Research Article

Political memes and influence in the Global South: Calibrated prediction of misinformation and opinion change

Carlos Humberto Hidalgo Menjívar 1 , Carlos Alberto Echeverría Mayorga 2 *
More Detail
1 Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales, Universidad Salvadoreña Alberto Masferrer, San Salvador, EL SALVADOR2 ICTUSAM—Instituto de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas—Universidad Salvadoreña Alberto Masferrer, San Salvador, EL SALVADOR* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 16(4), October 2026, e202649, https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/19270
Published: 17 September 2026
OPEN ACCESS   74 Views   36 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Memes have become a routine infrastructure of political talk across platforms, blending humor, affect, and compressed commentary. Yet scholarship often alternates between strong causal claims and descriptive accounts, leaving open what can be predicted—reliably and with well-calibrated probabilities—from lightweight survey signals. We compare an interpretable penalized logistic regression (ridge) and a flexible random forest to model three self-reported outcomes among Salvadoran university students (cross-sectional survey; n ≈ 162): perceived misinformation potential of memes, perceived manipulation potential, and self-reported opinion change after viewing memes. Predictors were derived from closed and multiple-selection items capturing (a) most-used platforms (TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and X), (b) common emotions when seeing memes (laughter, reflection, annoyance, and indifference), (c) verification practice (yes/no), and (d) confidence in meme messages (ordinal 0-2). Two operational indicators captured multiple selection (multi_platform and multi_emotion). Models were evaluated with stratified 5-fold cross-validation; classification thresholds were selected on training folds only. We report discrimination (AUC-ROC), threshold-dependent metrics (balanced accuracy, F1, sensitivity, specificity), probabilistic accuracy (Brier score), and decile-based calibration. Predictive performance was highest for perceived misinformation (AUC-ROC ≈ 0.85-0.86; Brier ≈ 0.10), moderate for perceived manipulation (AUC-ROC ≈ 0.74-0.75; Brier ≈ 0.17), and lowest for opinion change (AUC-ROC ≈ 0.70-0.74; Brier ≈ 0.21-0.23). Across models, multi_platform selection and confidence emerged as recurrent signals. Findings are presented as predictive rather than causal and motivate richer measures of exposure and context to model opinion change.
Keywords: political memes, perceived misinformation, perceived manipulation, opinion change, calibration

CITATION (APA)

Hidalgo Menjívar, C. H., & Echeverría Mayorga, C. A. (2026). Political memes and influence in the Global South: Calibrated prediction of misinformation and opinion change. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 16(4), e202649. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/19270

REFERENCES

  1. Ahmed, S., & Masood, M. (2024). Breaking barriers with memes: How memes bridge political cynicism to online political participation. Social Media + Society, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241261277
  2. Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. PNAS, 115(37), 9216-9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
  3. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5-32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
  4. Brier, G. W. (1950). Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly Weather Review, 78, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1950)078<0001:VOFEIT>2.0.CO;2
  5. Chadwick, A. (2017). The hybrid media system: Politics and power (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190696726.001.0001
  6. Davis, J., & Goadrich, M. (2006). The relationship between precision-recall and ROC curves. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 233-240). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1143844.1143874
  7. Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2010). Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. Journal of Statistical Software, 33(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v033.i01
  8. Gelman, A., Hill, J., & Vehtari, A. (2020). Regression and other stories. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139161879
  9. Guess, A. M., Lerner, M., Lyons, B., Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Sircar, N. (2020). A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. PNAS, 117(27), 15536-15545. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920498117
  10. Halversen, A., & Weeks, B. E. (2023). Memeing politics: Understanding political meme creators, audiences, and consequences on social media. Social Media + Society, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231205588
  11. Highfield, T. (2016). Social media and everyday politics. Polity Press.
  12. Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., Schudson, M., Sloman, S. A., Sunstein, C. R., Thorson, E. A., Watts, D. J., & Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
  13. Masood, M. (2024). Political meme use can lead to political intolerance: Evidence from a 2-wave panel survey. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 36(4), Article edae052. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edae052
  14. Mihăilescu, M.-G. (2024). Never mess with the “memers”: How meme creators are redefining contemporary politics. Social Media + Society, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241296256
  15. Milner, R. M. (2016). The world made meme: Public conversations and participatory media. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034999.001.0001
  16. Mina, A. X. (2019). Memes to movements: How the world’s most viral media is changing social protest and power. Beacon Press.
  17. Niculescu-Mizil, A., & Caruana, R. (2005). Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 625-632). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1102351.1102430
  18. 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
  19. Nyhan, B. (2020). Facts and myths about misperceptions. Annual Review of Political Science, 23, 303-321.
  20. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199999736.001.0001
  21. Paulenová, M., & Kluknavská, A. (2025). Scroll, laugh, learn: Political memes as catalysts for active information-seeking. Popular Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2025.2571785
  22. Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science, 31(7), 770-780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939054
  23. Persily, N. (2017). The 2016 U.S. election: Can democracy survive the Internet? Journal of Democracy, 28(2), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0025
  24. Phillips, W., & Milner, R. M. (2017). The ambivalent Internet: Mischief, oddity, and antagonism online. Polity Press.
  25. Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139878425
  26. Ross, A. S., & Rivers, D. J. (2017). Digital cultures of political participation: Internet memes and the discursive delegitimization of the 2016 U.S. presidential candidates. Discourse, Context & Media, 16, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.01.001
  27. Saito, T., & Rehmsmeier, M. (2015). The precision-recall plot is more informative than the ROC plot when evaluating binary classifiers on imbalanced datasets. PLoS ONE, 10(3), Article e0118432. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118432
  28. Shifman, L. (2014). Memes in digital culture. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9429.001.0001
  29. Spiegelhalter, D. J. (1986). Probabilistic prediction in patient management and clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 39(5), 421-433. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780050506
  30. Steyerberg, E. W. (2019). Clinical prediction models: A practical approach to development, validation, and updating (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16399-0
  31. Steyerberg, E. W., Vickers, A. J., Cook, N. R., Gerds, T., Gonen, M., Obuchowski, N., Pencina, M. J., & Kattan, M. W. (2010). Assessing the performance of prediction models: A framework for some traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology, 21(1), 128-138. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c30fb2
  32. Tucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barberá, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Nyhan, B. (2018). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. Hewlett Foundation. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3144139
  33. Van Calster, B., McLernon, D. J., van Smeden, M., Wynants, L., & Steyerberg, E. W. (2019). Calibration: The Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Medicine, 17, Article 230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1466-7
  34. Vickers, A. J., & Elkin, E. B. (2006). Decision curve analysis: A novel method for evaluating prediction models. Medical Decision Making, 26(6), 565-574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X06295361
  35. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
  36. Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-toward-an-interdisciplinary-framework-for-researc/168076277c
  37. Wiggins, B. E., & Bowers, G. B. (2015). Memes as genre: A structurational analysis of the memescape. New Media & Society, 17(11), 1886-1906. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814535194
  38. Youden, W. J. (1950). Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer, 3(1), 32-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1%3C32::AID-CNCR2820030106%3E3.0.CO;2-3
  39. Zhang, J. (2025). When memes govern: A study of TikTok video memes in the 2024 US presidential election. Party Politics. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688251380615
  40. Zumárraga-Espinosa, M., AbuJoudeh-Rosero, R., & Carofilis-Cedeño, C. (2025). El doble rostro de los memes: la relación dual entre memes políticos y tipos de polarización en el contexto político de Ecuador [The double face of memes: the dual relationship between political memes and types of polarization in the political context of Ecuador]. Castalia-Revista de Psicología de la Academia, (45), 63-85. https://doi.org/10.25074/07198051.45.3022