Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The power of emotions to influence judgment, including political attitudes, has been recognized since classical antiquity. Aristotle, in his treatise Rhetoric, described emotional arousal as critical to persuasion, "The orator persuades by means of his hearers, when they are roused to emotion by his speech; for the judgments we deliver are not the same when we are influenced by joy or sorrow ...
The book synthesized emotions and neurology and introduced the concept that action is a result of impression. Hartley determined that emotions drive people to react to appeals based on circumstance but also passions made up of cognitive impulses. [19] Campbell argues that belief and persuasion depend heavily on the force of an emotional appeal ...
Fallacies based on arguing for or against a proposition on emotional grounds. Pages in category "Appeals to emotion" The following 21 pages are in this category, out of 21 total.
If both the advertisement made 40 years ago and the exact same advertisement made today contain the same speaker with the same credentials (ethos), and the same arguments with the same logic (logos), and they both appeal to the same emotions and the same values (pathos), but the reception is completely different, then what has changed is the ...
Appeal to emotion – manipulating the emotions of the listener rather than using valid reasoning to obtain common agreement. [78] Appeal to fear – generating distress, anxiety, cynicism, or prejudice towards the opponent in an argument. [79] Appeal to flattery – using excessive or insincere praise to obtain common agreement. [80]
According to evolutionary theory, different emotions evolved at different times. Primal emotions, such as love and fear, are associated with ancient parts of the psyche. Social emotions, such as guilt and pride, evolved among social primates. Evolutionary psychologists consider human emotions to be best adapted to the life our ancestors led in ...
An appeal to pity (also called argumentum ad misericordiam, the sob story, or the Galileo argument) [1] [2] is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting one's opponent's feelings of pity or guilt. It is a specific kind of appeal to emotion. The name "Galileo argument" refers to the scientist's ...
It is a measure of a person's emotional reactivity to a stimulus. [2] Most of these responses can be observed by other people, while some emotional responses can only be observed by the person experiencing them. [3] Observable responses to emotion (i.e., smiling) do not have a single meaning.