skip to main content
10.1145/3461778.3462080acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

MEMEories: Internet Memes as Means for Daily Journaling

Published:28 June 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Internet memes are (multi)media pieces, found all across the world-wide-web. Often disposing of a humorous component, they express and reflect on all kinds of local and global phenomena. Within our work, we explore how people can use internet memes to express and reflect on themselves. We built  MEMEory, a mobile meme journaling app. We evaluated the prospect of meme journaling, nicknamed ”memeing”, alongside a written diary in a 2-week field study with 31 participants. Opposed to more neutral chronicle-style text entries, our results suggest that participants used memes to express specific single, rather negative events and emotions throughout the day. When reflecting on daily events, the contained emotional and often humorous connotation of memes helped participants view negative events as more positive in retrospect. Although more difficult, memeing was perceived as significantly more motivating and enjoyable. Qualitative insights show that memeing can present a fun, engaging, expressive and memorable journaling experience.

References

  1. 2020. Meme. In Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Le Robert, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Parastoo Abtahi, Victoria Ding, Anna C Yang, Tommy Bruzzese, Alyssa B Romanos, Elizabeth L Murnane, Sean Follmer, and James A Landay. 2020. Understanding Physical Practices and the Role of Technology in Manual Self-Tracking. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 4, 4 (2020), 1–24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Umair Akram, Jennifer Drabble, Glhenda Cau, Frayer Hershaw, Ashileen Rajenthran, Mollie Lowe, Carissa Trommelen, and Jason G Ellis. 2020. Exploratory study on the role of emotion regulation in perceived valence, humour, and beneficial use of depressive internet memes in depression. Scientific reports 10, 1 (2020), 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Umair Akram, Jason G Ellis, Glhenda Cau, Frayer Hershaw, Ashlieen Rajenthran, Mollie Lowe, Carissa Trommelen, and Jennifer Drabble. 2021. Eye tracking and attentional bias for depressive internet memes in depression. Experimental Brain Research 239, 2 (2021), 575–581.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Daniel Avrahami, Kristin Williams, Matthew L Lee, Nami Tokunaga, Yulius Tjahjadi, and Jennifer Marlow. 2020. Celebrating Everyday Success: Improving Engagement and Motivation using a System for Recording Daily Highlights. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Amid Ayobi, Paul Marshall, and Anna L Cox. 2020. Trackly: A Customisable and Pictorial Self-Tracking App to Support Agency in Multiple Sclerosis Self-Care. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Amid Ayobi, Paul Marshall, Anna L Cox, and Yunan Chen. 2017. Quantifying the body and caring for the mind: self-tracking in multiple sclerosis. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 6889–6901.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Amid Ayobi, Tobias Sonne, Paul Marshall, and Anna L. Cox. 2018. Flexible and Mindful Self-Tracking: Design Implications from Paper Bullet Journals. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi-org.emedien.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10.1145/3173574.3173602Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Christian Bauckhage. 2011. Insights into internet memes. In Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Eric P.S. Baumer. 2015. Reflective Informatics: Conceptual Dimensions for Designing Technologies of Reflection. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 585–594. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702234Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Eric PS Baumer, Vera Khovanskaya, Mark Matthews, Lindsay Reynolds, Victoria Schwanda Sosik, and Geri Gay. 2014. Reviewing reflection: on the use of reflection in interactive system design. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems. 93–102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Michael Billig. 2005. Laughter and ridicule: Towards a social critique of humour. 1–217 pages. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446211779Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Lars Bülow, Marie-Luis Merten, and Michael Johann. 2018. Internet-Memes als Zugang zu multimodalen Konstruktionen. (2018), 1–32. Bülow, Lars / Merten, Marie-Luis / Johann, Michael (2018): Internet-Memes als Zugang zu multimodalen Konstruktionen. In: Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 69, 1–32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Shelley H Carson and Ellen J Langer. 2006. Mindfulness and self-acceptance. Journal of rational-emotive and cognitive-behavior therapy 24, 1(2006), 29–43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Scott Carter and Jennifer Mankoff. 2005. When Participants Do the Capturing: The Role of Media in Diary Studies. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Portland, Oregon, USA) (CHI ’05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 899–908. https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055098Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Carlos Mauricio Castaño Díaz. 2013. Defining and characterizing the concept of Internet Meme. CES Psicología 6, 2 (2013), 82–104.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. James Clawson, Jessica A Pater, Andrew D Miller, Elizabeth D Mynatt, and Lena Mamykina. 2015. No longer wearing: investigating the abandonment of personal health-tracking technologies on craigslist. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing. 647–658.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Felicia Cordeiro, Elizabeth Bales, Erin Cherry, and James Fogarty. 2015. Rethinking the Mobile Food Journal: Exploring Opportunities for Lightweight Photo-Based Capture. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3207–3216. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702154Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Pooja M Desai, Elliot G Mitchell, Maria L Hwang, Matthew E Levine, David J Albers, and Lena Mamykina. 2019. Personal health oracle: Explorations of personalized predictions in diabetes self-management. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Chris Elsden, Abigail C. Durrant, David Chatting, and David S. Kirk. 2017. Designing Documentary Informatics. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (DIS ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 649–661. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064714Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Chris Elsden, Abigail C Durrant, and David S Kirk. 2016. It’s Just My History Isn’t It? Understanding smart journaling practices. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2819–2831.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Daniel A Epstein, An Ping, James Fogarty, and Sean A Munson. 2015. A lived informatics model of personal informatics. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. 731–742.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Rowanne Fleck and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2010. Reflecting on Reflection: Framing a Design Landscape. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction (Brisbane, Australia) (OZCHI ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 216–223. https://doi.org/10.1145/1952222.1952269Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. J. H. French. 2017. Image-based memes as sentiment predictors. In 2017 International Conference on Information Society (i-Society). 80–85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Cole Gleason, Amy Pavel, Himalini Gururaj, Kris Kitani, and Jeffrey Bigham. 2020. Making GIFs Accessible. In The 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Cole Gleason, Amy Pavel, Xingyu Liu, Patrick Carrington, Lydia B Chilton, and Jeffrey P Bigham. 2019. Making memes accessible. In The 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 367–376.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Olga Goriunova. 2014. The force of digital aesthetics. On memes, hacking, and individuation. The Nordic Journal of Aesthetics 24, 47 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Andrea Grimes and Richard Harper. 2008. Celebratory technology: new directions for food research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 467–476.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. James J. Gross. 1998. The Emerging Field of Emotion Regulation: An Integrative Review. Review of General Psychology 2, 3 (1998), 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. James J Gross. 2002. Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology 39, 3 (2002), 281–291.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Victoria Hollis, Artie Konrad, Aaron Springer, Matthew Antoun, Christopher Antoun, Rob Martin, and Steve Whittaker. 2017. What Does All This Data Mean for My Future Mood? Actionable Analytics and Targeted Reflection for Emotional Well-Being. Human–Computer Interaction 32, 5-6 (2017), 208–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2016.1277724 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2016.1277724Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Netta Iivari, Marianne Kinnula, Leena Kuure, and Tiina Keisanen. 2020. ”Arseing around Was Fun!” – Humor as a Resource in Design and Making. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376169Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Heekyoung Jung. 2020. In Search of Forms for Evocative and Generative Reflection: Exploratory Studies and a Design Proposal. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376231Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Annika Kaltenhauser, Nađa Terzimehić, and Andreas Butz. 2021. MEMEography: Understanding Users Through Internet Memes. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Christina Kelley, Bongshin Lee, and Lauren Wilcox. 2017. Self-Tracking for Mental Wellness: Understanding Expert Perspectives and Student Experiences. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 629–641. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025750Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Liisi Laineste and Piret Voolaid. 2017. Laughing across borders: Intertextuality of internet memes. The European Journal of Humour Research 4, 4 (2017), 26–49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Stephen J Lepore and Joshua M Smyth. 2002. The writing cure: How expressive writing promotes health and emotional well-being.American Psychological Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Ian Li, Anind Dey, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2010. A Stage-Based Model of Personal Informatics Systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (CHI ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 557–566. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753409Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Kai Lukoff, Cissy Yu, Julie Kientz, and Alexis Hiniker. 2018. What Makes Smartphone Use Meaningful or Meaningless?Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2, 1, Article 22 (March 2018), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3191754Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Monica Maceli. 2016. Co-Design in the Wild: A Case Study on Meme Creation Tools. In Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers - Volume 1 (Aarhus, Denmark) (PDC ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1145/2940299.2940300Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Elisa D Mekler and Kasper Hornbæk. 2016. Momentary pleasure or lasting meaning? Distinguishing eudaimonic and hedonic user experiences. In Proceedings of the 2016 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 4509–4520.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Elisa D Mekler and Kasper Hornbæk. 2019. A framework for the experience of meaning in human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Andrew D. Miller and W. Keith Edwards. 2007. Give and Take: A Study of Consumer Photo-Sharing Culture and Practice. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240682Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Mary Kay Morrison. 2012. Using humor to maximize living: Connecting with humor. R&L Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Elizabeth L Murnane, Xin Jiang, Anna Kong, Michelle Park, Weili Shi, Connor Soohoo, Luke Vink, Iris Xia, Xin Yu, John Yang-Sammataro, 2020. Designing Ambient Narrative-Based Interfaces to Reflect and Motivate Physical Activity. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Anton Nijholt, Andreea I Niculescu, Valitutti Alessandro, and Rafael E Banchs. 2017. Humor in human-computer interaction: a short survey. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Robert B. O’Hara and D. Johan Kotze. 2010. Do not log-transform count data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1, 2 (2010), 118–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00021.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Fengjiao Peng, Veronica Crista LaBelle, Emily Christen Yue, and Rosalind W Picard. 2018. A trip to the moon: Personalized animated movies for self-reflection. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. James W Pennebaker and Cindy K Chung. 2011. Expressive writing: Connections to physical and mental health.(2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Daniela Petrelli, Elise van den Hoven, and Steve Whittaker. 2009. Making History: Intentional Capture of Future Memories. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, MA, USA) (CHI ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1723–1732. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518966Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Hugo Romat, Nathalie Henry Riche, Christophe Hurter, Steven Drucker, Fereshteh Amini, and Ken Hinckley. 2020. Dear Pictograph: Investigating the Role of Personalization and Immersion for Consuming and Enjoying Visualizations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376348Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. John Rooksby, Mattias Rost, Alistair Morrison, and Matthew Chalmers. 2014. Personal tracking as lived informatics. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1163–1172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Donald A Schön. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner. (1987).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Jens Seiffert-Brockmann, Trevor Diehl, and Leonhard Dobusch. 2018. Memes as games: The evolution of a digital discourse online. New Media & Society 20, 8 (2018), 2862–2879. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817735334 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817735334Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Abigail J. Sellen and Steve Whittaker. 2010. Beyond Total Capture: A Constructive Critique of Lifelogging. Commun. ACM 53, 5 (May 2010), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/1735223.1735243Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Limor Shifman. 2014. The Cultural Logic of Photo-Based Meme Genres. Journal of Visual Culture 13, 3 (2014), 340–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412914546577 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412914546577Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Anja Thieme, Jayne Wallace, Paula Johnson, John McCarthy, Siân Lindley, Peter Wright, Patrick Olivier, and Thomas D Meyer. 2013. Design to promote mindfulness practice and sense of self for vulnerable women in secure hospital services. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2647–2656.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Jakob Tholander and Maria Normark. 2020. Crafting Personal Information - Resistance, Imperfection, and Self-Creation in Bullet Journaling. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376410Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Alice Thudt, Uta Hinrichs, Samuel Huron, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2018. Self-reflection and personal physicalization construction. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Niels van Berkel, Denzil Ferreira, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2017. The Experience Sampling Method on Mobile Devices. ACM Comput. Surv. 50, 6, Article 93 (Dec. 2017), 40 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3123988Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Lin Wang and Brendan C Wood. 2011. An epidemiological approach to model the viral propagation of memes. Applied Mathematical Modelling 35, 11 (2011), 5442–5447.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    DIS '21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference
    June 2021
    2082 pages
    ISBN:9781450384766
    DOI:10.1145/3461778

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 28 June 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate1,158of4,684submissions,25%

    Upcoming Conference

    DIS '24
    Designing Interactive Systems Conference
    July 1 - 5, 2024
    IT University of Copenhagen , Denmark

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format