Appeal to emotion

Last updated

Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones (meaning the same in Latin) is an informal fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence. [1] This kind of appeal to emotion is irrelevant to or distracting from the facts of the argument (a so-called "red herring") and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.

Contents

Appeal to emotion is an application of social psychology. It is only fallacious when the emotions that are elicited are irrelevant to evaluating the truth of the conclusion and serve to distract from rational consideration of relevant premises or information. For instance, if a student says "If I get a failing grade for this paper I will lose my scholarship. It's not plagiarized." the emotions elicited by the first statement are not relevant to establishing whether the paper was plagiarized. Also, the statement "Look at the suffering children. We must do more for refugees." is fallacious, because the suffering of the children and our emotional perception of the badness of suffering is not relevant to the conclusion (to be sure, the proper role, if any, for emotion in moral reasoning is a contested issue in ethics).

Appeals to emotion are intended to cause the recipient of the information to experience feelings such as fear, pity, or joy, with the end goal of convincing the person that the statements being presented by the fallacious argument are true or false, respectively.

Classical times

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, love or hate." [2] [3] Aristotle warned that emotions may create beliefs where none existed, or change existing beliefs, and may enhance or decrease the strength with which a belief is held. [4] Seneca similarly warned that "Reason herself, to whom the reins of power have been entrusted, remains mistress only so long as she is kept apart from the passions." [5]

Centuries later, French scientist and philosopher, Blaise Pascal wrote that "People [...] arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof, but on the basis of what they find attractive." [6] Baruch Spinoza characterized emotions as having the power to "make the mind inclined to think one thing rather than another." Disagreeing with Seneca the Younger that emotion destroys reason, the 18th century Scottish philosopher George Campbell argued, instead, that emotions were allies of reason, and that they aid in the assimilation of knowledge. However, Campbell warned of the malleability of emotion and the consequent risk in terms of suggestibility:

[Emotions] are not supplanters of reason, or even rivals in her sway; they are her handmaids, by whose ministry she is enabled to usher truth into the heart, and procure it to favorable reception. As handmaids, they are liable to be seduced by sophistry in the garb of reason, and sometimes are made ignorantly to lend their aid in the introduction of falsehood. [7]

Propaganda theorist Edward Bernays asserted confidently that "in certain cases we can effect some change in public opinion with a fair degree of accuracy by operating a certain mechanism, just as a motorist can regulate the speed of his car by manipulating the flow of gasoline." [8] Bernays advised that to change the attitudes of the masses, a propagandist should target its "impulses, habits and emotions" [9] and make "emotional currents" work to achieve the goal. [10]

Indeed, some contemporary authors have attributed the popularity of the most destructive political forces in modern history to the ability of their propagandists to enchant (rather than convince) publics and to oppose "the heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor" to "naked self interest" and individualism. [11]

Similarly, Drew Westen, professor of psychology psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Emory University, using current psychiatric and psychological research to demonstrate the power of emotions in affecting political cognition and preferences, wrote that, "when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins". [12] Westen, an advisor to Democratic political campaigns, believes that evolution has equipped people to process information by emotions and that people respond to emotional cues more than to rational arguments. Accordingly, Westen believes that emotion is vital for effective persuasion and that appeals to emotion will always be more effective appeals to reason:

A central aspect of the art of political persuasion is creating, solidifying, and activating networks that create primarily positive feelings toward your candidate or party and negative feelings toward the opponent …
You can slog it for those few millimeters of cerebral turf that process facts, figures and policy statements. Or you can … target different emotional states with messages designed to maximize their appeal. [13]

Modern theories

A social psychology theory suggests that attitudes have three components — affect, cognition and behavior. The cognitive dimension refers "to beliefs that one holds about the attitude object, and behavior has been used to describe overt actions and responses to the attitude object". Affect, meanwhile, describes "the positive and negative feelings that one holds toward an attitude object", that is, the emotional dimension of an attitude. [14] Modern theorists have modified the tripartite theory to argue that an attitude "does not consist of these elements, but is instead a general evaluative summary of the information derived from these bases." [15]

Political scientist George Marcus (writing with Russell Neuman and Michael Mackuen) identifies two mental systems through which reason and emotion interact in managing and processing political stimuli: [16]

First, the disposition system "provides people with an understanding, an emotional report card, about actions that are already in their repertoire of habits." That is, the first system is that which monitors the casual processing of political information through habit, through which most of our information processing is done. [17]

The second system, the surveillance system, "acts to scan the environment for novelty and sudden intrusion of threat." [17] In other words, the second system monitors the environment for any signs of threat. If a threat is found, that system takes people out of habitual, casual processing and puts them in a state of alertness and receptivity to new information:

"what is interesting about this second emotional system is that the onset of increased anxiety stops ongoing activity and orients attention to the threatening appearance so that learning can take place. [...] when the system detects unexpected of threatening stimuli, however, it evokes increased anxiety, it interrupts ongoing activity, and it shifts attention away from the previous focus and toward the intrusive stimuli." [18]

Marcus further argues that "emotional engagement will motivate people toward making more deeply reasoned decisions about politics than those who remain dispassionate". [19] Other people have argued that "when an emotion is aroused and experienced, it can involve a number of psychological processes that can then be used as a platform for promoting and securing influence and compliance". [20]

Regardless, it would stand to reason, then, that affecting a subject's emotional state, in conjunction with a political message, could affect that subject's attitudes.

In modern philosophy, there are two main types of appeal to emotion. [21] One is the appeal to force (known as ad baculum ) the other is the appeal to sympathy, known as ad misericordiam . [21] These are only considered fallacies when used for doxastic systems. [21]

Research

Accepted wisdom[ who? ] is that, "[w]hen it comes to issues of emotional importance, convincing someone to change his or her existing beliefs appears to be a virtually hopeless undertaking." [22] And yet, manipulating emotions may help change attitudes:

"[t]he use of emotions to instill beliefs is prevalent in political propaganda. Depicting individuals, groups, or issues from an emotional perspective, or as actors in emotional events, evokes emotion. It thereby slips the belief that the emotion is about into the listener's mind. Presumably, it slips the beliefs into the listener's mind more easily, smoothly and unquestioned than would happen when the information alone was transmitted." [23]

Though it is still an underdeveloped topic of research, a number of scholars are demonstrating that manipulating emotions concerning a persuasive message does affect that message's effectiveness. It has been shown, for example, that people tend to adjust their beliefs to conform with their emotions, since feelings are treated by people as evidence, and when feelings match beliefs, that is considered as validation of the beliefs. [24] Other research shows that "emotional stimuli can influence judgment without a judge's awareness of having seen or felt anything (e.g., Bargh, 1997; Murphy & Zajonc, 1993)." [25]

Indeed, "recent studies have confirmed that affect does play a general role in attitude change, whether due to persuasive communication, or to cognitive dissonance processes (Petty et al., 2001)". [26]

Psychologists Petty & Cacioppo found that there are two ways of processing persuasive messages: (1) to emphasize the content and quality of the message (central processing), or (2) to emphasize instead external cues (such as the source of the message) and to disregard its content (peripheral processing). "When participants use the central/systematic route of responding to message content, they tend to be persuaded more by strong arguments, and less by weak arguments. However, the strength of the argument matters less when the peripheral route is chosen. In that case, other "peripheral" factors, such as the credibility of the source of the message or the intention of the communicator become important in the persuasive process." Petty and Cacioppo suggest that negative affect should result in more central processing and positive affect to more peripheral processing. That is, "In happy moods, people tend to be persuaded equally by strong and weak arguments, whereas in sad moods, people are persuaded only by strong arguments and reject weak arguments." [27] Said otherwise, positive moods encourage easy acceptance of arguments, while negative moods encourage the changing of beliefs due to significant data. [28]

Referring to the work of Marcus, political scientist Tom Brader says that, "by appealing to specific emotions, [communicators] can change the way citizens respond to political messages". [29]

Influence of emotion on persuasion

Negative emotions

Fear and anxiety

The only widely studied emotion, with respect to persuasion, is fear. Fear has been found to force individuals "to break from routine and pay close attention to the external world," including persuasive messages. Moreover, fear has been found to encourage political engagement:

"people are demonstrably more likely to engage in the political realm when they are anxious about the candidates. Uneasiness about the available political choices leads people to pay closer attention to the political environment. [...] people learn more about the candidates (that is they acquire new and accurate knowledge) when they are anxious but not when they are enthusiastic about those candidates who dominate the political field." [30]

More generally, "fear is associated with both attitude and behavior change." [31] However, "four variables that may interact to influence processing depth of a fear-inducing message: (a) type of fear (chronic vs. acute), (b) expectation of a message containing reassuring information, (c) type of behavior advocated (e.g., disease detection vs. health promotion), and (d) issue familiarity." [31]

Guilt

Guilt is the emotion that is experienced when an individual violates an internalized moral, ethical or religious belief. Guilt's effect on persuasion has been studied only cursorily. Not unlike fear appeals, the literature suggests that guilt can enhance attainment of persuasive goals if evoked to a moderate degree. [31] However, messages designed to evoke excessive levels of guilt may instead arouse anger that may impede persuasive success. [31]

Anger

Anger's effect on persuasion has also seldom been studied. A couple of studies, however, "suggest that a positive relationship exists between anger and attitude change". [32] Specifically, researchers found that "anger evoked in response to issues of juvenile crime and domestic terrorism correlated with acceptance of legislative initiatives proposed to address those issues". [32] Not unlike fear, anger was associated with close (central) information processing including of persuasive messages. [32] However, "unintentionally induced anger in response to supposed guilt and fear appeals has been shown to correlate negatively with attitudes". [32] The persuasive uses of anger have also been studied in political campaigns, since anger can be evoked strategically by politicians to increase the motivation and engagement of their sympathizers, although the historian Nicole Hemmer has noted that the potential for an American candidate to use anger effectively is contingent on their identity. [33]

Sadness

Sadness arousal has been associated with attitude change in the context of AIDS, illicit drugs, and juvenile crime. [34]

Disgust

Disgust, in the context of messages opposing animal experimentation, is correlated negatively with attitude change. This is consistent with the idea that disgust results in a rejection of its source. [34]

Positive emotions

Empathy and compassion

A number of recent studies support the role of compassion in skewing moral judgment. The researchers' findings show there is a major relationship between moral judgment and empathic concern in particular, specifically feelings of warmth and compassion in response to someone in distress. [35]

Images of suffering children are the ideal triggers of this instinctive compassion. [36]

Once triggered, compassion causes individuals to favor the few they see suffering over the many who they know to be suffering but in the abstract: "People who feel similar to another person in need have been shown to experience more empathic compassion for that person than do those not manipulated to feel similar to another." [37]

Dan Ariely notes that appeals that, through visual cues or otherwise, make us focus on specific, individual victims affect our attitudes and cause us to take action whereas, "when many people are involved, we don't. A cold calculation does not increase our concern for large problems; instead, it suppresses our compassion." [38]

"In many ways, it is very sad that the only effective way to get people to respond to suffering is through an emotional appeal, rather than through an objective reading of massive need. The upside is that when our emotions are awakened, we can be tremendously caring. Once we attach an individual face to suffering, we're much more willing to help, and we go far beyond what economists would expect from rational, selfish, maximizing agents." [39] Empathy also influences our prosocial behaviors. Prosocial behaviors are actions that are concerned with helping others. For example, people are much more likely to donate money to find a cure for a disease when they know someone personally who has that illness. The empathy and compassion that we feel towards that person is what encourages us to donate. [40] An empathy study was conducted by Fowler, Law, and Gaesser. The goal of this study was to determine how the empathy we feel varies throughout different people in our lives. Participants were asked to make a list of one hundred people. The people at the top of the list were parents, family, loved ones, etc. Towards the bottom of the list were strangers. Participants were then asked to imagine these people in various scenarios and describe the degree of empathy that they had towards each person. Results showed that the closer a person was the more empathy they felt, and for those at the bottom of the list there was not much empathy felt in comparison. [41]

Pride

"Little studied in the social influence context, the one clearly identifiable study of pride and persuasion considered the role of culture in response to advertising, finding that members of a collectivist culture (China) responded more favorably to a pride-based appeal, whereas members of an individualist culture (the United States) responded more favorably to an empathy-based appeal." [42]

Relief

Some researchers have argued that anxiety which is followed by relief results in greater compliance to a request than fear, because the relief causes a temporary state of disorientation, leaving individuals vulnerable to suggestion. [43] The suggestion is that relief-based persuasion is a function of less careful information processing.

Hope

Experiments have shown that appeals to hope are successful mainly with subjects who self-report as being predisposed to experiencing fear. [43] While hope is often seen and understood as an abstract concept, Adrienne Martin proves otherwise in their book How We Hope. In this book it is explained how hope is a two-part emotion. First, we feel hope, then we experience it. For example, when we have a desired goal, we hope that we can reach it, but that hope is what motivates us as individuals to work towards that goal. Hope also changes how we perceive others. Martin explains how once we can relate to someone, we are then feeling some degree of hope for them: hope for success, change or growth. [44]

Examples

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Emotion</span> Conscious subjective experience of humans

Emotions are physical and mental states brought on by neurophysiological changes, variously associated with thoughts, feelings, behavioral responses, and a degree of pleasure or displeasure. There is no scientific consensus on a definition. Emotions are often intertwined with mood, temperament, personality, disposition, or creativity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Persuasion</span> Umbrella term of influence and mode of communication

Persuasion or persuasion arts is an umbrella term for influence. Persuasion can influence a person's beliefs, attitudes, intentions, motivations, or behaviours.

Loaded language is rhetoric used to influence an audience by using words and phrases with strong connotations. This type of language is very often made vague to more effectively invoke an emotional response and/or exploit stereotypes. Loaded words and phrases have significant emotional implications and involve strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning.

Empathy is generally described as the ability to take on other's perspective, to understand, feel, and possibly share and respond to their experience. There are more definitions of empathy that include but are not limited to social, cognitive, and emotional processes primarily concerned with understanding others. Often times, empathy is considered to be a broad term, and broken down into more specific concepts and types that include cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, somatic empathy, and spiritual empathy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Attitude (psychology)</span> Concept in psychology and communication studies

An attitude "is a summary evaluation of an object of thought. An attitude object can be anything a person discriminates or holds in mind." Attitudes include beliefs (cognition), emotional responses (affect) and behavioral tendencies. In the classical definition an attitude is persistent, while in more contemporary conceptualizations, attitudes may vary depending upon situations, context, or moods.

Pathos appeals to the emotions and ideals of the audience and elicits feelings that already reside in them. Pathos is a term most used often in rhetoric, as well as in literature, film and other narrative art.

In social psychology, Social judgment theory (SJT) is a self-persuasion theory proposing that an individual's perception and evaluation of an idea is by comparing it with current attitudes. According to this theory, an individual weighs every new idea, comparing it with the individual's present point of view to determine where it should be placed on the attitude scale in an individual's mind. SJT is the subconscious sorting out of ideas that occurs at the instant of perception. The theory of Social Judgement attempts to explain why and how people have different reactions and responded toward the same information or issue. Social Judgment Theory can be used to improve the way people communicate with one another. The theory is also widely considered in persuasions. The Social Judgement Theory depends on the individual's position on a certain issue occurring. Depending on three elements Social Judgement Theory has, they are followed by their anchor, alternatives and ego-involvement.

Attitudes are associated beliefs and behaviors towards some object. They are not stable, and because of the communication and behavior of other people, are subject to change by social influences, as well as by the individual's motivation to maintain cognitive consistency when cognitive dissonance occurs—when two attitudes or attitude and behavior conflict. Attitudes and attitude objects are functions of affective and cognitive components. It has been suggested that the inter-structural composition of an associative network can be altered by the activation of a single node. Thus, by activating an affective or emotional node, attitude change may be possible, though affective and cognitive components tend to be intertwined.

The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persuasion is a dual process theory describing the change of attitudes. The ELM was developed by Richard E. Petty and John Cacioppo in 1980. The model aims to explain different ways of processing stimuli, why they are used, and their outcomes on attitude change. The ELM proposes two major routes to persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affect (psychology)</span> Experience of feeling or emotion

Affect, in psychology, is the underlying experience of feeling, emotion, attachment, or mood. It encompasses a wide range of emotional states and can be positive or negative. Affect is a fundamental aspect of human experience and plays a central role in many psychological theories and studies. It can be understood as a combination of three components: emotion, mood, and affectivity. In psychology, the term affect is often used interchangeably with several related terms and concepts, though each term may have slightly different nuances. These terms encompass: emotion, feeling, mood, emotional state, sentiment, affective state, emotional response, affective reactivity, disposition. Researchers and psychologists may employ specific terms based on their focus and the context of their work.

Language expectancy theory (LET) is a theory of persuasion. The theory assumes language is a rules-based system, in which people develop expected norms as to appropriate language usage in given situations. Furthermore, unexpected linguistic usage can affect the receiver's behavior resulting from attitudes towards a persuasive message.

Fear appeal is a term used in psychology, sociology and marketing. It generally describes a strategy for motivating people to take a particular action, endorse a particular policy, or buy a particular product, by arousing fear. A well-known example in television advertising was a commercial employing the musical jingle: "Never pick up a stranger, pick up Prestone anti-freeze." This was accompanied by images of shadowy strangers (hitchhikers) who would presumably do one harm if picked up. The commercial's main appeal was not to the positive features of Prestone anti-freeze, but to the fear of what a "strange" brand might do.

Inoculation theory is a social psychological/communication theory that explains how an attitude or belief can be made resistant to persuasion or influence, in analogy to how a body gains resistance to disease. The theory uses medical inoculation as its explanatory analogy but instead of applying it to disease, it is used to discuss attitudes and other positions, like opinions, values, and beliefs. It has applicability to public campaigns targeting misinformation and fake news, but it is not limited to misinformation and fake news.

James Price Dillard is a distinguished professor of Communication Arts and Sciences Department at Penn State University. He has authored and co-authored over 50 manuscripts primarily on the role of emotion and persuasive influence. Dillard graduated in 1976 from the University of Kansas with a Bachelor's degree in Speech Communication and Psychology. In 1978, he earned his Master's degree in Communication from Arizona State University and in 1983, he received a Ph.D. in Communication from Michigan State University. Dillard is currently teaching Measurement in Communication Science and Persuasive Message Processing classes at Penn State University. His awards include the NCA Golden Anniversary Award for the most outstanding, Distinguished Book Award, Communication and Social Cognition Division of the National Communication Association and many others.

In psychology, manipulation is defined as an action designed to influence or control another person, usually in an underhanded or unfair manner which facilitates one's personal aims. Methods someone may use to manipulate another person may include seduction, suggestion, coercion, and blackmail to induce submission. Manipulation is generally considered a dishonest form of social influence as it is used at the expense of others. Barring mental disabilities, humans are inherently capable of manipulative and deceptive behavior, with the main differences being of specific personality characteristics or disorders.

Narrative transportation theory proposes that when people lose themselves in a story, their attitudes and intentions change to reflect that story. The mental state of narrative transportation can explain the persuasive effect of stories on people, who may experience narrative transportation when certain contextual and personal preconditions are met, as Green and Brock postulate for the transportation-imagery model. As Van Laer, de Ruyter, Visconti, and Wetzels elaborate further, narrative transportation occurs whenever the story receiver experiences a feeling of entering a world evoked by the narrative because of empathy for the story characters and imagination of the story plot.

The heuristic-systematic model of information processing (HSM) is a widely recognized model by Shelly Chaiken that attempts to explain how people receive and process persuasive messages.

In social psychology, the Yale attitude change approach is the study of the conditions under which people are most likely to change their attitudes in response to persuasive messages. This approach to persuasive communications was first studied by Carl Hovland and his colleagues at Yale University during World War II. The basic model of this approach can be described as "who said what to whom": the source of the communication, the nature of the communication and the nature of the audience. According to this approach, many factors affect each component of a persuasive communication. The credibility and attractiveness of the communicator (source), the quality and sincerity of the message, and the attention, intelligence and age of the audience can influence an audience's attitude change with a persuasive communication. Independent variables include the source, message, medium and audience, with the dependent variable the effect of the persuasion.

Self-persuasion is used to explain one aspect of social influence. This theory postulates that the receiver takes an active role in persuading himself or herself to change his or her attitude. Unlike the direct technique of Persuasion, Self-persuasion is indirect and entails placing people in situations where they are motivated to persuade themselves to change. More specifically what characterizes a self-persuasion situation is that no direct attempt is made to convince anyone of anything. Thus, with self-persuasion, people are convinced that the motivation for change has come from within, so the persuasion factors of another person's influence is irrelevant. Therefore, Self-persuasion is almost always a more powerful form of persuasion than the more traditional persuasion techniques. Self-Persuasion, also has an important influence in Social judgment theory, Elaboration Likelihood Model, Cognitive Dissonance and Narrative paradigm.

Nonverbal influence is the act of affecting or inspiring change in others' behaviors and attitudes through tone of voice or body language and other nonverbal cues like facial expression. This act of getting others to embrace or resist new attitudes can be achieved with or without the use of spoken language. Many individuals instinctively associate persuasion with verbal messages. Nonverbal influence emphasizes the persuasive power and influence of nonverbal communication. Nonverbal influence includes appeals to attraction, similarity and intimacy.

References

  1. ↑ Labossiere, Michael C. "Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion". Nizkor Project. Archived from the original on 18 October 2014. Retrieved 6 November 2014.
  2. ↑ Aristotle, Rhetorica I, II.5.
  3. ↑ "The Influence of Emotions on Beliefs", Nico Frijda, Antony Manstead and Sasha Bem in Emotions and Beliefs, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 1.
  4. ↑ "Beliefs through Emotions", Nico H. Frijda and Batja Mesquita in Emotions and Beliefs, N. Frijda, A. Manstead and S. Bem, ed., Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 45.
  5. ↑ Seneca, De Ira, I, viii.1.
  6. ↑ Blaise Pascal, "On the Art of Persuasion," 1658.
  7. ↑ George Campbell, 1776, cited by James Price Dillar and Anneloes Meijnders in "Persuasion and the Structure of Affect", The Persuasion Handbook, Sage Publishing, p. 309.
  8. ↑ Edward Bernays, Propaganda, 1928, 2005 ed., p. 72.
  9. ↑ Edward Bernays, Propaganda, 1928, 2005 ed., p. 73.
  10. ↑ Edward Bernays, Propaganda, 1928, 2005 ed., p. 77.
  11. ↑ Barry A. Sanders, American Avatar: The United States in the Global Imagination, (Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, 2011), pp. 102, 115.
  12. ↑ Drew Westen, The Political Brain, Public Affairs Books, 2007, p. 35
  13. ↑ Drew Westen, The Political Brain, Public Affairs Books, 2007, pp. 85, 88
  14. ↑ This theory is known as the "tripartite theory." For a summary of the theory and a list of its developers, see, e.g., Leandre Fabrigar, Tara MacDonald and Duane Wegener, "The Structure of Attitudes" in Dolores Albarracin et al., The Handbook of Attitudes, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2005, p. 82.
  15. ↑ Leandre Fabrigar, Tara MacDonald and Duane Wegener, "The Structure of Attitudes" in Dolores Albarracin et al., The Handbook of Attitudes, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2005, p. 82., citing Cacioppo et al., 1989; Crites, Fabrigar & Petty, 1994; Zanna & Rempel, 1988
  16. ↑ George Marcus, Russell Neuman and Michael Mackuen, Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment, University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 9.
  17. 1 2 George Marcus, Russell Neuman and Michael Mackuen, Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment, University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 10.
  18. ↑ George Marcus, Russell Neuman and Michael Mackuen, Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment, University of Chicago Press, 2000, pp. 10–11.
  19. ↑ George Marcus, Russell Neuman and Michael Mackuen, Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment, University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 95, see also p. 129.
  20. ↑ Anthony R. Pratkanis, "Social Influence Analysis: An Index of Tactics" in The Science of Social Influence, A. Pratkanis, ed., Psychology Press, 2007, p. 149
  21. 1 2 3 Hansen, Hans (September 26, 2019). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  22. ↑ "The Influence of Emotions on Beliefs", Nico Frijda, Antony Manstead and Sasha Bem in Emotions and Beliefs, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 3.
  23. ↑ "Beliefs through Emotions", Nico H. Frijda and Batja Mesquita in Emotions and Beliefs, N. Frijda, A. Manstead and S. Bem, ed., Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 47.
  24. ↑ "Feeling is believing: Some affective influences on belief", Gerald L. Clore and Karen Gasper in Emotions and Beliefs, N. Frijda, A. Manstead and S. Bem, ed., Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 25, 26.
  25. ↑ "Feeling is believing: Some affective influences on belief", Gerald L. Clore and Karen Gasper in Emotions and Beliefs, N. Frijda, A. Manstead and S. Bem, ed., Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 13.
  26. ↑ Joseph P. Forgas, "The Role Of Affect In Attitudes And Attitude Change," in Attitudes and Attitude Change, William Crano & Radmila Prislin, Ed, Psychology Press, 2008, p. 145.
  27. ↑ "The Influence of Affect on Attitude, Gerald Clore and Simone Schnall, in Dolores Albarracin et al., The Handbook of Attitudes, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2005, pp. 465–471
  28. ↑ Klaus Fiedler and Herbert Bless, "The formation of beliefs at the interface of affective and cognitive processes," in Emotions and Beliefs, N. Frijda, A. Manstead and S. Bem, ed., Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 165
  29. ↑ Ted Brader, Campaigning for Hearts and Minds," University of Chicago Press, 2006, p. 18
  30. ↑ George Marcus, Russell Neuman and Michael Mackuen, Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment, University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 128.
  31. 1 2 3 4 Robin L. Nabi, "Discrete Emotions and Persuasion," in "Persuasion and the Structure of Affect", The Persuasion Handbook, Sage Publishing, p. 292.
  32. 1 2 3 4 Robin L. Nabi, "Discrete Emotions and Persuasion," in "Persuasion and the Structure of Affect", The Persuasion Handbook, Sage Publishing, p. 293.
  33. ↑ Hemmer, Nicole (7 March 2020). "Only one kind of anger counts in the 2020 race". CNN . Retrieved 18 July 2020.
  34. 1 2 Robin L. Nabi, "Discrete Emotions and Persuasion," in "Persuasion and the Structure of Affect", The Persuasion Handbook, Sage Publishing, p. 294.
  35. ↑ http://www.bc.edu/content/bc/offices/pubaf/news/2013-may-jun/empathy-a-key-factor-in-moral-judgment.html Archived 2014-06-25 at the Wayback Machine citing PLoS One. 2013; 8(4): e60418. Published online 2013 April 4. doi : 10.1371/journal.pone.0060418 PMC   3617220 Ezequiel Gleichgerrcht and Liane Young.
  36. ↑ [(Psychol. Bull. 2010, supra, at 15–16. In fact, we will favor those we see as being in distress even to the detriment of more numerous but faceless potential victims. See also http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/GreeneWJH/Greene-CogNeuroIV-09.pdf.) ]
  37. ↑ Margaret S. Clark and Ian Brissette, "Relationship beliefs and emotion: Reciprocal effects," in Emotions and Beliefs, N. Frijda, A. Manstead and S. Bem, ed., Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 220.
  38. ↑ Dan Ariely, "The Irrational Bundle". iBooks. "Archived copy". iTunes . Archived from the original on 2014-12-30. Retrieved 2014-11-28.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) Dan Ariely. "The Irrational Bundle", p. 755
  39. ↑ Dan Ariely, "The Irrational Bundle". iBooks. "Archived copy". iTunes . Archived from the original on 2014-12-30. Retrieved 2014-11-28.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) Dan Ariely. "The Irrational Bundle", p. 764
  40. ↑ Cameron, C. Daryl; Conway, Paul; Scheffer, Julian A. (2022-04-01). "Empathy regulation, prosociality, and moral judgment". Current Opinion in Psychology. 44: 188–195. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.09.011. ISSN   2352-250X. PMID   34695643. S2CID   239889334.
  41. ↑ Fowler, Zoe; Law, Kyle Fiore; Gaesser, Brendan (2020-02-25). "Against Empathy Bias: The Moral Value of Equitable Empathy". doi:10.31219/osf.io/uxnre . Retrieved 2022-11-19.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  42. ↑ Robin L. Nabi, "Discrete Emotions and Persuasion," in Persuasion and the Structure of Affect, The Persuasion Handbook, Sage Publishing, p. 296.
  43. 1 2 Robin L. Nabi, "Discrete Emotions and Persuasion," in "Persuasion and the Structure of Affect", The Persuasion Handbook, Sage Publishing, p. 297.
  44. ↑ Martin, Adrienne M. (2013-12-22), "What Is Hope?", How We Hope, Princeton University Press, doi:10.23943/princeton/9780691151526.003.0001, ISBN   9780691151526 , retrieved 2022-11-19
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.