Critical Scientific Review of a Proposed Mechanism of Meme Virality

1. Overall assessment

• SECTION THESIS: The broader premise that meme transmission involves active inference and reconstruction is supported, but the central claim that virality is specifically caused by a stereotype-first, counterexample-second sequence is not directly tested by the supplied independent evidence. The central thesis is therefore best classified as insufficiently supported as a general mechanism, while remaining a plausible and falsifiable candidate mechanism.
• SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
  • The proposed sequence and H1-H6 remain conceptual predictions rather than reported empirical findings -> (M. Ali et al., 2025; Cuong et al., 2025; Morris & Ogan, 1996; Wu & Ardley, 2007) (evidence: all four summaries report no sample, experimental test, effect size, or statistical result for the proposed mechanism)
  • The reconstruction premise has substantial theoretical support -> (Atran, 2001; Dupré, 2000; Sperber, 2000; Sterelny, 2006) (evidence: these theoretical sources consistently argue that cultural transmission depends on inference, prior knowledge, and contextual reconstruction rather than uniformly faithful copying; no quantitative statistics reported)
  • Competing explanations already account for substantial variation in sharing or diffusion without invoking stereotype falsification -> (Barnes et al., 2021; Berger, 2011; Weng et al., 2012) (evidence: experimentally induced arousal increased actual sharing from 33% to 75%; content-only prediction reached AUC = 0.6804 but precision = 0.0854; a neutral-content model reproduced diffusion patterns using 120 million retweets and network-attention constraints)
  • Marketing outcomes are not consistently aligned with virality -> (Kiljañczyk & Kacprzak, 2023; Mi et al., 2025; Putri et al., 2025) (evidence: meme communication improved message effectiveness but did not improve brand attitude; virality predicted recall at β = 0.482 but not engagement at β = 0.002, p > 0.05; virality predicted engagement at β = 0.182 but loyalty negatively at β = -0.125)
• LOGICAL FLOW: The next section reconstructs the target work’s principal claims before the major falsification challenges are applied.

2. Central claims and supporting evidence

• SECTION THESIS: The target advances a layered argument from inferential cultural transmission to a specific asymmetric learning mechanism, then extends that mechanism to actual diffusion, scientific ideas, and brand outcomes. Support becomes progressively weaker as the argument moves from reconstruction to sequence necessity, general virality, and positive marketing effects.
• SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
  • Claim 1, cultural content is reconstructed rather than merely copied -> (Atran, 2001; Cannizzaro, 2016; Cuong et al., 2025; Sperber, 2000) (evidence: the independent sources provide theoretical analyses of inference, translation, and prior knowledge; no direct quantitative estimate of reconstruction is reported)
  • Claim 2, a shared stereotype followed by a counterexample produces stronger virality than reverse, incomplete, or control sequences -> (M. Ali et al., 2025; Cuong et al., 2025; Morris & Ogan, 1996; Wu & Ardley, 2007) (evidence: H1 and H3-H6 state the prediction, but no empirical sequence comparison is reported)
  • Claim 3, the sequence produces cognitive-emotional reorganization that motivates sharing -> (Berger, 2011; Holbrook & Batra, 1987; Yi et al., 2021) (evidence: emotion predicts transmission or attitudes in other models, including sharing rising from 33% to 75% under arousal, emotional dimensions explaining R² = 0.53 of ad attitude, and affective empathy predicting intention at β = 0.459; none isolates stereotype falsification)
  • Claim 4, only a culturally shared stereotype provides sufficient social value for virality -> (Giorgi, 2025; Harbo, 2022; Nissenbaum & Shifman, 2017) (evidence: 41 interviews, 73 movement memes, and 228 meme-related comments respectively show that shared meanings, identity boundaries, and community knowledge matter, but do not establish that a shared stereotype is necessary)
  • Claim 5, low effort, lack of defensive rejection, and an active receiver are boundary conditions -> (Csordás et al., 2017; Finne & Grönroos, 2017; Geniole et al., 2022; Oeldorf-Hirsch et al., 2020) (evidence: active consumer sense-making is supported conceptually; meme persuasion fell from d = 0.183 before vaccine availability to d = 0.012 afterward; labels had no effect on item credibility in samples of N = 312 and N = 452)
  • Claim 6, experienced truth rather than objective truth explains the spread of both true and false content -> (Brautigam, 2019; Hujoel, 2019) (evidence: a disputed political narrative generated 1,990,000 search results, while an advertising-supported oral-hygiene belief persisted despite a reported 0% preventive effect for non-fluoride oral-hygiene products; neither study tests an “aha” mediator)
  • Claim 7, scientific theories constitute a demanding instance of the same viral mechanism -> (Breuer & Johnston, 2019; Cuong et al., 2025) (evidence: policy ideas spread rapidly through a network of nearly 4 million articles, with associated monthly mentions rising from 4 to 17, but no comparison establishes equivalence between scientific theory diffusion and internet-meme processing)
  • Claim 8, virality and positive brand attitude are parallel outcomes of the same cognitive event -> (Agrawal et al., 2025; S. Ali et al., 2025; Chu et al., 2022) (evidence: positive associations are reported in survey models, including β = 0.778 for meme content to continuance intention, β = 0.741 for brand attitude to purchase intention, and β = 0.52 for viral intention to purchase intention; none manipulates the proposed sequence)
  • Claim 9, marketers can direct the valence of the resulting inference by designing stereotype-counterexample content -> (Csordás et al., 2017; Finne & Grönroos, 2017) (evidence: both conceptual sources instead emphasize organicity, open-source communication, and customer-controlled sense-making, limiting evidence for reliable sender control)
• LOGICAL FLOW: These claims identify the precise inferential steps whose validity, uniqueness, and generalizability must be tested in the major concerns.

3. Major concerns

• SECTION THESIS: The major weaknesses concern the absence of a direct test of the defining sequence, failure to establish incremental explanatory power over competing mechanisms, omission of network and platform causes of actual diffusion, inconsistent marketing outcomes, unresolved construct validity, and possible circularity within the supplied evidence base.

• SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

  • M1. The defining temporal sequence has not been empirically established
    • Claim under review: A stereotype must be processed before a counterexample, and the reverse sequence cannot retroactively produce the same effect.
    • Basis in the text: H3 makes order the distinguishing causal factor, while H1 and H4-H6 compare the full sequence with control or incomplete conditions.
    • Falsification challenge: No supplied independent study manipulates the exact stereotype-first, reverse-order, stereotype-only, counterexample-only, and neutral-control conditions while holding humor, arousal, novelty, visual form, source, and semantic content constant.
    • Why it matters: Temporal asymmetry is the novel and discriminating prediction. Without its direct demonstration, the model remains compatible with ordinary incongruity, novelty, arousal, or framing effects.
    • Actionable response: Run a preregistered multi-stimulus experiment with all five conditions, manipulation checks for stereotype activation and order recognition, behavioral sharing outcomes, and serial measures of surprise, insight, affect, effort, and knowledge revision.
    • The target-derived records provide hypotheses but no sequence-test results -> (M. Ali et al., 2025; Cuong et al., 2025; Morris & Ogan, 1996; Wu & Ardley, 2007) (evidence: all report “results not reported” or identify the material as a theoretical chapter)
    • Other experiments show that sharing can be altered without stereotype falsification -> (Berger, 2011; Geniole et al., 2022; Kapoor & Behl, 2024; Vardeman, 2025; Yang, 2022) (evidence: arousal increased actual sharing from 33% to 75%; the vaccination-meme effect changed from d = 0.183 to d = 0.012 by context; objective versus subjective memes affected retransmission, F(1,80) = 6.68; two N = 400 experiments found effects of brand, popularity, and ad type; humor’s effect on resharing was nonsignificant at p = .126 in one experiment)
    • Explicit contradiction cues do not reliably trigger the assumed learning response -> (Oeldorf-Hirsch et al., 2020) (evidence: labels produced no significant effect on meme credibility, sharing, or information seeking in Study 1, and no effect on story credibility in Study 2, F(2,448) = 0.69, p = .50)
  • M2. The proposed mechanism has not demonstrated necessity or incremental explanatory value
    • Claim under review: Stereotype falsification is presented as a general explanation for why memes become viral.
    • Basis in the text: The target moves from a candidate mechanism to broad statements about meme virality, literary content, political communication, and scientific theories.
    • Falsification challenge: Emotional arousal, visual salience, gratification, personalization, identity reinforcement, social proof, and phatic bonding can each predict transmission without requiring the proposed sequence.
    • Why it matters: A mechanism may be valid for a subset of memes while being neither necessary nor primary. The current argument does not separate “one pathway” from “the pathway.”
    • Actionable response: Estimate an incremental model in which sequence effects compete with arousal, humor, surprise, visual composition, relevance, authenticity, identity fit, social proof, and gratification, using cross-validated prediction and planned mediation comparisons.
    • Emotional transmission offers a simpler alternative pathway -> (Bene, 2016; Berger, 2011; Guadagno et al., 2013; Heath et al., 2002; Holbrook & Batra, 1987; Makhortykh & Aguilar, 2020; Yi et al., 2021) (evidence: negative tone predicted shares at IRR = 2.527; arousal increased sharing; positive affect predicted forwarding at b = .54; disgust predicted pass-along at β = .27 and website popularity at β = .37; emotions explained R² = 0.53 of ad attitude; political memes relied heavily on affective memory; affective empathy predicted intention more strongly than cognitive empathy, β = 0.459 versus 0.140)
    • Visual and content features predict virality without testing stereotype falsification -> (Barnes et al., 2021; Ling et al., 2021; Malodia et al., 2022; Mehrabian & Wetter, 1987; Vásquez & Aslan, 2021) (evidence: content models reached AUC = 0.6804 and 0.866; facial expressions appeared in 84% of viral versus 38% of nonviral memes; relevance, humor, iconicity, and spreadability were significant in N = 200; emotional fit explained 30% to 37% of preference variance; 220 image macros showed virality through phonological and multimodal play)
    • Social identity and collective-function explanations do not require belief falsification -> (Ahmed & Masood, 2024; Baker & Walsh, 2024; Giorgi, 2025; Harbo, 2022; Nissenbaum & Shifman, 2017; Serres, 2023; Varis & Blommaert, 2014) (evidence: meme exposure mediated political participation at b = 0.11 and reached b = 0.19 at high cynicism; 12 influencers generated up to 65% of antivaccine misinformation shares; qualitative studies identify othering, delegitimation, cultural capital, survival-oriented “hope labor,” and phatic bonding; the Nigerian study included 50 professional interviews)
    • Personalization and heuristic cues provide further rival mechanisms -> (Agrawal et al., 2025; Chu et al., 2022; Vardeman, 2025) (evidence: social-media involvement moderated three paths at β = 0.1782, 0.1560, and 0.1421; personalization predicted creativity at β = .37 and authenticity at β = .67; brand identity, popularity, and ad format significantly influenced responses across two N = 400 experiments)
  • M3. The model does not distinguish potential virality from realized network diffusion
    • Claim under review: The meme’s internal cognitive sequence leads to rapid and broad social propagation.
    • Basis in the text: Figure 2 moves directly from individual cognitive-emotional reorganization to collective spread.
    • Falsification challenge: Neutral-fitness, topology-based, and platform-based models reproduce or predict diffusion without semantic information. Source position, community crossing, algorithmic exposure, and attention competition may determine whether a cognitively effective meme is ever seen.
    • Why it matters: A content mechanism may predict willingness to share but not actual reach, cascade size, cross-platform mutation, or longevity.
    • Actionable response: Separate perceived viral potential, sharing intention, actual sharing, cascade size, community penetration, cross-platform mutation, and longevity. Test the cognitive mechanism within multilevel field models containing seeding, follower network, algorithmic exposure, time, and competition controls.
    • Neutral or topology-based models reproduce heavy-tailed popularity -> (Gleeson et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2013; Weng et al., 2012; Weng et al., 2013) (evidence: a neutral model fitted 1.4 × 10^5 hashtags; eigenvalues predicted competing-meme outcomes with more than 95% accuracy; an attention model used 120 million retweets; a community model used 121,807,378 tweets and achieved approximately seven times random precision)
    • Source position and network scale materially predict engagement -> (Barnes et al., 2021; Johann & Bülow, 2019) (evidence: subreddit subscribers correlated with upvotes at r = .977 and network features added 0.02 AUC; followers, list entries, innovators, and early adopters predicted diffusion, with the full model explaining R² = .25)
    • Standard engagement metrics may miss mutation-based propagation -> (Beskow et al., 2020) (evidence: memes had fewer direct likes and retweets but approximately four times as many matching links and twice as many unique domains as non-meme images)
    • Platform architecture and channel conditions shape what becomes visible and shareable -> (Berger & Iyengar, 2013; Breuer & Johnston, 2019; Galip, 2024; Nurhidayah, 2025; Spitzberg, 2014; Zulli & Zulli, 2020) (evidence: written communication produced higher interestingness ratings than oral communication, M = 5.25 versus 4.34; a 4-million-article network showed policy mentions rising from 4 to 17 per month; platform studies identify algorithmic visibility, semantic drift, competition, and imitation affordances as causal constraints)
  • M4. Virality does not establish positive brand attitude or downstream marketing value
    • Claim under review: H2 predicts a positive association between virality and positive brand attitude, and H3-H6 extend positive brand effects to the full sequence.
    • Basis in the text: The target simultaneously describes the mechanism as valence-neutral and formulates hypotheses in which the focal sequence improves positive brand attitude.
    • Falsification challenge: The supplied evidence contains null, negative, and dissociated relationships among reach, engagement, recall, attitude, purchase, loyalty, and legitimacy.
    • Why it matters: This issue affects the principal marketing contribution. A mechanism that spreads criticism, reduces recall, or damages loyalty cannot be treated as a general brand-building device.
    • Actionable response: Separate valence of the inference, attitude toward the meme, attitude toward the ad, brand attitude, recall, engagement, purchase intention, behavior, and loyalty. Replace H2 with directional hypotheses conditional on brand-conclusion valence and test parallel-effects, mediation, and negative spillover models against one another.
    • Virality can improve one outcome while leaving another null or negative -> (Kiljañczyk & Kacprzak, 2023; Mi et al., 2025; Putri et al., 2025; Yang, 2022) (evidence: meme ads improved effectiveness but InPost attitude fell from 8.4305 to 8.0530, p < .001; virality predicted recall at β = 0.482 but engagement at β = 0.002, p > .05; virality predicted engagement at β = 0.182 but loyalty at β = -0.125; humor produced a negative indirect effect on recall, B = -.37, while increasing sharing intention, B = .83)
    • Awareness and exposure often fail to produce learning or purchase -> (Guru et al., 2020; Karlsson, 2007; S.Suresh, 2019; Vasile et al., 2021; Wen & Ye, 2024) (evidence: action was nonsignificant at F = 1.795, p = .213; 67% reported that advertising did not create desire or action; 25.4% could not recall the brand and 47.3% were neutral about purchase influence; brand attitude to experience was β = .06, p = .67; 74.53% showed little interest in learning more and 57.14% were unsure about purchase)
    • High engagement may coexist with criticism, hate, skepticism, or reputational harm -> (Bernstein, 2024; Dwivedi et al., 2021; Echeverría, 2023; McSwiney & Vaughan, 2024; Paz et al., 2021; Väliverronen et al., 2022; Wood, 2019) (evidence: 185 of 260 space-tourism memes were negative and only 10 positive; 95% of 636 political memes had a negative objective and 30.6% contained hate speech; political-party memes represented about 15% of images and showed little evidence of vote shifting; police memes generated 919,621 engagements at the peak without establishing legitimacy; 9,303 social-media messages documented a meme-amplified branding crisis)
    • Organic meme cultures can produce antibranding rather than favorable persuasion -> (Csordás et al., 2017) (evidence: the conceptual review documents corporate inauthenticity, subversive consumer-generated advertising, and antibranding; no summary-level statistics reported)
    • Positive evidence exists but does not validate the target sequence -> (Agrawal et al., 2025; S. Ali et al., 2025; Chu et al., 2022; Malodia et al., 2022) (evidence: N = 822 survey paths included β = 0.778 for meme content to continuance intention; N = 210 showed brand attitude to purchase intention at β = 0.741; N = 413 showed viral intention to purchase intention at β = .52; meme posts exceeded non-meme posts by 908 engagements, p < .01)
    • Commercial effectiveness is nonlinear and context-dependent -> (Leung et al., 2022) (evidence: a 1% spending increase produced only a 0.457% engagement increase, while new-product posts reduced elasticity at b = -.488 and positivity showed an inverted-U effect)
  • M5. The defining constructs are not yet operationally discriminable
    • Claim under review: A collectively shared, abstract stereotype is falsified by a concrete counterexample, producing experienced truth, knowledge reorganization, and virality.
    • Basis in the text: The target broadens “stereotype” beyond intergroup beliefs, treats collective sharing as necessary, and distinguishes the mechanism from generic incongruity and humor.
    • Falsification challenge: The supplied material does not specify how collective sharing, abstraction, counterexample validity, falsification, experienced truth, or completed knowledge revision will be measured independently. Several studies show virality through polysemy, recontextualization, phonological play, or stereotype reinforcement.
    • Why it matters: Without discriminant measures, any surprising or humorous meme could be retrospectively coded as a stereotype-counterexample sequence, making the theory difficult to falsify.
    • Actionable response: Provide preregistered coding rules and validated measures for stereotype consensus, abstraction, activation, counterexample specificity, contradiction strength, credibility, surprise, insight, knowledge revision, and social relevance. Establish intercoder reliability and cultural pretests before outcome testing.
    • Audience specificity was not a confirmed predictor in a high-performing visual model -> (Ling et al., 2021) (evidence: RH3 was not confirmed although the classifier reached AUC = 0.866 and classified 19 of 20 cross-platform examples correctly)
    • Shared stereotypes can be fluid, reinforced, or repurposed rather than falsified -> (Giorgi, 2025; Paz et al., 2021) (evidence: 41 interviews showed “boomer” shifting from an age category to a cultural marker; 636 political memes largely reproduced existing ideological disqualifications rather than generating new conclusions)
    • Meme meaning frequently detaches from the original proposition -> (Fiadotava, 2023; Ross & Rivers, 2019; Vásquez & Aslan, 2021) (evidence: only 52 of 264 Greta Thunberg memes, 19.7%, centered environmentalism; critical discourse analysis found implication and ideological framing rather than factual falsification; 220 image macros spread through phonological ambiguity and transformative imitation)
    • Polysemy and concrete visual quiddities provide alternative structural accounts -> (Segev et al., 2015; Tomaž & Walanchalee, 2020) (evidence: concrete quiddities correlated with cohesiveness at r = .363 and uniqueness at r = .431; 457 memes differed sharply from 500 TripAdvisor and 500 destination-marketing images and were characterized as polysemic and iconoclastic)
    • Even salient corrective framing may not alter item-level judgment -> (Oeldorf-Hirsch et al., 2020) (evidence: four meme-credibility tests yielded p values from .15 to .77, with negligible partial η² values)
  • M6. Some supplied records cannot function as independent corroborating sources
    • Claim under review: The literature base independently supports the target mechanism and hypotheses.
    • Basis in the text: Four records reproduce the target’s mechanism, examples, and H1-H6 while reporting no independent empirical results.
    • Falsification challenge: The records may represent duplicated summaries of the target work, and one record’s title and described content are internally mismatched. Counting them as external support would make the argument circular.
    • Why it matters: Circular source use would overstate theoretical convergence and obscure the absence of independent sequence evidence.
    • Actionable response: Audit each citation key against its underlying publication, classify records as target text, independent theory, or independent empirical evidence, and remove target-derived records from counts of external support.
    • Four records repeat the target theory and report no mechanism-test statistics -> (M. Ali et al., 2025; Cuong et al., 2025; Morris & Ogan, 1996; Wu & Ardley, 2007) (evidence: each summary reproduces the stereotype-counterexample mechanism and H1-H6; three carry unrelated-looking citation keys or dates, while the first title refers to digital meme marketing but its method describes the target theoretical chapter)
    • The evaluative “importance” fields are interpretations rather than reported article results -> (M. Ali et al., 2025; Cuong et al., 2025) (evidence: these fields compare “my work” or “the user’s work” with the summarized source and therefore cannot substitute for independent findings)

• LOGICAL FLOW: Once the central validity threats are addressed, the remaining issues concern theoretical calibration, boundary conditions, and reporting precision.

4. Moderate concerns

• SECTION THESIS: Several claims may remain viable after narrowing, but the manuscript must replace binary theoretical contrasts with hybrid models, qualify truth and scientific-theory analogies, specify processing modes, limit claims of marketer control, and formalize moderators and hypothesis logic.

• SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

  • MO1. Reconstruction and copying should not be framed as mutually exclusive
    • Claim under review: Reconstruction rather than copying is treated as the principal basis of cultural transmission.
    • Basis in the text: The target contrasts its Sperber-inspired approach with a Dawkins-style replication account.
    • Falsification challenge: Evidence of inference, translation, mutation, direct textual replication, and platform-facilitated imitation can coexist at different levels.
    • Why it matters: An exclusive reconstruction claim is stronger than necessary and may mischaracterize actual token copying, template imitation, semantic reinterpretation, and cross-platform mutation.
    • Actionable response: Adopt a layered model distinguishing physical copying, template imitation, semantic reconstruction, and social reinterpretation; state which level the proposed cognitive mechanism addresses.
    • Inference and translation are strongly defended theoretically -> (Atran, 2001; Cannizzaro, 2016; Dupré, 2000; Sperber, 2000; Sterelny, 2006) (evidence: all reject simple high-fidelity imitation as a comprehensive explanation; no quantitative statistics reported)
    • Direct replication, mutation, and imitation are nevertheless observable -> (Beskow et al., 2020; Breuer & Johnston, 2019; Zulli & Zulli, 2020) (evidence: analysis of 50,209 images found cross-platform mutation; a 473-node plagiarism network showed derivative articles appearing in less than one day on average; TikTok’s sounds and effects explicitly facilitate imitation)
    • Spreadability and lifecycle approaches support a hybrid account -> (Marino, 2015; Murray et al., 2014) (evidence: Marino distinguishes transformation, remix, and imitation; Murray proposes six stages from transmission to retransmission and reports 236 million Old Spice views alongside a 68% negative takeover of another campaign)
  • MO2. “Experienced truth” and scientific-theory virality require narrower claims
    • Claim under review: A truth-like “aha” experience drives both true and false virality, while scientific theories are treated as the demanding case of the same mechanism.
    • Basis in the text: The target resolves the false-news problem by distinguishing objective truth from phenomenologically experienced truth.
    • Falsification challenge: The evidence shows that false ideas can spread through fear, implication, repetition, or commercial promotion, but it does not show that recipients experienced stereotype falsification or insight.
    • Why it matters: The current account risks becoming unfalsifiable because any accepted message can be described retrospectively as “experienced truth.”
    • Actionable response: Measure perceived truth change and insight directly; distinguish initial sharing from long-term persistence; present scientific theories as an analogy unless comparative evidence demonstrates a shared causal mechanism.
    • False or unsupported narratives can become culturally dominant -> (Brautigam, 2019; Hujoel, 2019; Ross & Rivers, 2019) (evidence: the debt-trap narrative produced 1,990,000 search results despite contrary case evidence; a dental-health belief persisted despite a reported 0% effect for non-fluoride oral-hygiene products; climate memes relied on implication rather than factual demonstration)
    • Long-term persistence may favor logical coherence rather than momentary surprise -> (Percival, 1994) (evidence: the theoretical analysis predicts that logical, true, informative, and well-organized ideas spread better over time; no statistical test reported)
    • Large-scale spread can also strip content of stable meaning -> (Mitman & Denham, 2024) (evidence: the qualitative Doge lifecycle argues that co-optation and mass circulation reduce subcultural meaning; no quantitative statistics reported)
  • MO3. The role of the receiver alternates between reflection and low-effort heuristic action
    • Claim under review: The receiver is conscious and critical, yet stereotype activation, contradiction detection, and much of the conclusion are described as rapid and nearly effortless.
    • Basis in the text: The model invokes automatic processing, minimal effortful resolution, and later reflective selection for transmission.
    • Falsification challenge: Some evidence supports active inference, while other evidence describes phatic sharing, heuristic social proof, peripheral persuasion, or platform-driven imitation with little semantic scrutiny.
    • Why it matters: The operative processing mode determines which mediator should be measured and when rejection, insight, or sharing should occur.
    • Actionable response: Specify a staged process model and test processing depth as a moderator, including attention, response time, recall, perceived effort, and reasons for sharing.
    • Active inference is plausible but not necessarily reflective deliberation -> (Atran, 2001) (evidence: the theoretical account emphasizes inferential reconstruction; no quantitative statistics reported)
    • Phatic, heuristic, and imitative processes can bypass deep semantic revision -> (Kapoor & Behl, 2024; Vardeman, 2025; Varis & Blommaert, 2014; Zulli & Zulli, 2020) (evidence: popularity cues moderated retransmission; two N = 400 experiments found strong peripheral-cue effects; phatic sharing is presented as social bonding; TikTok design promotes imitation publics)
    • Personal relevance can shift recipients away from meme-based peripheral influence -> (Geniole et al., 2022) (evidence: the meme effect declined from estimate = 7.029, p < .001, before vaccine availability to estimate = 0.396, p = .824, afterward)
  • MO4. Strategic sender control is overstated
    • Claim under review: Marketers can methodically choose a stereotype and counterexample to direct the inference and emotional valence.
    • Basis in the text: The mechanism is presented as a tool for strategic marketing planning.
    • Falsification challenge: Consumers, communities, and platforms can recontextualize, resist, parody, or co-opt branded content, making the final inference partly external to sender design.
    • Why it matters: The practical recommendation may fail or reverse if source authenticity, community norms, and open-source reinterpretation dominate.
    • Actionable response: Reframe the managerial implication as probabilistic facilitation rather than control, and test brand source, authenticity, user generation, remixability, and community ownership.
    • Consumer sense-making and organicity constrain company control -> (Csordás et al., 2017; Finne & Grönroos, 2017) (evidence: both conceptual analyses position consumers as active integrators and transmitters; no quantitative statistics reported)
    • Subcultures can intentionally make memes unusable for marketing -> (Pauliks, 2021) (evidence: the qualitative analysis identifies irony, misspelling, deformation, and “deep frying” as boundary-maintaining practices)
    • Professional production can suppress participatory potential -> (McSwiney & Vaughan, 2024) (evidence: memes averaged 15% of party image posts, and participatory forms were concentrated in partisan or youth spaces)
    • Memes can be co-opted into political or commercial projects with unintended consequences -> (Merrill & Lindgren, 2021; Mitman & Denham, 2024; Tomaž & Walanchalee, 2020; Väliverronen et al., 2022) (evidence: 69,441 Manchester-bee posts showed political brandification; the Doge lifecycle showed semantic co-optation; destination memes diverged sharply from official images; 9,303 social-media messages documented resistance to quasi-corporate branding)
  • MO5. Boundary conditions need to be hypotheses rather than narrative qualifications
    • Claim under review: The mechanism applies broadly but may fail under dissonance, effort, weak stereotype recognition, or ambiguity.
    • Basis in the text: These limitations appear in prose and Figure 2 but are not consistently represented in H1-H6.
    • Falsification challenge: The literature identifies involvement, personal relevance, need for uniqueness, communication channel, norms, personality, brand fit, positivity, social proof, ideology, and socioeconomic context as moderators.
    • Why it matters: Unmodeled moderators can produce contradictory findings and make average treatment effects difficult to interpret.
    • Actionable response: Convert the strongest boundary conditions into preregistered interactions and test them across cultures, platforms, brands, and issue relevance.
    • Involvement and personal relevance alter meme effects -> (Agrawal et al., 2025; Chu et al., 2022; Geniole et al., 2022) (evidence: involvement interactions were β = 0.1782, 0.1560, and 0.1421; need-for-uniqueness interaction was β = .07, p = .033; the meme-by-announcement interaction was p = .013)
    • Communication channel and social proof change sharing-related responses -> (Berger & Iyengar, 2013; Yang, 2022) (evidence: written communication increased discussion of interesting products from M = 4.34 to 5.25; high bandwagon cues amplified humor-related attitude and sharing effects)
    • Norms and individual differences influence downstream behavior -> (Herabadi, 2003; Mehrabian & Wetter, 1987) (evidence: normative evaluation increased explained variance from R² = .13 to .20; emotional fit explained 30% of male and 37% of female preference variance)
    • Commercial and ideological content produces nonlinear interactions -> (Leung et al., 2022; Schmid et al., 2025) (evidence: activity, brand fit, and positivity had inverted-U effects; far-right narrative by humor interaction was b = 1.43, p < .001 even though each component alone reduced reach)
    • Socioeconomic context can redefine virality as survival-oriented performance -> (Serres, 2023) (evidence: one year of in-person ethnography, five years of digital ethnography, and 50 professional interviews linked “blowing” to hope labor rather than message structure alone)
  • MO6. H1-H6 require logical consolidation
    • Claim under review: The six hypotheses jointly test sequence superiority, virality, and positive brand attitude.
    • Basis in the text: H1 and H6 both compare the full sequence with a control; H2 describes virality as both manipulated and measured; H3-H6 predict positive brand attitude despite the mechanism’s stated valence neutrality.
    • Falsification challenge: The hypotheses do not cleanly separate manipulation, mediator, outcome, valence, and context.
    • Why it matters: Ambiguity would complicate causal interpretation and increase flexibility in choosing which comparison represents support.
    • Actionable response: Replace H1-H6 with a compact set covering the sequence contrast, a sequence-by-consensus interaction, preregistered cognitive-emotional mediation, valence-contingent brand effects, and behavioral diffusion outcomes.
    • The target-derived records reproduce the same partially redundant structure -> (Cuong et al., 2025; Morris & Ogan, 1996; Wu & Ardley, 2007) (evidence: each lists H1-H6 with H1 and H6 as related full-sequence versus control comparisons)
    • An alternative causal architecture gives e-WOM a central mediating role -> (Agrawal et al., 2025) (evidence: e-WOM fully mediated the meme-content to continuance relationship, while brand image only partially mediated it)

• LOGICAL FLOW: The remaining revisions concern terminology, presentation, and the evidential status of examples rather than the core validity of the mechanism.

5. Minor concerns

• SECTION THESIS: Terminology and presentation should be tightened so that the proposed mechanism can be reproduced and distinguished from adjacent constructs without changing the central analysis.

• SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

  • MI1. “Virality” is used for non-equivalent outcomes
    • Claim under review: Virality denotes rapid and broad cultural spread.
    • Basis in the text: The hypotheses appear to permit questionnaire measures of viral potential, while the theoretical examples use views, sharing, cultural longevity, and mutation.
    • Falsification challenge: Likes, retweets, links, domain penetration, intention, engagement, and longevity need not identify the same construct.
    • Why it matters: Different operationalizations could produce incompatible conclusions under the same label.
    • Actionable response: Define primary and secondary virality outcomes and report each separately.
    • Metric divergence is empirically consequential -> (Barnes et al., 2021; Beskow et al., 2020; Wood, 2019) (evidence: content prediction had precision = 0.0854 despite AUC = 0.6804; memes had fewer likes and retweets but four times as many links; police engagement peaked at 919,621 but legitimacy was not established)
  • MI2. “Stereotype” should be reserved or relabeled more carefully
    • Claim under review: “Stereotype” is defined broadly as a culturally shared schema rather than necessarily an intergroup belief.
    • Basis in the text: The illustrative construction-worker example nevertheless concerns a social group.
    • Falsification challenge: Readers may reasonably interpret such content through stigma, othering, or prejudice even when the intended construct is generic schematic knowledge.
    • Why it matters: Terminological overlap affects construct validity and the ethical interpretation of marketing applications.
    • Actionable response: Use “shared cultural schema” for non-group knowledge, reserve “social stereotype” for group beliefs, and report ethical safeguards for identity-based stimuli.
    • Identity-focused meme studies document stereotype consolidation and stigmatization -> (Baker & Walsh, 2024; Giorgi, 2025; Paz et al., 2021) (evidence: antivaccine memes strategically reconstructed group stigma; generational memes reinforced stereotyped beliefs; 30.6% of political memes contained hate speech)
  • MI3. Figure 2 should distinguish tested paths from proposed paths
    • Claim under review: The figure presents a three-stage causal process from activation to reorganization and social spread.
    • Basis in the text: Solid and dashed arrows imply causal progression and failure conditions, although no mechanism test is reported in the supplied material.
    • Falsification challenge: Readers cannot distinguish conceptual propositions, moderators, mediators, and observed outcomes.
    • Why it matters: The current visual may convey stronger evidential status than the chapter provides.
    • Actionable response: Label each arrow as proposed, tested, or boundary-conditioned; add explicit mediator and moderator nodes.
    • The mechanism records are theoretical rather than empirical -> (M. Ali et al., 2025; Cuong et al., 2025) (evidence: no sample, model estimate, or path coefficient for Figure 2 is reported)
  • MI4. Illustrative cases should not be presented as mechanism evidence
    • Claim under review: “Baby shoes” and “Leave Britney Alone!” exemplify the proposed causal mechanism.
    • Basis in the text: Their dissemination is interpreted through the stereotype-counterexample model without a comparative test.
    • Falsification challenge: Popularity alone cannot distinguish the proposed explanation from emotion, celebrity attention, network seeding, historical context, or retrospective interpretation.
    • Why it matters: Anecdotal fit can motivate hypotheses but cannot validate them.
    • Actionable response: Relabel the cases as illustrations, specify alternative explanations, and reserve causal language for controlled or process-tracing evidence.
    • The reported counts are descriptive only -> (Cuong et al., 2025; Morris & Ogan, 1996; Wu & Ardley, 2007) (evidence: more than 2 million views in 24 hours and 43 million by 2012 are reported without a comparison condition or mediator measure)

• LOGICAL FLOW: With these clarifications, the review can retain the parts of the argument that remain defensible while sharply limiting unsupported extensions.

6. Claims that withstood scrutiny

• SECTION THESIS: Several foundational claims are defensible: audiences actively reconstruct cultural material, social and platform context matters, meme effects are not inherently positive, and message form can influence attention or transmission. The specific stereotype-first sequence has not yet earned the same evidential status.
• SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
  • Cultural transmission cannot be reduced to uniform high-fidelity copying -> (Atran, 2001; Cannizzaro, 2016; Dupré, 2000; Sperber, 2000) (evidence: convergent theoretical arguments emphasize inference, translation, prior knowledge, and context; no statistics reported)
  • Receivers and communities actively construct meaning -> (Csordás et al., 2017; Finne & Grönroos, 2017; Nissenbaum & Shifman, 2017; Varis & Blommaert, 2014) (evidence: conceptual and qualitative analyses identify co-creation, open-source sense-making, contested cultural capital, and phatic affiliation)
  • Message content and form can influence sharing or engagement under specified conditions -> (Bene, 2016; Ling et al., 2021; Malodia et al., 2022) (evidence: memes predicted shares at IRR = 2.001; visual classification reached AUC = 0.866; meme posts generated 908 more engagements than non-meme posts, p < .01)
  • Virality is compatible with both positive and negative affective or evaluative outcomes -> (Berger, 2011; Bernstein, 2024; Paz et al., 2021) (evidence: high arousal increased sharing regardless of valence; 185 of 260 space-tourism memes were negative; 95% of 636 political memes had negative objectives)
  • The proposed sequence is falsifiable in principle -> (Cuong et al., 2025; Morris & Ogan, 1996; Wu & Ardley, 2007) (evidence: reverse-order, single-component, and neutral-control comparisons are explicitly specified)
• LOGICAL FLOW: These defensible elements provide the foundation for a narrower, directly testable revision strategy.

7. Priority actions

• SECTION THESIS: Credibility would improve most by auditing the evidence base, directly testing the unique sequence prediction, validating the constructs, comparing rival mediators, modeling actual diffusion, and separating virality from favorable marketing outcomes.
• SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
  • Priority 1, audit source independence and metadata before claiming literature support -> (M. Ali et al., 2025; Cuong et al., 2025; Morris & Ogan, 1996; Wu & Ardley, 2007) (evidence: all four reproduce the target mechanism without independent results, and at least one title-content pairing is internally inconsistent)
  • Priority 2, preregister the complete sequence experiment with multiple stimuli and behavioral sharing -> (Berger, 2011; Geniole et al., 2022; Kapoor & Behl, 2024; Vardeman, 2025) (evidence: these studies demonstrate feasible experiments using actual sharing, randomized meme exposure, content manipulations, and popularity cues)
  • Priority 3, validate stereotype consensus, counterexample status, insight, effort, and knowledge revision -> (Fiadotava, 2023; Ling et al., 2021; Segev et al., 2015) (evidence: audience specificity was not predictive, source meanings were frequently recontextualized, and concrete structural features correlated with meme-family properties)
  • Priority 4, test incremental validity against emotion, humor, identity, authenticity, visual form, and social proof -> (Berger, 2011; Chu et al., 2022; Guadagno et al., 2013; Heath et al., 2002; Vardeman, 2025) (evidence: each alternative predicts sharing or marketing response with statistically significant effects)
  • Priority 5, embed the cognitive mechanism in a multilevel network and platform model -> (Gleeson et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2013; Weng et al., 2012; Weng et al., 2013; Zulli & Zulli, 2020) (evidence: structural models reproduce or predict diffusion using attention, eigenvalues, community penetration, and platform imitation)
  • Priority 6, rewrite H2 and separate favorable, unfavorable, and null brand outcomes -> (Kiljañczyk & Kacprzak, 2023; Mi et al., 2025; Putri et al., 2025; Yang, 2022) (evidence: effectiveness, recall, engagement, attitude, and loyalty diverge, including β = 0.002 for virality to engagement and β = -0.125 for virality to loyalty)
  • Priority 7, narrow the claim to one contingent pathway unless incremental superiority is demonstrated -> (Malodia et al., 2022; Spitzberg, 2014; Sterelny, 2006) (evidence: gratification-content models, multilevel diffusion theory, and cognitive-attractor accounts provide broader competing explanations)
• LOGICAL FLOW: These actions would convert the current broad explanatory claim into a discriminating empirical test of whether stereotype-first falsification contributes uniquely to meme diffusion and brand response.

UNUSED SOURCES

• None. All 80 rating-4 citation keys are mapped above.

TENSIONS

• Reconstruction versus imitation -> (Atran, 2001; Beskow et al., 2020; Breuer & Johnston, 2019; Sperber, 2000; Zulli & Zulli, 2020) (evidence: inference-based theories reject simple copying, while empirical studies document mutation, rapid verbatim replication, and platform-facilitated imitation; required stance: adopt a layered rather than exclusive account)
• Content-specific causation versus neutral network emergence -> (Cuong et al., 2025; Gleeson et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2013; Weng et al., 2012) (evidence: the target attributes virality to semantic sequence, whereas neutral and eigenvalue models reproduce or predict spread without semantic variables; required stance: distinguish content-level propensity from diffusion opportunity)
• High-arousal negativity versus positive or neutral content -> (Barnes et al., 2021; Bene, 2016; Guadagno et al., 2013; Heath et al., 2002) (evidence: negative tone and disgust predict spread, positive affect predicts forwarding, and Reddit results favor neutral or mundane content; required stance: model emotion by platform, content genre, arousal, and outcome)
• Positive marketing effects versus null or negative consequences -> (Agrawal et al., 2025; Chu et al., 2022; Malodia et al., 2022; Mi et al., 2025; Putri et al., 2025; Wen & Ye, 2024) (evidence: positive survey and engagement paths coexist with β = 0.002 for engagement, β = -0.125 for loyalty, and 57.14% uncertainty about purchase; required stance: reject any unconditional virality-to-value claim)
• Humor as driver versus humor as insufficient or harmful -> (Bene, 2016; Guadagno et al., 2013; Malodia et al., 2022; Schmid et al., 2025; Vardeman, 2025; Yang, 2022) (evidence: humor predicts some sharing and engagement outcomes, is nonsignificant in other settings, can reduce recall, and interacts with ideological extremity; required stance: treat humor as a moderator or alternative mechanism, not a synonym for counterexample)
• Objective truth versus perceived truth and persistence -> (Brautigam, 2019; Hujoel, 2019; Oeldorf-Hirsch et al., 2020; Percival, 1994) (evidence: rationality is predicted to favor long-term survival, yet unsupported beliefs spread and corrective labels have minimal item-level effects; required stance: distinguish objective accuracy, perceived accuracy, initial sharing, and long-term retention)
• Shared cultural knowledge versus audience specificity not being necessary -> (Fiadotava, 2023; Giorgi, 2025; Ling et al., 2021; Nissenbaum & Shifman, 2017) (evidence: community knowledge matters qualitatively, but audience-specific features did not predict virality and meanings were frequently detached from their original context; required stance: empirically pretest consensus rather than assume it)
• Reflective receiver versus phatic, heuristic, or imitative participation -> (Atran, 2001; Kapoor & Behl, 2024; Vardeman, 2025; Varis & Blommaert, 2014; Zulli & Zulli, 2020) (evidence: active inference coexists with sharing based on social bonding, popularity cues, and platform imitation; required stance: specify when reflective processing is necessary)
• Strategic brand control versus user co-creation and resistance -> (Csordás et al., 2017; Finne & Grönroos, 2017; Pauliks, 2021; Väliverronen et al., 2022) (evidence: corporate messages can be rejected, remixed, or transformed into resistance; required stance: characterize marketer influence as probabilistic and context-dependent)
• Stable knowledge reorganization versus semantic drift or semantic depletion -> (Fiadotava, 2023; Mitman & Denham, 2024; Nurhidayah, 2025) (evidence: meme meanings detach from original agendas, lose subcultural content through co-optation, or shift from positive to controversial meanings; required stance: distinguish immediate insight from longitudinal meaning stability)
• Valence neutrality versus hypotheses restricted to positive brand attitude -> (Cuong et al., 2025; Morris & Ogan, 1996; Wu & Ardley, 2007) (evidence: the theory explicitly allows positive and negative conclusions, while H2-H6 predict positive brand attitudes; required stance: formulate valence-contingent hypotheses)

References

Agrawal, A., Sharma, D., & Mishra, M. K. (2025). Memes matter: Effect of meme content dimensions on brand continuance intention. Journal of Promotion Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2025.2463547

Ahmed, S., & Masood, M. (2024). Breaking barriers with memes: How political memes bridge political cynicism to online political participation. Social Media + Society, 10(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241261277

Ali, M., Farooq, M., Yen, Y. Y., & Saqib, N. U. (2025). Digital meme marketing as an informational service: Effects on self-expansion, brand attitude, and purchase intention in online shopping platforms. Journal of Logistics, Informatics and Service Science, 12(10), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.33168/JLISS.2025.1009

Ali, S., Yawar, R. B., Ali, S., Saif, N., Goh, G. G. G., & Khan, F. (2025). From memes to motivation: Understanding how social media influencers drive youth consumption. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1907). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-06166-z

Atran, S. (2001). THE TROUBLE WITH MEMES: Inference versus imitation in cultural creation. Human Nature, 12(4), 351–381.

Baker, S. A., & Walsh, M. J. (2024). Memes Save Lives: Stigma and the production of anti-vaccination memes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Media + Society, 10(1), 20563051231224729. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231224729

Barnes, K., Riesenmy, T., Trinh, M. D., Lleshi, E., Balogh, N., & Molontay, R. (2021). Dank or not? Analyzing and predicting the popularity of memes on reddit. Applied Network Science, 6(21). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109-021-00358-7

Bene, M. (2016). Go viral on the facebook! Interactions between candidates and followers on facebook during the hungarian general election campaign of 2014. Information, Communication & Society, 0(0), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1198411

Berger, J. (2011). Arousal increases social transmission of information. Psychological Science, 22(7), 891–893. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611413294

Berger, J., & Iyengar, R. (2013). Communication channels and word of mouth: How the medium shapes the message. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 567–586. https://doi.org/10.1086/671345

Bernstein, J. D. (2024). The billionaire space race: Internet memes and the netizen response to space tourism. Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights, 5, 100122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annale.2024.100122

Beskow, D. M., Kumar, S., & Carley, K. M. (2020). The evolution of political memes: Detecting and characterizing internet memes with multi-modal deep learning. Information Processing &Amp; Management, 57(2), 102170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102170

Brautigam, D. (2019). A critical look at chinese ’debt-trap diplomacy’: The rise of a meme. Area Development and Policy, 00(00). https://doi.org/10.1080/23792949.2019.1689828

Breuer, A., & Johnston, A. I. (2019). Memes, narratives and the emergent US–china security dilemma. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 0(0), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1622083

Cannizzaro, S. (2016). Internet memes as internet signs: A semiotic view of digital culture. Sign Systems Studies, 44(4), 562–586. https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2016.44.4.05

Chu, S.-C., Deng, T., & Mundel, J. (2022). The impact of personalization on viral behavior intentions on TikTok: The role of perceived creativity, authenticity, and need for uniqueness. Journal of Marketing Communications. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2022.2098364

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. In Handbook of research on digital marketing and social media strategies (pp. 248–251). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416794-014

Cuong, P. H., Nam, L. G., & Quyen, L. N. (2025). The impacts of meme marketing on purchase intention on food delivery applications of generation z in ho chi minh city. Study Exchange, No. 02 (33). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.71374/jfar.v25.i2.13

Dupré, J. (2000). Review of Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science. Not Reported.

Dwivedi, Y. K., Ismagilova, E., Hughes, D. L., Carlson, J., Filieri, R., Jacobson, J., Jain, V., Karjaluoto, H., Kefi, H., Krishen, A. S., Kumar, V., Rahman, M. M., Raman, R., Rauschnabel, P. A., Rowley, J., Salo, J., Tran, G. A., & Wang, Y. (2021). Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives and research propositions. International Journal of Information Management, 59, 102168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102168

Echeverría, M. (2023). Experiencing political advertising through social media logic: A qualitative inquiry. Media and Communication, 11(2), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i2.6412

Fiadotava, A. (2023). “When you try to tell people about climate change, and they start making memes about you”: The meaning-making in greta thunberg internet memes. Folklore, 134(3), 304–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/0015587X.2023.2179227

Finne, Å., & Grönroos, C. (2017). Communication-in-use: Customer-integrated marketing communication. European Journal of Marketing, 51(3), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2015-0553

Galip, I. (2024). Methodological and epistemological challenges in meme research and meme studies. Internet Histories, 8(4), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2024.2359846

Geniole, S. N., Bird, B. M., Witzel, A., McEvoy, J. T., & Proietti, V. (2022). Preliminary evidence that brief exposure to vaccination-related internet memes may influence intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19. Computers in Human Behavior, 131, 107218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107218

Giorgi, G. (2025). Exploring generational othering through internet memes. The Sociological Review, 00(0), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261251314555

Gleeson, J. P., O’Sullivan, K. P., Baños, R. A., & Moreno, Y. (2016). Effects of network structure, competition and memory time on social spreading phenomena. Phys. Rev. X, 6, 021019. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.6.021019

Guadagno, R. E., Rempala, D. M., Murphy, S., & Okdie, B. M. (2013). What makes a video go viral? An analysis of emotional contagion and internet memes. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2312–2319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.016

Guru, K., Umadevi, A., & Raja, S. (2020). EXPLORING EFFECTIVENESS OF DAGMAR APPROACH IN PROMOTIONAL CAMPAIGNS OF FAST MOVING CONSUMER GOODS. SHODH SARITA, 7(27(I)), 193–199.

Harbo, T. F. (2022). Internet memes as knowledge practice in social movements: Rethinking economics’ delegitimization of economists. Discourse, Context & Media, 50, 100650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2022.100650

Heath, C., Bell, C. M., & Steinberg, E. (2002). Emotional selection in memes: The case of urban legends. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1028–1041. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1028

Herabadi, A. G. (2003). Buying impulses: A study on impulsive consumption [PhD thesis]. Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen; PrintPartners Ipskamp.

Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer responses to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 404–420.

Hujoel, P. P. (2019). Historical perspectives on advertising and the meme that personal oral hygiene prevents dental caries. Gerodontology, 36(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/ger.12374

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. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332446590

Kapoor, P., & Behl, A. (2024). Those “funny” internet memes: A study of misinformation retransmission and vaccine hesitancy. Behaviour & Information Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2303582

Karlsson, L. (2007). Strategic marketing advertising theories and models – how well can these be transferred from text into reality? (p. 10p) [Dissertation]. University of Halmstad Faculty of Economics; Technology.

Kiljañczyk, M., & Kacprzak, A. (2023). From humor to strategy: An experimental survey on internet memes in social media marketing. European Management Studies, 21(4), 4–29. https://doi.org/10.7172/2956-7602.102.1

Leung, F. F., Gu, F. F., Li, Y., Zhang, J. Z., & Palmatier, R. W. (2022). Influencer marketing effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 86(6), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221102889

Ling, C., AbuHilal, I., Blackburn, J., Cristofaro, E. D., Zannettou, S., & Stringhini, G. (2021). Dissecting the meme magic: Understanding indicators of virality in image memes. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 5(CSCW1), 81. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449155

Makhortykh, M., & Aguilar, J. M. G. (2020). Memory, politics and emotions: Internet memes and protests in venezuela and ukraine. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2020.1764782

Malodia, S., Dhir, A., Bilgihan, A., Sinha, P., & Tikoo, T. (2022). Meme marketing: How can marketers drive better engagement using viral memes? Psychology & Marketing, 39, 1775–1801. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21702

Marino, G. (2015). Semiotics of spreadability: A systematic approach to internet memes and virality. Punctum. International Journal of Semiotics, 1(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.18680/hss.2015.0001

McSwiney, J., & Vaughan, M. (2024). Parties vs. Partisans: The real contest about what memes mean in election campaigns. Australian Journal of Political Science, 59(2), 216–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2024.2369537

Mehrabian, A., & Wetter, R. de. (1987). Experimental test of an emotion-based approach to fitting brand names to products. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(1), 125–130.

Merrill, S., & Lindgren, S. (2021). Memes, brands and the politics of post-terror togetherness: Following the manchester bee after the 2017 manchester arena bombing. Information, Communication & Society, 24(16), 2403–2421. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1942957

Mi, L. P. T., Tran, C. D., Vy, L. T., Ngan, L. D. T., & Tam, T. H. (2025). Tradition or innovation approaches? The role of meme marketing on brand recall and brand engagement: The evidence in vietnam. Asian Journal of Business Research, 15(1), 16–16. https://doi.org/10.14707/ajbr.250187

Mitman, T., & Denham, J. (2024). Into the meme stream: The value and spectacle of internet memes. New Media and Society, 27(6), 3470–3486. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241227843

Morris, M., & Ogan, C. (1996). The internet as mass medium. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(1), 0. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1996.tb00174.x

Murray, N., Manrai, A., & Manrai, L. (2014). Memes, memetics and marketing: A state-of-the-art review and a lifecycle model of meme management in advertising. In The routledge companion to the future of marketing (pp. 331–347). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203103036-32

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815609313

Nurhidayah, S. A. (2025). Social media slang evolution in indonesia: A big data analysis of instagram and TikTok hashtags (2018-2024). Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies, 4(1), 9–11. https://doi.org/10.56397/JLCS.2025.02.02

Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., Schmierbach, M., Appelman, A., & Boyle, M. P. (2020). The ineffectiveness of fact-checking labels on news memes and articles. Mass Communication and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1733613

Pauliks, K. (2021). MEMEING AGAINST MAINSTREAM. AN ANALYSIS OF DANK MEMES AND THE PICTORIAL (COUNTER-)PRACTICES OF MEME CULTURE. Selected Papers of #AoIR2021: The 22nd Annual Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers Virtual Event. http://spir.aoir.org

Paz, M. A., Mayagoitia-Soria, A., & González-Aguilar, J.-M. (2021). From polarization to hate: Portrait of the spanish political meme. Social Media + Society, 7(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211062920

Percival, R. S. (1994). Dawkins and incurable mind viruses? Memes, rationality and evolution. Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 17(3), 243–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/1061-7361(94)90012-4

Putri, F. M., Salqaura, S. A., & Lubis, A. (2025). Pengaruh viralitas meme marketing, brand image, dan brand personality terhadap brand engagement dan loyalitas konsumen. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Business (RIGGS), 4(2), 7435–7444. https://doi.org/10.31004/riggs.v4i2.1884

Ross, A. S., & Rivers, D. J. (2019). Internet memes, media frames, and the conflicting logics of climate change discourse. Environmental Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1560347

Schmid, U. K., Schulze, H., & Drexel, A. (2025). Memes, humor, and the far right’s strategic mainstreaming. Information, Communication & Society, 28(4), 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2329610

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(4), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12120

Serres, J. (2023). Online success as horizon of survival: Children and the digital economy in lagos, nigeria. Media and Communication, 11(4), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i4.7133

Sperber, D. (2000). An objection to the memetic approach to culture. In R. Aunger (Ed.), Darwinizing culture: The status of memetics as a science (pp. 163–173). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780192632449.003.0008

Spitzberg, B. H. (2014). Toward a model of meme diffusion (M3 d). Communication Theory, 24(4), 311–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12042

S.Suresh. (2019). MEMETICS: A STUDY ON THE MILLENIAL TOOL OF MARKETING. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR), 6(4), 182–185.

Sterelny, K. (2006). Memes revisited. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57, 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axi157

Tomaž, K., & Walanchalee, W. (2020). One does not simply … project a destination image within a participatory culture. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 18, 100494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100494

Väliverronen, E., Sihvonen, T., Laaksonen, S.-M., & Koskela, M. (2022). Branding the “wow-academy”: The risks of promotional culture and quasi-corporate communication in higher education. Studies in Communication Sciences, 22(3), 493–513. https://doi.org/10.24434/j.scoms.2022.03.3285

Vardeman, C. (2025). An investigation of consumer responses to visual and textual elements of meme marketing advertisements. Journal of Social Media Marketing, 4(1), 16–37. https://doi.org/10.33422/jsmm.v4i1.1436

Varis, P., & Blommaert, J. (2014). Conviviality and collectives on social media: Virality, memes, and new social structures. Multilingual Margins A Journal of Multilingualism from the Periphery. https://doi.org/10.14426/mm.v2i1.55

Vasile, S., Mototo, L., & Chuchu, T. (2021). Using “memes” as a marketing communication tool in connecting with consumers within the age of digital connectivity. International Review of Management and Marketing, 11(3), 30–35. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.32479/irmm.11313

Vásquez, C., & Aslan, E. (2021). “Cats be outside, how about meow”: Multimodal humor and creativity in an internet meme. Journal of Pragmatics, 171, 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.10.006

Wei, X., Valler, N. C., Prakash, B. A., Neamtiu, I., Faloutsos, M., & Faloutsos, C. (2013). Competing memes propagation on networks: A network science perspective. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 31(6), 1049–1060. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSAC.2013.130607

Wen, C., & Ye, J. (2024). A study on meme marketing strategies of domestic brands and optimization suggestions. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 12(4), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v12i4.7065

Weng, L., Flammini, A., Vespignani, A., & Menczer, F. (2012). Competition among memes in a world with limited attention. Scientific Reports, 2, 335. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00335

Weng, L., Menczer, F., & Ahn, Y.-Y. (2013). Virality prediction and community structure in social networks. Scientific Reports, 3, 2522. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep02522

Wood, M. A. (2019). Policing’s “meme strategy”: Understanding the rise of police social media engagement work. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2019.1658695

Wu, Y., & Ardley, B. (2007). Proponowany mechanizm wirusowości oraz hipotezy badawcze. The Marketing Review, 7(3), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934707X230112

Yang, G. (2022). Using funny memes for social media marketing: The moderating role of bandwagon cues. Journal of Promotion Management, 28(7), 944–960. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2022.2054904

Yi, K., Wang, Q., Xu, J., & Liu, B. (2021). Attribution model of travel intention to internet celebrity spots: A systematic exploration based on psychological perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 797482. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.797482

Zulli, D., & Zulli, D. J. (2020). Extending the internet meme: Conceptualizing technological mimesis and imitation publics on the TikTok platform. New Media & Society, 22(11), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820983603