Cover not available

Article In: Journal of Argumentation in Context: Online-First Articles

Do emotional appeals make arguments seem stronger?

The role of personal involvement, mood, and pathos in perceived strength of argumentation

ORCiD logo with link | Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
 | Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
 | Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
 | Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This study investigates the factors influencing perceived argument strength by examining the role of personal involvement, mood, and emotional appeals (pathos). Drawing on Douglas Walton’s exploration of emotional appeals in argumentation (Walton, Douglas. 1992. The Place of Emotion in Argument. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), we use the methodology from the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) by Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. 1981. Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar to conduct psycholinguistic experiments with 395 student participants. Participants were exposed to arguments appealing to positive, neutral, or negative emotions, while their levels of personal involvement and mood were controlled. Our findings reveal that high personal involvement significantly enhances perceived argument strength (PAS; Zhao, Xiaoquan, Andrew Strasser, Joseph N. Cappella, Caryn Lerman, and Martin Fishbein. 2011. “A Measure of Perceived Argument Strength: Reliability and Validity.” Communication Methods and Measures 5 (1): 48–75.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), while mood influences PAS in a more indirect manner. Arguments appealing to positive emotions were rated higher in PAS compared to negative and neutral ones. These results contribute to the empirical study of argument strength, integrating insights from work on emotional appeals, the ELM framework, and recent analysis of argument strength dimensions (Zenker, Frank, K. Dębowska-Kozłowska, David Godden, Marcin Selinger, and Simon Wells. 2020. “Five approaches to argument strength: probabilistic, dialectical, structural, empirical, and computational.” In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation, 653–674.; Heyninck, Jesse, Kenneth Skiba, and Matthias Thimm. 2023. “Preface for the special issue on argument strength.” Argument & Computation 14 (3): 245–246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Personal involvement, mood, and pathos as predictors of perceived argument strength
    • 2.1The role of audience perception in argument strength
    • 2.2Experimental approaches in argumentation
    • 2.3The role of personal involvement and mood in the Elaboration Likelihood Model
    • 2.4Emotional appeals in argumentation theory
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Procedure
    • 3.3Independent variables
      • 3.3.1Personal involvement
      • 3.3.2Mood
      • 3.3.3Pathos appeals and perceived argument strength
    • 3.4Dependent variable — Perceived Argument Strength
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Appendix
    • Appendix A.Three types of emotional appeals (Translations)
      • Neutral argument
      • Positive argument
      • Negative argument
    • Appendix B.Original PAS Questionnaire (Zhao et al. 2011) with elements added in this study in italics
    • Appendix C.Adaptation of Perceived Argument Strength Questionnaire PAS-PL (Szymański, 2022)
  • References
References (62)
References
Aristotle. 2004. Rhetoric. Translated by W. Rhys Roberts. Dover Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Banas, John A, Monique Mitchell Turner, and Hart Shulman. 2012. “A Test of Competing Hypotheses of the Effects of Mood on Persuasion.” Communication Quarterly 60 (2): 143–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barbieri, Francesco, Luis Espinosa Anke, and Jose Camacho-Collados. 2022. “Xlm-t: Multilingual language models in twitter for sentiment analysis and beyond.” In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 258–266.
Ben-Zeev, Aaron. 1995. “Emotions and Argumentation.” Informal Logic 17 (2): 189–200.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benlamine, Mohamed S., Serena Villata, Ramla Ghali, Claude Frasson, Fabien Gandon, and Elena Cabrio. 2017. “Persuasive Argumentation and Emotions: An Empirical Evaluation with Users.” Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 102711:659–671. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benlamine, Sahbi, Maher Chaouachi, Serena Villata, Elena Cabrio, Claude Frasson, and Fabien Gandon. 2015. “Emotions in argumentation: an empirical evaluation.” In Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
Bizer, George Y., Jeff T. Larsen, and Richard E. Petty. 2011. “Exploring the Valence-Framing Effect: Negative Framing Enhances Attitude Strength.” Political Psychology 32 (1): 59–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blanchette, Isabelle. 2006. “The effect of emotion on interpretation and logic in a conditional reasoning task.” Memory & Cognition 34 (5): 1112–1125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bodanza, Gustavo A., and Esteban Freidin. 2023. “Confronting value-based argumentation frameworks with people’s assessment of argument strength.” In “Argument strength.” Argument & Computation 14 (3): 247–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boucher, Jerry, and Charles E Osgood. 1969. “The Pollyanna hypothesis.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8 (1): 1–8.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Budán, Paola Daniela, Melisa Gisselle Escañuela Gonzalez, Maximiliano Celmo David Budán, Maria Vanina Martinez, and Guillermo Ricardo Simari. 2023. “Strength in coalitions: Community detection through argument similarity.” Argument & Computation 14 (3): 275–325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cerutti, Federico, Nava Tintarev, and Nir Oren. 2014. “Formal Arguments, Preferences, and Natural Language Interfaces to Humans: an Empirical Evaluation.” In ECAI 2014: Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 2631:207–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cigada, Sara. 2019. “Emotions in Argumentative Narration: The Case of the Charlie Hebdo Attack.” Informal Logic 39 (4): 401–431.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Das, Gopal, Rajat Roy, and Vannie Naidoo. 2020. “When do consumers prefer partitioned prices? The role of mood and pricing tactic persuasion knowledge.” Journal of Business Research 1161:60–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dung, Phan Minh. 1995. “On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games.” Artificial intelligence 77 (2): 321–357.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Bart Garssen, and Bert Meuffels. 2009. Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness: Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules. Vol. 161. Argumentation Library. Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ervas, Francesca. 2021. “Metaphor, ignorance and the sentiment of (ir)rationality.” Synthese, 1981: 6789–6813. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ervas, Francesca, Maria Grazia Rossi, Amitash Ojha and Bipin Indurkhya. 2021. “The Double Framing Effect of Emotive Metaphors in Argumentation.” Frontiers in Psychology 121:628460. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilbert, Michael A. 1995. “What is an Emotional Argument, or, Why Do Argumentation Theorists Argue with Their Mates?” In Proceedings of the Third Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam, NL.
2004. “Emotion, argumentation and informal logic.” Informal Logic 24 (3): 245–264.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005. “Let’s Talk: Emotion and the Pragma-Dialectic Model.” In Argumentation in Practice, edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, 43–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greco, Sara, Sara Cigada, and Chiara Jermini-Martinez Soria. 2022. “The naming of emotions in dispute mediators’ strategic manoeuvring: a case study using a French language corpus.” Text & Talk, (44): 25–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heit, Evan, and Caren M. Rotello. 2012. “The pervasive effects of argument length on inductive reasoning.” Thinking and Reasoning 18 (3): 244–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heyninck, Jesse, Kenneth Skiba, and Matthias Thimm. 2023. “Preface for the special issue on argument strength.” Argument & Computation 14 (3): 245–246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hornikx, Jos, and Ulrike Hahn. 2012. “Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation.” Thinking & Reasoning 18 (3): 225–243.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hornikx, Jos, Annemarie Weerman, and Hans Hoeken. 2022. “An exploratory test of an intuitive evaluation method of perceived argument strength.” Studies in Communication Sciences 22 (2): 311–324.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hullett, Craig R. 2005. “The Impact of Mood on Persuasion: A Meta-Analysis.” Communication Research 32 (4): 423–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iliescu, Dragoş. 2017. “Translation designs.” In Adapting tests in linguistic and cultural situations, 355–414. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
International Test Commission. 2017. “The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (Second edition).”Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
James, J. Michael, and Richard Bolstein. 1990. “The effect of monetary incentives and follow-up mailings on the response rate and response quality in mail surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 541:346–361.
Johnson, Blair T., and Alice H. Eagly. 1989. “Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 106 (2): 290–314. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Konat, Barbara, Katarzyna Budzyńska, and Patrick Saint-Dizier. 2016. “Rephrase in Argument Structure.” In Foundations of the Language of Argumentation: COMMA 2016 Workshop, 321.
Konat, Barbara, Ewelina Gajewska, and Wiktoria Rossa. 2024. “Pathos in Natural Language Argumentation: Emotional Appeals and Reactions.” Argumentation 381:369–403. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koszowy, Marcin, Steve Oswald, Katarzyna Budzyńska, Barbara Konat, and Pascal Gygax. 2022. “A Pragmatic Account of Rephrase in Argumentation.” Informal Logic 42 (1): 49–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Kenneth D., Diana R. Nichols, and Blair T. Johnson. 2000. “Involvement and persuasion: Attitude functions for the motivated processor.” In Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes, edited by Gregory R. Maio and James M. Olson, 163–194. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lukin, Stephanie, Pranav Anand, Marilyn Walker, and Steve Whittaker. 2017. “Argument Strength is in the Eye of the Beholder: Audience Effects in Persuasion.” In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 11, Long Papers, 742–753, EACL. Valencia, Spain: Association for Computational Linguistics, April.
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2014. Emotive language in argumentation. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maďarová, Zuzana. 2015. “Love and fear: Argumentative strategies against gender equality in Slovakia.” In Anti-Gender Movements on the Rise? Strategising for Gender Equality in Central and Eastern Europe, edited by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, 33–42. Berlin: Heinrich Böll Foundation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. 1981. Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo, and Rachel Goldman. 1981. “Personal Involvement as a Determinant of Argument-Based Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41 (5): 847–855.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 191:123–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plantin, Christian. 2019. “Tense arguments: questions, exclamations, emotions.” Informal Logic 39 (4): 347–371.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polberg, Sylwia, and Anthony Hunter. 2018. “Empirical evaluation of abstract argumentation: Supporting the need for bipolar and probabilistic approaches.” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 931: 487–543. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rahwan, Iyad, Mohammed I. Madakkatel, Jean-François Bonnefon, Ruqiyabi N. Awan, and Sherief Abdallah. 2010. “Behavioral Experiments for Assessing the Abstract Argumentation Semantics of Reinstatement.” Cognitive Science 341: 1483–1502. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rico, Guillem, Marc Guinjoan, and Eva Anduiza. 2017. “The emotional underpinnings of populism: How anger and fear affect populist attitudes.” Swiss Political Science Review 23 (4): 444–461.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Santibáñez, Cristián. 2010. “Metaphors and argumentation: The case of Chilean parliamentarian media participation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(4): 973–989. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schreiner, Constanze, Markus Appel, Maj-Britt Isberner, and Tobias Richter. 2018. “Argument Strength and the Persuasiveness of Stories.” Discourse Processes 55 (4): 371–386. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schumann, Jennifer, Sandrine Zufferey, and Steve Oswald. 2019. “What makes a straw man acceptable? Three experiments assessing linguistic factors.” Journal of Pragmatics 1411: 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, Robert C., Sara E. Moore, Melvin M. Mark, Alexander S. Soldat, and Catherine A. Lavis. 2010. “Incidental moods, source likeability, and persuasion: Liking motivates message elaboration in happy people.” Cognition and Emotion 24 (6): 940–961. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szymański, Robert. Exploring the Validity of the Polish Adaptation of the Perceived Argument Strength Scale (PAS-PL): A Think-Aloud Study. MA thesis, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, 2022. Unpublished manuscript.
Teeny, Jacob D., Joseph J. Siev, Pablo Briñol, and Richard E. Petty. 2021. “A review and conceptual framework for understanding personalized matching effects in persuasion.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 31 (2): 382–414. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tindale, Christopher W. 2015. The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Villata, Serena, Elena Cabrio, Imène Jraidi, Sahbi Benlamine, Maher Chaouachi, Claude Frasson, and Fabien Gandon. 2017. “Emotions and personality traits in argumentation: An empirical evaluation.” Argument & Computation 81:61–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walkowiak, Magdalena T., and Kamil K. Imbir. 2018. “The Role of the Origin (Automatic vs. Reflective) of Affective State for the Effectiveness of Persuasion Based on Strong vs. Weak Arguments.” Roczniki Psychologiczne / Annals of Psychology 21 (1): 9–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1992. The Place of Emotion in Argument. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Scare tactics: Arguments that appeal to fear and threats. Vol. 31. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolf, Thomas, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, et al. 2020. “Transformers: State-of-the-Art Natural Language Processing.” In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, 38–45. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics, October.
Younis, Ramy, Daniel de Oliveira Fernandes, Pascal Gygax, Marcin Koszowy, and Steve Oswald. 2023. “Rephrasing is not arguing, but it is still persuasive: An experimental approach to perlocutionary effects of rephrase.” Journal of Pragmatics 2101: 12–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zenker, Frank, K. Dębowska-Kozłowska, David Godden, Marcin Selinger, and Simon Wells. 2020. “Five approaches to argument strength: probabilistic, dialectical, structural, empirical, and computational.” In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation, 653–674.
Zenker, Frank, Kamila Dębowska-Kozłowska, David Godden, Marcin Selinger, and Simon Wells. 2023. “Thou Shalt Not Squander Life — Comparing Five Approaches to Argument Strength.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 68 (81): 133–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhao, Xiaoquan, Andrew Strasser, Joseph N. Cappella, Caryn Lerman, and Martin Fishbein. 2011. “A Measure of Perceived Argument Strength: Reliability and Validity.” Communication Methods and Measures 5 (1): 48–75.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue