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. 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.
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.
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."Aristotle, Rhetorica I, II.5."The Influence of Emotions on Beliefs", Nico Frijda, Antony Manstead and Sasha Bem in Emotions and Beliefs, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 1. 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."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. Seneca, in the first century CE, 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."Seneca, De Ira, I, viii.1.
In the 17th century, 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."Blaise Pascal, "On the Art of Persuasion," 1658. 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.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.
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."Edward Bernays, Propaganda, 1928, 2005 ed., p. 72. Bernays advised that to change the attitudes of the masses, a propagandist should target its "impulses, habits and emotions" Edward Bernays, Propaganda, 1928, 2005 ed., p. 73. and make "emotional currents" work to achieve the goal.Edward Bernays, Propaganda, 1928, 2005 ed., p. 77.
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.Barry A. Sanders, American Avatar: The United States in the Global Imagination, (Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, 2011), pp. 102, 115.
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".Drew Westen, The Political Brain, Public Affairs Books, 2007, p. 35 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 than 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.Drew Westen, The Political Brain, Public Affairs Books, 2007, pp. 85, 88
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.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. 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."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
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:George Marcus, Russell Neuman and Michael Mackuen, Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment, University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 9.
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.George Marcus, Russell Neuman and Michael Mackuen, Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment, University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 10.
The second system, the surveillance system, "acts to scan the environment for novelty and sudden intrusion of threat." 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."George Marcus, Russell Neuman and Michael Mackuen, Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment, University of Chicago Press, 2000, pp. 10–11.
Marcus further argues that "emotional engagement will motivate people toward making more deeply reasoned decisions about politics than those who remain dispassionate".George Marcus, Russell Neuman and Michael Mackuen, Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment, University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 95, see also p. 129. 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".Anthony R. Pratkanis, "Social Influence Analysis: An Index of Tactics" in The Science of Social Influence, A. Pratkanis, ed., Psychology Press, 2007, p. 149
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. One is the appeal to force (known as ad baculum), the other is the appeal to sympathy, known as ad misericordiam. These are only considered fallacies when used for doxastic systems.
Research
Accepted wisdom 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.""The Influence of Emotions on Beliefs", Nico Frijda, Antony Manstead and Sasha Bem in Emotions and Beliefs, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 3. 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.""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.