, affect, issue interest, and learning. Mass Communication and Society, 12(4), 537-555.
62. Lane, R. E. (1959). Political Life: Why People Get Involved in Politics. NewYork, NY: Free Press.
63. Leavitt, A (2014) From# FollowFriday to YOLO: exploring the cultural salience of Twitter memes. In Weller, K, Bruns, A, Burgess, J (Eds) Twitter and society (pp. 137–154). New York , NY: Peter Lang.
64. Liu, F., Chow, I. H. S., Gong, Y., & Huang, M. (2019). Affiliative and aggressive humor in leadership and their effects on employee voice: a serial mediation model. Review of Managerial Science, 1-19.
65. Lupia, A.& Philpot, T. S. (2005). Views from Inside the Net: How Websites Affect Young Adults' Political Interest. The Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1122–1142.
66. Marc, P. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
67. Markiewicz, D. (1972). The effects of humor on persuasion. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
68. Marques, J. (2012). Enlightened teaching strategies in an enlightened era: Applying humor in business education. Business Education Innovation Journal, 4(1), 65-71.
69. Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the humor styles questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 48–75.
70. McClure, B. (2016). Discovering the discourse of internet political memes. Adult Education Research Conference. Advance online publication. Retrieved from http:// https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2016/roundtables/12
71. Miczo, N., & Welter, R. E. (2006). Aggressive and affiliative humor: Relationships to aspects of intercultural communication. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35(1), 61-77.
72. Miczo, N., Averbeck, J. M., & Mariani, T. （2009）. Affiliative and aggressive humor, attachment dimensions, and interaction goals. Communication Studies, 60(5), 443-459.
73. Milner, R. M. (2012). The world made meme: Discourse and identity in participatory media (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/10256
74. Miltner, K. (2014). There’s no place for lulz on LOLCats: The role of genre, gender, and group identity in the interpretation and enjoyment of an Internet meme. First Monday. Advance online publication. Retrieved from https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5391/4103#author
75. Moody-Ramirez, M., & Church, A. B. (2019). Analysis of Facebook Meme Groups Used During the 2016 US Presidential Election. Social Media + Society.Advance online publication. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2056305118808799.
76. Moy, P., Xenos, M. A., & Hess, V. K. (2006). Priming effects of late-night comedy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(2), 198-210.
77. Mun, Y. Y., Yoon, J. J., Davis, J. M., & Lee, T. (2013). Untangling the antecedents of initial trust in Web-based health information: The roles of argument quality, source expertise, and user perceptions of information quality and risk. Decision Support Systems, 55(1), 284-295.
78. 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(1), 29-54.
79. Nagel, F., Maurer, M., & Reinemann, C. (2012). Is there a visual dominance in political communication? How verbal, visual, and vocal communication shape viewers' impressions of political candidates. Journal of Communication, 62(5), 833-850.
80. Nee, R. C., & De Maio, M. (2019). A ‘presidential look’? An analysis of gender framing in 2016 persuasive memes of Hillary Clinton. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 63(2), 304-321.
81. Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407-1413.
82. Nissenbaum, A., & Shifman, L. (2017). Internet memes as contested cultural capital: The case of 4chan’s/b/board. New Media & Society, 19(4), 483-501.
83. Nissenbaum, A., & Shifman, L. (2018). Meme templates as expressive repertoires in a globalizing world: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23(5), 294-310.
84. Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
85. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). We have always been social. Social Media + Society. Advance online publication. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2056305115581185
86. Park, C., & Lee, T. M. (2009). Information direction, website reputation and eWOM effect: A moderating role of product type. Journal of Business research, 62(1), 61-67.
87. Park, D. H., Lee, J., & Han, I. (2007). The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11(4), 125-148.
88. Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., Kingsley Westerman, C. Y., Orfgen, T., & Foregger, S. (2007). The effects of argument quality and involvement type on attitude formation and attitude change: A test of dual-process and social judgment predictions. Human Communication Research, 33(1), 81-102.
89. Park, S. (2020). How celebrities’ green messages on twitter influence public attitudes and behavioral intentions to mitigate climate change. Sustainability, 12(19), 7948.
90. Penney, J. (2020). ‘It’s so hard not to be funny in this Situation’: Memes and humor in US youth online political expression. Television & New Media, 21(8), 791-806.
91. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146.
92. Polk, J., Young, D. G., & Holbert, R. L. (2009). Humor complexity and political influence: An elaboration likelihood approach to the effects of humor type in the daily show with Jon Stewart. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17(4), 202-219.
93. Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., & Sidanius, J. (1997). The gender gap: Differences in political attitudes and social dominance orientation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36(1), 49-68.
94. Procter, R., Vis, F., & Voss, A. (2013). Reading the riots on Twitter: Methodological innovation for the analysis of big data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(3), 197-214.
95. Rebolledo, M., Luengo, Ó., & Bebić, D. (2018). Political communication in uncertain times. Digital technologies, citizen participation and open governance. Communication & Society, 31(3), 1-5.
96. Sander, C. (1971). The scope of satire. Glenview. IL: Scott, Foresman, & Company.
97. Schiffman, L. G., Kanuk, L. L., & Wisenblit, J. (2010). Consumer behaviour: Global edition. Pearson Higher Education, London, 12(2), 113-120.
98. Shah, D. V., McLeod, J. M., & Lee, N. J. (2009). Communication competence as a foundation for civic competence: Processes of socialization into citizenship. Political Communication, 26(1), 102-117.
99. Shifman, L. (2013). Memes in a digital world: Reconciling with a conceptual troublemaker. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 18(3), 362-377.
100. Shifman, L. (2014). Memes in digital culture.Cambridge. MA:MIT press.
101. Skoric, M. M., & Poor, N. (2013). Youth engagement in Singapore: The interplay of social and traditional media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(2), 187-204.
102. Speck, P. S. (1991). The humorous message taxonomy: A framework for the study of humorous ads. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 13(1-2), 1-44.
103. Spielmann, N. (2014). How funny was that? Uncovering humor mechanisms. European Journal of Marketing, 48,1892-1910.
104. Sternthal, B., & Craig, C. S. (1973). Humor in advertising. Journal of Marketing, 37(4), 12-18.
105. Strick, M., Van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., & Van Knippenberg, A. (2009). Humor in advertisements enhances product liking by mere association. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(1), 35.
106. Taecharungroj, V., & Nueangjamnong, P. (2015). Humour 2.0: Styles and types of humour and virality of memes on Facebook. Journal of Creative Communications, 10(3), 288-302.
107. Tay, G. (2012). Embracing LOLitics: Popular culture, online political humor, and play.(master's thesis). Retrieved from https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/7091
108. Tay, G. (2014). Binders full of LOLitics: Political humour, internet memes, and play in the 2012 US presidentialeElection (and beyond). The European Journal of Humour Research, 2(4), 46-73.
109. Tedesco, J. C. (2011). Political information efficacy and Internet effects in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(6), 696-713.
110. Wang, Y. H., Chang, M. C., & Liou, J. R. (2019). Effects of water-saving education in Taiwan on public water knowledge, attitude, and behavior intention change. Water Policy, 21(5), 964-979.
111. Wang, Y., Li, Y., Gui, X., Kou, Y., & Liu, F. (2019). Culturally-embedded visual literacy: A study of impression management via emoticon, emoji, sticker, and meme on social media in China. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1-24.
112. Wanzer, M., Booth‐Butterfield, M., & Booth‐Butterfield, S. (1995). The funny people: A source‐orientation to the communication of humor. Communication Quarterly, 43(2), 142-154.
113. Weber, A. L. (1991). Introduction To Psychology.New York, NY: Harper Collins Colledge.
114. Weinberger, M. G., Spotts, H., Campbell, L., & Parsons, A. L. (1995). The use and effect of humor in different advertising media. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(3), 44-57.
115. Wells, C., Van Thomme, J., Maurer, P., Hanna, A., Pevehouse, J., Shah, D. V., & Bucy, E. (2016). Coproduction or cooptation? Real-time spin and social media response during the 2012 French and US presidential debates. French Politics, 14(2), 206-233.
116. Weng, L., Flammini, A., Vespignani, A., & Menczer, F. (2012). Competition among memes in a world with limited attention. Scientific Reports, 2(1), 1-9.
117. Wood, M. A. (2020). Policing's ‘meme strategy’: Understanding the rise of police social media engagement work. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 32(1), 40-58.
118. Wood, W. (1982). Retrieval of attitude-relevant information from memory: Effects on susceptibility to persuasion and on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(5), 798.
119. Wukich, C., & Siciliano, M. D. (2014). Problem solving and creativity in public policy courses: Promoting interest and civic engagement. Journal of Political Science Education, 10(3), 352-368.
120. Yoon, H. J., & Tinkham, S. F. (2013). Humorous threat persuasion in advertising: The effects of humor, threat intensity, and issue involvement. Journal of Advertising, 42(1), 30-41.
121. 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, 92-123.
122. Young, D. G. (2006). Late-night comedy and the salience of the candidates' caricatured traits in the 2000 election. Mass Communication & Society, 9(3), 339-366.
123. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986). Conceptualizing involvement. Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 4-34.
124. Zhang, Y., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Responses to humorous ads: Does audience involvement matter?. Journal of Advertising, 35(4), 113-127.
125. Zhou, T. (2012). Understanding users’ initial trust in mobile banking: An elaboration likelihood perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1518-1525.
126. Zsila, Á., Orosz, G., Demetrovics, Z., & Urbán, R. (2020). Motives for viewing animated sitcoms and their associations with humor styles, positivity, and self-criticism in a sample of Hungarian viewers. PloS One, 15(3), e0230474.