Conspiracy theories have accompanied vaccination since its mass introduction, circulating, among other forms, in humour – such as cartoons, and now, memes. Importantly, humour has targeted both vaccination and anti-vaccination stances. In this study, we discuss the peculiarities of humorous content within the vaccination debate and uncover the most popular thematic categories, forms and logical mechanisms of humour. We show that humorous and serious discussions on vaccination go hand-in-hand, but playfulness and ambiguity of humour complicate public understanding of the vaccination debate. Our analysis shows that vaccination humour often simplifies the complex issue of vaccination and makes it more understandable and more tangible for a broad audience.
Aristotle (1922) The Poetics of Aristotle (ed and trans Butcher SH). London: Macmillan.
2.
AttardoS (2020) Scripts, frames, and other semantic objects. In: AttardoS (ed.) Script-Based Semantics: Foundations and Applications. Essays in Honor of Victor Raskin. Berlin; Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 11–42.
3.
AttardoSRaskinV (1991) Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model. Humor – International Journal of Humor Research4(3–4): 293–348.
4.
AttardoSHempelmannCFDi MaioS (2002) Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modeling incongruities and their resolutions. Humor – International Journal of Humor Research15(1): 3–46.
5.
BavelJJVBaickerKBoggioPSCapraroVCichockaACikaraM, et al. (2020) Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour4(5): 460–471.
6.
BenoitSLMauldinRF (2021) The ‘anti-vax’ movement: A quantitative report on vaccine beliefs and knowledge across social media. BMC Public Health21: 2106.
7.
BergsonH (1911 [1900]) Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic (trans CBreretonFRothwell). London: Macmillan.
8.
BertinPNeraKDelouvéeS (2020) Conspiracy beliefs, rejection of vaccination, and support for hydroxychloroquine: A conceptual replication-extension in the COVID-19 pandemic context. Frontiers in Psychology11. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.565128 (accessed 13 April 2021).
9.
BiddlestoneMGreenRDouglasKM (2020) Cultural orientation, power, belief in conspiracy theories, and intentions to reduce the spread of COVID-19. British Journal of Social Psychology59(3): 663–673.
10.
BierwiaczonekKKunstJRPichO (2020) Belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories reduces social distancing over time. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being12(4): 1270–1285.
11.
BurkiT (2020) The online anti-vaccine movement in the age of COVID-19. The Lancet Digital Health2(10): 504–505.
12.
BurnsTWO’ConnorDJStocklmayerSM (2003) Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science12: 183–202.
13.
ButsJ (2020) Memes of Gandhi and mercury in anti-vaccination discourse. Media and Communication8(2): 353–363.
14.
ButterM (2020) The Nature of Conspiracy Theories. Cambridge: Polity.
15.
CinelliMMoralesGDFGaleazziAQuattrociocchiWStarniniM (2021) The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America118(9): e2023301118.
16.
DaiRHChenH-CChanYCWuC-LLiPChoSL, et al. (2017) To resolve or not to resolve, that is the question: The dual-path model of incongruity resolution and absurd verbal humor by fMRI. Frontiers in Psychology8: 498.
17.
DaviesC (1990) Ethnic Humour around the World: A Comparative Analysis. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
18.
DaviesC (2011) Jokes and Targets. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
19.
Della GiustaMJaworskaSVukadinović GreethamD (2021) Expert communication on Twitter: Comparing economists’ and scientists’ social networks, topics and communicative styles. Public Understanding of Science30(1): 75–90.
20.
DuchshererAPlattJMMajdikZP (2020) Immunized against science: Narrative community building among vaccine refusing/hesitant parents. Public Understanding of Science29(4): 419–435.
21.
DurandJ-YCunhaMI (2020) ‘To all the anti-vaxers out there. . .’: Ethnography of the public controversy about vaccination in the time of COVID-19. Social Anthropology: The Journal of the European Association of Social Anthropologists28(2): 259–260.
22.
DurbachN (2005) Bodily Matters: The Anti-vaccination Movement in England, 1853–1907. Durham, NC; London: Duke University Press.
23.
DynelM (2016) ‘I has seen Image Macros!’ Advice animals memes as visual-verbal jokes. International Journal of Communication10: 660–688.
24.
EarnshawVAEatonLAKalichmanSCBrousseauNMHillECFoxAB (2020) COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, health behaviors, and policy support. Translational Behavioral Medicine10(4): 850–856.
25.
EggertsonL (2010) Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal = Journal de l’Association Medicale Canadienne182(4): 199–200.
26.
FlickerE (2007) Women scientists in mainstream film: Social role models – Contribution to the public understanding of science from the perspective of film sociology. In: WeingartPHüppaufB (eds) Science Images and Popular Images of the Sciences. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 241–256.
GoodmanJCarmichaelF (2020) Covid-19: What’s the harm of ‘funny’ anti-vaccine memes?BBC, 29November. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/55101238 (accessed 13 April 2021).
GustDADarlingNKennedyASchwartzB (2008) Parents with doubts about vaccines: Which vaccines and reasons why. Pediatrics122(4): 718–725.
31.
HarambamJ (2020) Conspiracy theory enterpreneurs, movements and individuals. In: ButterMKnightP (eds) Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories. London; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 278–291.
32.
HarveyAMThompsonSLacACoolidgeFL (2019) Fear and derision: A quantitative content analysis of provaccine and antivaccine internet memes. Health Education & Behavior46(6): 1012–1023.
33.
HauckWEThomasJW (1972) The relationship of humor to intelligence, creativity, and intentional and incidental learning. The Journal of Experimental Education40(4): 52–55.
34.
HobbesT (1982 [1651]) Leviathan. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
35.
JenningsFJRussellFM (2019) Civility, credibility, and health information: The impact of uncivil comments and source credibility on attitudes about vaccines. Public Understanding of Science28(4): 417–443.
36.
JuanchichMSirotaMJollesDWhileyL (2020) Are COVID-19 conspiracies a threat to public health? Psychological characteristics and health protective behaviours of believers. PsyArXiv. Available at: https://psyarxiv.com/au8j2/ (accessed 13 April 2021).
37.
JürgensA-SFiadotavaATscharkeDCViañaJV (2021) Spreading fun: Comic zombies, joker viruses and COVID-19 jokes. Journal of Science & Popular Culture4(1): 39–57.
38.
KataA (2012) Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm – An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine30(25): 3778–3789.
39.
KimSSFrimpongJARiversPAKronenfeldJJ (2007) Effects of maternal and provider characteristics on up-to-date immunization status of children aged 19 to 35 months. American Journal of Public Health97(2): 259–266.
40.
LaurencinCT (2021) Addressing justified vaccine hesitancy in the black community. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities8: 543–546.
41.
LeaskJCarlsonSJAttwellKClarkKKKaufmanJHughesC, et al. (2021) Communicating with patients and the public about COVID-19 vaccine safety: Recommendations from the collaboration on social science and immunisation. Medical Journal of Australia215(1): 9–12.e1.
42.
LintottS (2016) Superiority in humor theory. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism74(4): 347–358.
43.
LockyerSPickeringM (2008) You must be joking: The sociological critique of humour and comic media. Sociology Compass2(3): 808–820.
44.
MartinRA (2007) The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. London: Elsevier.
45.
MavraganiAOchoaG (2018) The internet and the anti-vaccine movement: Tracking the 2017 EU measles outbreak. Big Data and Cognitive Computing2: 2. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2504-2289/2/1/2/pdf (accessed 13 April 2021).
46.
NaKGarrettRKSlaterMD (2018) Rumor acceptance during public health crises: Testing the emotional congruence hypothesis. Journal of Health Communication23(8): 791–799.
47.
OringE (2003) Engaging Humor. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
PansegrauP (2007) Stereotypes and images of scientists in fiction films. In: WeingartPHüppaufB (eds) Science Images and Popular Images of Science. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 257–267.
51.
PaulESteptoeAFancourtD (2021) Attitudes towards vaccines and intention to vaccinate against COVID-19: Implications for public health communications. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe1: 100012.
52.
PennycookGMcPhetresJZhangYLuJGRandDG (2020) Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science31(7): 770–780.
53.
RazaiMSOsamaTMcKechnieDGJMajeedA (2021) Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy among ethnic minority groups. British Medical Journal372: n513. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n513 (accessed 6 June 2022).
54.
ReichJA (2014) Neoliberal mothering and vaccine refusal: Imagined gated communities and the privilege of choice. Gender & Society28(5): 679–704.
55.
RieschH (2015) Why did the proton cross the road? Humour and science communication. Public Understanding of Science24(7): 768–775.
56.
RobertsonK (2020) Vaccine hysteria. AMSA Journal of Global Health14(1): 16–20.
SabriOMichelG (2014) When do advertising parodies hurt? The power of humor and credibility in viral spoof advertisements. Journal of Advertising Research54(2): 233–247.
59.
SamsonACHuberO (2007) The interaction of cartoonist’s gender and formal features of cartoons. Humor – International Journal of Humor Research20(1): 1–25.
60.
ShifmanL (2014) Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61.
SkurkaCNiederdeppeJNabiR (2019) Kimmel on climate: Disentangling the emotional ingredients of a satirical monologue. Science Communication41(4): 394–421.
62.
SmithNGrahamT (2019) Mapping the anti-vaccination movement on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society22(9): 1310–1327.
StanoS (2020) The internet and the spread of conspiracy content. In: ButterMKnightP (eds) Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories. London; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 483–496.
SugermanDEBarskeyAEDeleaMGOrtega-SanchezIRBiDRalstonKJ, et al. (2010) Measles outbreak in a highly vaccinated population, San Diego, 2008: Role of the intentionally undervaccinated. Pediatrics125(4): 747–755.
67.
TafuriSMartinelliDPratoRGerminarioC (2011) From the struggle for freedom to the denial of evidence: History of the anti-vaccination movements in Europe. Annali Di igiene: Medicina Preventiva e di Comunita23(2): 93–99.
68.
TsakonaV (2009) Language and image interaction in cartoons: Towards a multimodal theory of humor. Journal of Pragmatics41(6): 1171–1188.
69.
Van MulukomVPummererLAlperSBaiHCavojovaVFariasJEM, et al. (2020) Antecedents and consequences of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs: A rapid review of the evidence. PsyArXiv. Available at: https://psyarxiv.com/u8yah/ (accessed 14 April 2021).
70.
VanderslottS (2019) Exploring the meaning of pro-vaccine activism across two countries. Social Science & Medicine222: 59–66.
71.
VasquezCAslanE (2021) ‘Cats be outside, how about meow’: Multimodal humor and creativity in an internet meme. Journal of Pragmatics171: 101–117.
72.
WakefieldAJMurchSHAnthonyALinnellJCassonDMMalikM, et al. (1998) RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet351(9103): 637–641.
73.
Williams KirkpatrickA (2021) The spread of fake science: Lexical concreteness, proximity, misinformation sharing, and the moderating role of subjective knowledge. Public Understanding of Science30(1): 55–74.
74.
YeoSKCacciatoreMASuLY-FMcKasyMO’NeillL (2021) Following science on social media: The effects of humor and source likability. Public Understanding of Science30(5): 552–569.
75.
YoungDG (2018) Theories and effects of political humor: Discounting cues, gateways, and the impact of incongruities. In: KenskiKJamiesonKH (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 871–884.
76.
YusF (2019) Multimodality in memes: A cyberpragmatic approach. In: Bou-FranchPGarcés-Conejos BlitvichP (eds) Analyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 105–131.
77.
ZouWTangL (2021) What do we believe in? Rumors and processing strategies during the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Public Understanding of Science30(2): 153–168.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
