Hubbry Logo
PathosPathosMain
Open search
Pathos
Community hub
Pathos
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Pathos
Pathos
Pathos
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Pathos[a][b] appeals to the emotions and ideals of the audience and elicits feelings that already reside in them.[1] Pathos is a term most often used in rhetoric (in which it is considered one of the three modes of persuasion, alongside ethos and logos), as well as in literature, film and other narrative art.

Methods

[edit]

Emotional appeal can be accomplished in many ways, such as the following:

Appealing to an ideal can also be handled in various ways, such as the following:

  • by understanding the reason for their position
  • avoiding attacks against a person or audience's personality
  • use the attributes of the ideal to reinforce the message.

Pathos tends to use "loaded" words that will get some sort of reaction. Examples could include "victim", in a number of different contexts. In certain situations, pathos may be described as a "guilt trip" based on the speaker trying to make someone in the audience or the entire audience feel guilty about something. An example would be "Well, you don't have to visit me, but I just really miss you and haven't seen you in so long."

Philosophy

[edit]
See also: Stoic passions

In Stoicism, pathos refers to "complaints of the soul". Succumbing to pathos is an internal event (i.e., in one's soul) that consists in an erroneous response to impressions external to it. This view of pathos, and the accompanying view that all pathos is to be extirpated (in order to achieve the state of apatheia), are related by Stoics to a specific picture of the nature of the soul, of psychological functioning, and of human action. A key feature of that picture is that succumbing to pathos is an error of reason – an intellectual mistake.[2]

Epicureanism interpreted and placed pathos in much more colloquial means and situations, placing it in pleasure, and studying it in almost every facet in regard to pleasure, analyzing emotional specificity that an individual may feel or may need to undergo to appreciate said pathos.[3]

Rhetoric

[edit]
Part of a series on
Rhetoric
History
Concepts
Genres
Criticism
Rhetoricians
Works
Subfields
Related

Aristotle’s text on pathos

[edit]

In Rhetoric, Aristotle identifies three artistic modes of persuasion, one of which is "awakening emotion (pathos) in the audience so as to induce them to make the judgment desired."[4] In the first chapter, he includes the way in which "men change their opinion in regard to their judgment. As such, emotions have specific causes and effects" (Book 2.1.2–3).[5] Aristotle identifies pathos as one of the three essential modes of proof by his statement that "to understand the emotions—that is, to name them and describe them, to know their causes and the way in which they are excited (1356a24–1356a25).[6] Aristotle posits that, alongside pathos, the speaker must also deploy good ethos in order to establish credibility (Book 2.1.5–9).[5]

Aristotle details what individual emotions are useful to a speaker (Book 2.2.27).[7] In doing so, Aristotle focused on whom, toward whom, and why, stating that "[i]t is not enough to know one or even two of these points; unless we know all three, we shall be unable to arouse anger in anyone. The same is true of the other emotions." He also arranges the emotions with one another so that they may counteract one another. For example, one would pair sadness with happiness (Book 2.1.9).[5]

With this understanding, Aristotle argues for the rhetor to understand the entire situation of goals and audiences to decide which specific emotion the speaker would exhibit or call upon in order to persuade the audience. Aristotle's theory of pathos has three main foci: the frame of mind the audience is in, the variation of emotion between people, and the influence the rhetor has on the emotions of the audience. Aristotle classifies the third of this trio as the ultimate goal of pathos.[8] Similarly, Aristotle outlines the individual importance of persuasive emotions, as well as the combined effectiveness of these emotions on the audience. Antoine Braet did a re-examination of Aristotle's text and in this he examined the speaker's goal of the effect on the audience. Braet explains there are three perspectives of every emotion that a speaker is trying to arouse from the audience: the audience's condition, who the audience is feeling these emotions for, and the motive.[9] Moreover, Aristotle pointedly discusses pleasure and pain in relation to the reactions these two emotions cause in an audience member.[8] According to Aristotle, emotions vary from person to person. Therefore, he stresses the importance of understanding specific social situations in order to successfully utilize pathos as a mode of persuasion.[8]

Aristotle identifies the introduction and the conclusion as the two most important places for an emotional appeal in any persuasive argument.[10]

In their interpretation of Aristotle's notion of pathos, the Danish rhetoricians Marie Lund and Carsten Madsen have applied the thought of Martin Heidegger on Aristotle's text.[11] The study offers a departure from common notions of pathos, interpreting pathos not so much as an instrumental rhetorical device, but rather as a rhetorical processing of the emotional disposition of the audience towards the matter at hand.[12]

Alternative views on pathos

[edit]

Scholars have discussed the different interpretations of Aristotle's views of rhetoric and his philosophy. Some believe that Aristotle may not have even been the inventor of his famous persuasion methods. In the second chapter of Rhetoric, Aristotle's view on pathos changes from the use in discourse to the understanding of emotions and their effects. William Fortenbaugh pointed out that for the Sophist Gorgias, "Being overcome with emotion is analogous to rape."[13] Aristotle opposed this view and created a systematic approach to pathos. Fortenbaugh argues that Aristotle's systematic approach to emotional appeals "depends upon correctly understanding the nature of individual emotions, upon knowing the conditions favorable to, the objects of, and the grounds for individual emotions".[14] Modern philosophers were typically more skeptical of the use of emotions in communication, with political theorists such as John Locke hoping to extract emotion from reasoned communication entirely. George Campbell presents another view unlike the common systematic approach of Aristotle. Campbell explored whether appeals to emotion or passions would be "an unfair method of persuasion," identifying seven circumstances to judge emotions: probability, plausibility, importance, proximity in time, connection of place, relations to the persons concerned, and interest in the consequences.[15]

The 84 BC Rhetorica ad Herennium book of an unknown author theorizes that the conclusion is the most important place in a persuasive argument to consider emotions such as mercy or hatred, depending on the nature of the persuasion.[16] The "appeal to pity", as it is classified in Rhetorica ad Herennium, is a means to conclude by reiterating the major premise of the work and tying while incorporating an emotional sentiment. The author suggests ways in which to appeal to the pity of the audience: "We shall stir pity in our hearers by recalling vicissitudes of future; by comparing the prosperity we once enjoyed with our present adversity; by entreating those whose pity we seek to win, and by submitting ourselves to their mercy."[16] Additionally, the text impresses the importance of invoking kindness, humanity and sympathy upon the hearer. Finally, the author suggests that the appeal to pity be brief for "nothing dries more quickly than a tear."[16]

Pathos before Aristotle

[edit]

The concept of emotional appeal existed in rhetoric long before Aristotle's Rhetoric. George A. Kennedy, a well-respected, modern-day scholar, identifies the appeal to emotions in the newly formed democratic court system before 400 BC in his book, The Art of Persuasion in Greece.[17] Gorgias, a Sophist who preceded Aristotle, was interested in the orator's emotional appeal as well. Gorgias believed the orator was able to capture and lead the audience in any direction they pleased through the use of emotional appeal.[17] In the Encomium of Helen, Gorgias states that a soul can feel a particular sentiment on account of words such as sorrow and pity. Certain words act as "bringers-on of pleasure and takers-off of pain.[18] Furthermore, Gorgias equates emotional persuasion to the sensation of being overtaken by a drug: "[f]or just as different drug draw off different humors from the body, and some put an end to disease and other to life, so too of discourses: some give pain, others delight, others terrify, others rouse the hearers to courage, and yet others by a certain vile persuasion drug and trick to soul."[18]

Plato also discussed emotional appeal in rhetoric. Plato preceded Aristotle and therefore laid the groundwork, as did other Sophists, for Aristotle to theorize the concept of pathos. In his dialogue Gorgias, Plato discusses pleasure versus pain in the realm of pathos though in a (probably fictional) conversation between Gorgias and Socrates. The dialogue between several ancient rhetors that Plato created centers around the value of rhetoric, and the men incorporate aspects of pathos in their responses. Gorgias discredits pathos and instead promotes the use of ethos in persuasion.[19] In another of Plato's texts, Phaedrus, his discussion of emotions is more pointed; however, he still does not outline exactly how emotions manipulate an audience.[20] Plato discusses the danger of emotions in oratory. He argues that emotional appeal in rhetoric should be used as the means to an end and not the point of the discussion.[20]

Contemporary pathos

[edit]

George Campbell, a contributor to the Scottish Enlightenment, was one of the first rhetoricians to incorporate scientific evidence into his theory of emotional appeal.[21] Campbell relied heavily on a book written by physician David Hartley, entitled Observations on Man. 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.[21] Campbell argues that belief and persuasion depend heavily on the force of an emotional appeal.[22] Furthermore, Campbell introduced the importance of the audience's imagination and will on emotional persuasion that is just as important as basic understanding of an argument.[22] Campbell, by drawing on the theories of rhetoricians before him, drew up a contemporary view of pathos that incorporates the psychological aspect of emotional appeal.

Pathos in politics

[edit]

Pathos has its hand in politics as well, primarily in speech and how to persuade the audience. Mshvenieradze states that "Pathos is directly linked with an audience. Audience is a collective subject of speakers on which an orator tries to impact by own argumentation."[23] Similarly, to how Aristotle discusses how to effectively utilize pathos in rhetoric, the way in which one appeals to the reader is similar in appealing to an audience of voters. In the case of politics and politicians, it is primarily more argumentative writing and speaking. In Book II of Aristotle's writings in Rhetoric, in essence knowing people's emotions helps to enable one to act with words versus writing alone, to earn another's credibility and faith.[24]

As Aristotle's teachings expanded, many other groups of thinkers would go on to adopt different variations of political usage with the elements of pathos involved, which includes groups such as the Epicureans[25] and Stoics.[26][27][28]

Pathos in advertising

[edit]

The contemporary landscape for advertising is highly competitive due to the sheer amount of marketing done by companies. Pathos has become a popular tool to draw consumers in as it targets their emotional side. Studies show that emotion influences people's information processing and decision-making, making pathos a perfect tool for persuading consumers to buy goods and services.[29] In this digital age, "designers must go beyond aesthetics and industrial feasibility to integrate the aspect of 'emotional awareness'".[30] Companies today contain current culture references in their advertisement and oftentimes strive to make the audience feel involved.[31] In other words, it is not enough to have a pleasant looking advertisement; corporations may have to use additional design methods to persuade and gain consumers to buy their products. For example, this type of advertising is exemplified in large food brands such as Presidents Choice's "Eat Together" campaign (2017), and Coca-Cola's "Open-happiness" campaign (2009). One of the most well-known examples of pathos in advertising is the SPCA commercials with pictures of stray dogs with sad music.

Pathos in research

[edit]

Pathos can also be also used in credited medical journals, research and other academic pieces of writing. The goal is to appeal to the readers' emotion while maintaining the necessary requirements of the medical discourse community. Authors may do so, by using certain vocabulary to elicit an emotional response from the audience. “God-terms” are often used as a rhetorical technique. It is imperative that authors still preserve the standard of writing within the medical community by focusing on factual and scientific information without use of personal opinion.[32][33]

Pathos in art

[edit]

It can be argued that most artwork falls under the realm of pathos. Throughout history artists have used pathos within their work by utilizing colors, shape, and texture of the artwork to draw out feelings within their audience. Political cartoons are but one example of artists using pathos to persuade or bring to light issues within the world centering around the government. Most times, the designs are blown out of proportion and are greatly exaggerated, but this adds to the raw feeling the artist tries to evoke within the viewer.

Pathos in music

[edit]

In The Birth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Music the 19th century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche argues that, for the ancient Greeks, tragedy was a dramatic form of pathos (ecstatic or "primal suffering") which transcended language and could only be communicated through music.[34] Drawing on Nietzsche's celebrated work, the British theorist and professor of philosophy Jason Barker argues that the same preoccupation with "musicality" as pathos, or "primal suffering", is the defining feature of contemporary popular music. Barker cites the example of the 1985 USA for Africa charity single "We Are the World", which he describes as "the birth of postmodern tragedy" and "marks the beginning of the so-called Disaster Appeal."[35]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Pathos

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Pathos (Greek: πάθος, "suffering" or "experience") is one of the three artistic articulated by in his , referring to the deliberate arousal of emotions in an audience to influence their perceptions, s, and actions. In contrast to (appeal to reason through logical argument) and (appeal to the speaker's character), pathos operates by placing hearers into a particular emotional state—such as , , , or —tailored to the case at hand, with Aristotle analyzing over a dozen specific passions in Book II according to their psychological triggers, effects on cognition, and remedial conditions. This emotional appeal recognizes the causal reality that human decisions frequently stem from affective responses rather than detached rationality alone, making pathos indispensable for orators seeking to sway juries, assemblies, or deliberative bodies in contexts like forensic, , and political . While effective pathos requires the speaker's genuine understanding of audience psychology to avoid manipulation perceived as contrived, its misuse can undermine credibility, as excessive emotionalism risks distorting equitable akin to bending a straightedge. In enduring rhetorical theory, pathos underscores the interplay between emotion and , informing practices from Ciceronian oratory to modern , though scholarly analyses caution against overreliance on it amid biases in contemporary interpretations that may inflate its ethical neutrality.

Definition and Etymology

Core Concept and Terminology

Pathos constitutes one of the three primary in classical , as articulated by , wherein the orator seeks to influence an by evoking specific that predispose them toward a or action. This approach relies on the psychological premise that human decision-making is not solely rational but is significantly shaped by affective states, such as , , , or , which can temporarily alter perceptions of reality and probability. Unlike appeals to logic or character, pathos targets the audience's experiential and sentimental faculties to generate or urgency, thereby enhancing the persuasive impact of an argument. The term originates from the ancient Greek noun πάθος (pathos), denoting "suffering," "experience," or "what one undergoes," derived from the verb πασχείν (paschein), meaning "to suffer" or "to endure." In rhetorical contexts, this etymology underscores pathos as an appeal rooted in shared human vulnerabilities and emotional responses, rather than abstract intellect, reflecting a causal understanding of emotion as a force that compels behavioral shifts through heightened arousal or empathy. Aristotle emphasized that effective pathos requires the speaker's knowledge of the audience's character, circumstances, and emotional triggers, positioning it as a deliberate technique rather than spontaneous sentiment. Key terminology associated with pathos includes pathea (the plural form, referring to evoked emotions) and specific affective states like eleos (pity, aroused by perceived undeserved misfortune) and phobos (fear, induced by anticipation of harm). These terms highlight pathos's operational mechanics: the orator manipulates emotional dispositions to align the audience's passions with the advocated position, often through narratives of suffering or vivid that simulate direct experience. In Aristotelian analysis, pathos functions as a "non-artistic" proof when drawing on external emotional evidence, such as witness testimonies evoking outrage, but elevates to an artistic proof when systematically induced to sway deliberative, forensic, or discourse.

Distinctions from Ethos and Logos

In Aristotle's Rhetoric, pathos is distinguished from ethos and logos as one of three primary modes of persuasion, each targeting a different aspect of the rhetorical situation. Ethos relies on the perceived character, credibility, or moral authority of the speaker to engender trust in the audience, such that persuasion arises from the audience's belief that "good men" are more reliable sources of truth. Logos, by contrast, depends on logical reasoning, evidence, and apparent proofs, where the audience is convinced through the strength of arguments presented, independent of the speaker's persona or the listeners' feelings. Pathos, however, operates by arousing specific emotions in the audience—such as anger, pity, fear, or indignation—to alter their judgment, making them receptive to the speaker's position not through rational evaluation but via affective disposition. The core distinction of pathos from lies in its external orientation toward the rather than the speaker's internal qualities; while builds from the orator's demonstrated or expertise (e.g., through displays of , benevolence, or reliability), pathos manipulates the emotional state of hearers to bypass , as emotional arousal can temporarily override critical faculties. For instance, notes in Rhetoric Book I, Chapter 2, that speakers must understand the causes of emotions like (perceived slights) or (calamities befalling undeserving others) to deploy them effectively, shifting focus from self-presentation to . Unlike , which persists as a stable trait of the speaker, pathos is dynamic and contingent on the moment, requiring the orator to "put the into such a frame of mind" suited to the desired judgment. Pathos further diverges from in prioritizing non-rational influence over deductive or inductive logic; whereas seeks assent through syllogistic reasoning or enthymemes (rhetorical syllogisms drawing on probable ), pathos exploits the human tendency for to color perceptions of facts, often rendering pure logic insufficient for in deliberative, forensic, or settings. emphasizes that all three modes are "artistic" proofs available to skilled rhetoricians, but pathos's emotional leverage can amplify or undermine logos-based arguments, as heightened like may lead audiences to favor improbable claims if they evoke strong sentiment. This interplay underscores pathos's unique role: it does not prove truth directly but facilitates acceptance by aligning the audience's affective responses with the speaker's aims, a mechanism traces to the psychological effects of and public oratory in practice.

Historical Development

Pre-Aristotelian Origins

The practice of evoking emotions to persuade audiences emerged in ancient Greek epic poetry, particularly in Homer's Iliad (c. 750 BCE), where speeches rely on appeals to pity, anger, and compassion to influence decisions amid conflict. Characters such as Phoenix employ emotional narratives of past mentorship and familial obligation in Book 9 to move Achilles from wrathful withdrawal, illustrating how shared suffering and loyalty could override rational self-interest in heroic assemblies. Similarly, Priam's supplication to Achilles in Book 24 stirs paternal empathy by invoking memories of the hero's father, demonstrating the rhetorical potency of pathos in resolving enmity through evoked tenderness. By the mid-5th century BCE, the invention of in following the fall of tyranny around 465 BCE—credited to Corax and his pupil Tisias—formalized emotional appeals in judicial oratory to resolve land disputes. Their Art of Rhetoric emphasized probabilistic arguments tailored to audience disposition, including techniques to amplify of loss or for misfortune, thereby swaying verdicts in courts lacking codified laws. Tisias reportedly advised speakers to exaggerate personal weakness to evoke from stronger opponents, underscoring emotion's role in asymmetric . Sophists like (c. 483–375 BCE) refined these methods upon introducing to , portraying speech () as a drug-like force capable of psychologically manipulating emotions to deceive or compel. In his Encomium of Helen (c. 5th century BCE), defends Helen's actions by analogizing persuasive discourse to , which instills and fear, or to oratory that delights or pains the soul, altering judgments independently of factual truth. This view, echoed in ' emphasis on (persuasion) as enchantment, prioritized emotional efficacy over veracity, influencing later critiques of sophistic excess. (c. 490–420 BCE) similarly taught in debate, incorporating emotional attunement to audience biases for forensic and deliberative success.

Aristotle's Formulation

In his , composed around 350 BCE, identifies pathos as one of three technical means of (pisteis), distinct from , which relies on the speaker's demonstrated character, and , which depends on the logical structure of the argument itself. Pathos achieves by placing the audience in an appropriate emotional toward the matter at hand, thereby influencing their judgment during the speech. argues that emotions alter perceptions and decisions, making the hearer's state of mind a critical factor in rhetorical success, as " may be effected in three ways: by proving the truth of what is affirmed, by rendering the hearer well-disposed towards the speech and its author, or by stirring his feelings." Book II of the provides Aristotle's most detailed treatment of pathos, beginning in Chapter 1 with a foundational definition of (pathê) as "all those feelings that so change men as to affect their judgements, and that are also attended by pain or pleasure," such as , , , or . He systematically catalogs eleven emotions across Chapters 2–11, analyzing each one's psychological triggers, objects, and intensity—for instance, arises from perceived slight by those capable of redress, intensifying with perceived injustice, while stems from witnessing undeserved misfortune in someone like oneself. This approach treats pathos not as mere manipulation but as a rational exploitation of human , requiring the orator to grasp causal conditions: who feels the emotion, against whom, and under what circumstances. Aristotle integrates pathos into deliberative, forensic, and oratory, cautioning that its effectiveness hinges on timeliness and proportion; excessive or irrelevant emotional appeals risk undermining credibility. Unlike sophistic excess, Aristotelian pathos demands ethical alignment with truth, as the orator must evoke emotions that align with factual claims, ensuring pathos supplements rather than supplants . This formulation underscores rhetoric's civic purpose, equipping speakers to navigate assemblies or courts where rational argument alone may falter against human passions.

Developments in Roman and Medieval Rhetoric

Roman rhetoricians built upon Aristotle's framework by emphasizing pathos as a dynamic tool for courtroom and public oratory, integrating it more explicitly with delivery and style. Cicero, in De Oratore (55 BCE), described the ideal orator as one who must first be emotionally stirred himself to effectively evoke pathos in the audience, using vivid narratives and appeals to pity, anger, or indignation to sway judgments, particularly in the peroration. He advocated distributing emotional devices throughout the speech rather than confining them to the opening, warning against over-reliance that could undermine credibility. Quintilian, in Institutio Oratoria (c. 95 CE), further refined this by distinguishing pathos—intense, violent emotions like fear or hatred—from milder ethos, insisting that genuine emotional appeals stem from the speaker's authentic passion rather than theatrical simulation, and are most potent when the audience's judgment is already convinced. In , Christian thinkers adapted classical pathos for theological purposes, subordinating it to moral and doctrinal ends. , drawing on , outlined in (completed 426 CE) a tripartite rhetorical aim of teaching (docere), delighting (delectare), and moving (movere) the audience toward virtue, where movere employed emotional appeals akin to pathos to evoke , , or devotion in preaching Scripture. Unlike pagan uses focused on civic , Augustine prioritized pathos in service of divine truth, using it sparingly in the grand style for exceptional cases to stir pity (misericordia) or fear of sin, while cautioning against manipulative excess that could distract from ethical instruction. Medieval rhetoric preserved and transformed pathos through monastic and scholastic traditions, often channeling it into pastoral and homiletic contexts amid a broader emphasis on logic and dialectic in the trivium. Boethius (c. 480–524 CE) summarized classical rhetorical structures in works like his commentary on Cicero's Topica, maintaining pathos as part of invention and proof but framing it within topical reasoning rather than emotional dominance. Aristotle's Rhetoric gained traction in the 13th century via translations, influencing pastoral applications where pathos evoked audience emotions for moral reform, as in English sermons using vivid exempla to stir pity or awe. However, scholastic dialecticians like Peter Abelard subordinated emotional appeals to rational argumentation, reflecting Christian wariness of unchecked passions, though preaching manuals (ars praedicandi) revived Ciceronian techniques to move congregations toward faith and contrition. This era thus integrated pathos into a theocentric framework, prioritizing its utility for spiritual persuasion over secular eloquence.

Theoretical Foundations

Emotions as Persuasive Tools

In rhetoric, emotions function as persuasive tools by influencing audience judgments and motivating action, often bypassing deliberate rational analysis. Aristotle, in his Rhetoric (circa 350 BCE), conceptualized pathos as the arousal of specific emotions in listeners to predispose them toward favorable decisions, noting that emotional states alter perceptions of events and people, thereby steering outcomes in deliberative, forensic, or epideictic contexts. This mechanism operates through the cognitive appraisal of situations, where emotions like anger or fear recalibrate evaluations, making arguments seem more compelling when aligned with the induced affective state. Empirical studies corroborate this, showing that emotional appeals enhance persuasion by increasing message elaboration and attitude change, particularly when emotions match the argument's relevance. Psychologically, emotions serve persuasion via dual-process models, where affective cues trigger rapid, heuristic-based responses ( thinking) that prime receptivity to subsequent arguments, reducing scrutiny of logical flaws. A 2022 psychological review highlights how capture , direct cognitive focus toward emotionally congruent information, influence depth, and foster behavioral intentions by evoking , urgency, or . For example, displays of in communicators prompt audiences to engage in more analytic of persuasive messages compared to neutral or other emotional expressions, leading to stronger attitude shifts. Guilt appeals, a common pathos technique, demonstrate moderate effectiveness in meta-analyses, with effect sizes around d=0.35 for behavioral compliance, though diminishes if perceived as manipulative or when audiences lack resources. Evidence from controlled experiments further illustrates variability: anger-based appeals yield small positive effects on persuasion (r≈0.10) when paired with high-quality arguments and personal relevance, but can backfire in low-efficacy contexts by inducing defensiveness. Affective appeals outperform purely cognitive ones in collectivistic cultures (effect size difference β=0.12), where emotional harmony aligns with social norms, underscoring context-dependent mechanisms. These tools exploit innate emotional priorities—such as threat detection via fear or affiliation via sympathy—to override counterevidence, as seen in public health campaigns where combined emotional and benefit appeals boosted compliance by 15-20% over rational appeals alone. However, overreliance on pathos risks transient effects, as emotional highs dissipate without reinforcing logos or ethos, potentially yielding reactance if audiences detect exploitation.

Philosophical Underpinnings and Debates

Aristotle's conception of pathos rests on a psychological foundation that treats as cognitive phenomena involving judgments about perceived goods and harms, rather than mere impulses. In his , composed around 350 BCE, he catalogs fourteen specific —such as , , and —detailing their cognitive triggers, like beliefs about undeserved injury for , and their effects on judgment, arguing that effective requires the orator to induce the appropriate emotional state in listeners to align their decisions with probable truths in uncertain matters. This view integrates pathos with rational inquiry, positing that , when properly aroused, enhance rather than distort deliberative reasoning by motivating action toward ends that reason alone identifies but cannot compel. Philosophical debates trace back to , who in dialogues like (c. 380 BCE) condemned emotional appeals in rhetoric as a form of flattery that panders to appetitive desires, bypassing the soul's rational pursuit of truth and in favor of manipulative gratification. counters this by reframing pathos within an empirical , drawing from his to assert that emotions are educable and amenable to virtue, thus serving philosophy's practical aims in civic life rather than subverting them. Later empiricists like reinforced pathos's primacy, famously declaring in (1739–1740) that "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions," as passions provide motivational force while reason merely directs means, implying that persuasive appeals to emotion causally underpin and . In contrast, rationalists such as subordinated emotions to moral autonomy, viewing them in Groundwork of the (1785) as pathological inclinations that, while not wholly devoid of rational structure, threaten to contaminate duty-based judgment with self-interested sentiment; he allows a role for moral feelings like respect but insists true persuasion in ethical discourse demands categorical imperatives over empathetic or passionate sway. Contemporary debates echo these tensions, questioning whether pathos enables authentic influence by engaging full human psychology or risks demagoguery by exploiting cognitive biases, with empirical studies in supporting Aristotle's and Hume's claims that emotions often precede and shape rational deliberation in real-world persuasion. Critics argue that overreliance on pathos erodes epistemic standards, yet proponents maintain its necessity for bridging abstract reason to concrete agency, as pure rarely suffices absent motivational affect.

Rhetorical Methods and Techniques

Classical Techniques for Evoking Pathos

outlined pathos as one of three primary in his , circa 350 BCE, where speakers induce emotions in audiences to align their judgments with the desired outcome. To evoke specific pathê, or passions, prescribed analyzing the psychological conditions that generate each emotion and tailoring arguments to match those conditions, such as depicting undeserved calamity to stir or portraying imminent harm to provoke . This approach relied on the premise that emotions arise from perceived states of affairs, enabling orators to manipulate audience perceptions through selective emphasis on facts and vivid illustrations. In practice, Greek orators employed narrative techniques, including detailed storytelling (diegesis) of personal or communal hardships, to heighten emotional engagement, as seen in forensic speeches where litigants recounted grievances to elicit sympathy or indignation. Delivery elements, such as vocal modulation and gestures, further amplified pathos by simulating the emotion's intensity, a method Aristotle linked to the actor's art of hypokrisis. Rhetorical figures like exclamation (ekphonêsis) and apostrophe—direct address to absent or abstract entities—intensified affective impact by personalizing the appeal and breaking the formal distance of discourse. Roman rhetoricians, building on Aristotelian foundations, integrated pathos more dynamically into speech structure, with emphasizing its role in the emotional climax of orations. In works like (55 BCE), advocated using visual aids, such as evoking images of victims or threats, alongside rhythmic prose and repetition to sustain emotional arousal, as exemplified in his where he conjured visions of conspiracy's horrors to incite outrage. Pathos was thus positioned not as isolated appeals but interwoven with and , ensuring emotional reinforced rational arguments while adapting to audience temperament through preemptive assessment of their dispositions. Key techniques included:
  • Vivid description (enargeia): Painting scenes so lifelike that audiences felt present, triggering instinctive emotional responses.
  • Exempla and historical analogies: Referencing past events or figures to evoke and shared sentiment.
  • Contrast and amplification: Juxtaposing fortune's reversals or exaggerating injustices to magnify affective disparity.
These methods, rooted in empirical observation of human psychology, prioritized causal triggers over mere sentimentality, though their effectiveness depended on the orator's to avoid perceptions of manipulation.

Adaptations and Variations Across Eras

Roman rhetoricians adapted Aristotelian pathos by emphasizing its dynamic integration with and to achieve emotional intensity in oratory. , in works like (55 BCE), described pathos as the capacity to move audiences through vivid depictions of suffering or injustice, often employing narrative techniques such as pathopoeia—personifying emotions—to create empathy and urgency in forensic and deliberative speeches. , in (c. 95 CE), refined this by linking effective pathos to the orator's virtuous character, arguing that genuine emotional appeals arise from moral authenticity rather than mere theatricality, influencing training methods that combined ethical with emotional delivery. In the Medieval period, pathos shifted toward religious application, with early Christian thinkers subordinating classical techniques to theological ends. St. Augustine, in De Doctrina Christiana (c. 426 CE), advocated using emotional appeals to stir , fear of , and love for in sermons, adapting pagan methods like vivid imagery of hellfire while warning against excessive sensuality to avoid diverting from scriptural truth. This saw pathos primarily in , where preachers evoked communal guilt or hope of to reinforce doctrine, contrasting with secular classical uses by prioritizing eternal over temporal stakes. The revived and secularized pathos through humanist scholarship, blending Ciceronian vigor with emerging vernacular forms. Figures like (c. 1466–1536) promoted emotional oratory in civic contexts, using pathos to inspire and moral reform in texts such as (1535), which guided preachers to evoke compassion via relatable parables while echoing classical vividness. This adaptation emphasized individual agency, applying pathos to literature and to foster Renaissance ideals of over medieval . During the Enlightenment, pathos persisted amid dominance but adapted to rationalist critiques, appearing in political tracts to evoke outrage against tyranny. Thomas Paine's (1776) employed pathos through stark contrasts of liberty versus oppression, stirring colonial emotions with simple, urgent language to catalyze action, though subordinated to logical arguments for independence. In the 19th and 20th centuries, industrialization and transformed pathos into psychological tools, informed by emerging emotion theories. Advertising pioneers like (1920s) drew on Freudian insights to evoke desires and fears in campaigns, such as promoting consumer goods via aspirational narratives, marking a shift from elite oratory to broad manipulation. Political , as in Franklin D. Roosevelt's (1933–1944), used pathos to instill hope during the through empathetic storytelling, blending radio intimacy with emotional reassurance. Contemporary variations leverage and , with pathos techniques amplified by visual algorithms and data-driven targeting. Social media campaigns, such as those during the 2016 U.S. election, employed micro-targeted emotional triggers like or belonging to boost virality, reflecting adaptations where pathos operates at scale via personalized content rather than unified audiences. Empirical studies confirm heightened effectiveness of emotionally charged visuals in online , with platforms optimizing for engagement metrics that prioritize affective responses.

Applications in Practice

Pathos in Political Discourse

Pathos in political discourse involves speakers evoking emotions such as , , , or to influence audience judgments and mobilize support, often complementing logical arguments and speaker credibility. described pathos as inducing specific emotional states in hearers to make them receptive to , applicable in assemblies and deliberative where decisions affect communal welfare. In practice, politicians deploy pathos through vivid narratives, personal anecdotes, and charged language to forge emotional bonds, as seen in campaign speeches where appeals to shared grievances or aspirations sway voter preferences. Modern examples illustrate pathos's role in galvanizing electorates. During the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, Donald Trump's frequently invoked pathos via expressions of anger toward and threats, resonating with working-class voters disillusioned by prior and contributing to his electoral success among demographics feeling overlooked. Conversely, Barack Obama's 2008 campaign emphasized pathos through themes of and unity, using inspirational stories to evoke and collective possibility, which studies link to heightened voter and turnout. In congressional communications, candidates employ emotional appeals in emails—such as of policy failures or for reforms—to boost supporter engagement and donations, with negative tones often amplifying urgency. Empirical research underscores pathos's effectiveness in political contexts, though outcomes vary by emotion type and medium. A 2021 study analyzing political language found that emotive content correlates with increased audience persuasion and behavioral responses like participation, outperforming purely rational appeals in online debates where emotional posts garnered more interactions. However, experiments indicate positive emotional appeals may outperform negative ones in swaying opinions, challenging assumptions of fear's dominance, while fear appeals effectively drive short-term mobilization on issues like security. Politicians strategically tailor pathos to audience predispositions, as computational analyses of speeches reveal patterns where emotional intensity predicts electoral impact, though overreliance risks alienating rational skeptics.

Pathos in Advertising and Media

In , pathos manifests through appeals to emotions such as , , , or , aiming to forge connections between consumers and beyond rational product benefits. Empirical studies demonstrate that emotional advertisements often outperform rational ones in generating positive attitudes toward the ad and , as well as higher purchase intentions; for instance, an analysis of executions found emotional appeals led to greater merchandise consumption compared to rational or mixed strategies. This effectiveness stems from emotional responses triggering unconscious cognitive processes that influence , as measured by neuroscience-based metrics in advertisement testing. Prominent examples include Dove's "Real Beauty" campaign, launched in 2004, which evoked and by featuring diverse women challenging conventional beauty standards, resulting in a reported increase from $2.5 billion in 2004 to over $4 billion by 2013. Similarly, Coca-Cola's "" initiative, introduced in in 2011 and expanded globally, personalized bottles with names to stir feelings of connection and , boosting U.S. by 2.5% in 2014 after years of decline. Nike's "Dream Crazy" campaign (2018), featuring to inspire resilience and defiance, tapped into and , yielding an 11% price rise and $6 billion in market value within days despite initial backlash. These cases illustrate how pathos can drive measurable commercial outcomes, though success varies by cultural context and emotional tone—positive appeals like tend to foster long-term loyalty, while negative ones like may prompt short-term action but risk audience fatigue. In media, pathos serves to captivate audiences and shape perceptions, often through framing that prioritizes emotional over detached . outlets and programming frequently employ or to heighten ; for example, sensational coverage of threats amplifies viewer retention, as emotional content garners higher shares on social platforms than neutral reporting. Research on in identifies pathos-dominant strategies, such as evoking or reciprocity in posts, as prevalent in influencing behaviors, including the spread of persuasive or misleading narratives. Charity appeals in media, like those using or in online videos, have shown elevated rates, with emotional framing increasing response over factual appeals alone. However, overreliance on pathos in media can distort priorities, as outlets incentivized by clicks may amplify emotionally charged stories irrespective of prevalence, contributing to skewed public risk assessments—evident in disproportionate coverage of versus statistical realities. Scholarly analyses note that while pathos enhances immediate , its media applications demand scrutiny for potential manipulation, particularly in polarized environments where emotional appeals align with ideological biases in source selection.

Pathos in Literature, Art, and Music

In , pathos functions as a to arouse emotions such as , sorrow, or , often through narratives of or conflict, as outlined by in his where aims to evoke and fear for . William Shakespeare's (c. 1597) exemplifies this by depicting the lovers' suicide amid familial feud, stirring audience remorse over preventable . Similarly, John Steinbeck's (1937) employs the bond between George and the mentally impaired Lennie, culminating in mercy killing, to elicit for the marginalized and evoke over shattered dreams. Jane Austen's (1813), though comedic, builds pathos through Elizabeth Bennet's emotional turmoil in navigating prejudice and love, resolving in satisfying reconciliation that mirrors reader relief. In visual art, pathos manifests in representations that intensify emotional response via exaggerated expressions, dynamic forms, and themes of human vulnerability, extending from classical to Romantic traditions. Hellenistic sculptures (c. 3rd–1st century BCE), as showcased in the J. Paul Getty Museum's 2015 exhibition Power and Pathos, achieve this through billowing drapery, contorted poses, and faces conveying ecstasy or agony, such as the (c. 100 BCE) capturing youthful triumph laced with fragility to engage viewer . Romantic artists amplified pathos by prioritizing subjective emotion over neoclassical restraint; Eugène Delacroix's (1830) stirs patriotic fervor and sorrow via chaotic violence and idealized sacrifice, reflecting the era's focus on and turmoil. These works prioritize visceral impact, using composition to mirror emotional extremes rather than mere depiction. In music, pathos arises from structural elements like dissonance, tempo shifts, and thematic development that simulate emotional arcs of despair or transcendence, often termed "sublime" in Romantic composition. Ludwig van Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 8 in C minor, Op. 13 ("Pathétique," 1798–1799) embodies this with its grave opening movement's brooding lamentation, building to stormy outbursts that evoke profound grief and resolve, intertwining dramatic rhetoric with authentic sentiment. His Symphony No. 9 (1824), particularly the shift from somber strings to choral "," transitions from pathos-laden isolation to communal uplift, drawing on personal deafness-induced suffering to forge universal emotional resonance. Such techniques, rooted in Aristotelian appeals adapted to sound, demonstrate music's capacity for non-verbal through auditory .

Pathos in Scientific and Academic Contexts

In scientific and academic writing, pathos serves to engage readers by connecting abstract data to human or societal stakes, often through narratives in introductions, discussions, or abstracts that evoke empathy or urgency without supplanting logical analysis. For instance, researchers may describe patient hardships in clinical trials or ecosystem disruptions in environmental studies to illustrate research relevance, fostering emotional investment that motivates funding or policy action. During the 1976-1977 recombinant DNA debates, testimony from hematologist David Nathan appealed to pathos by emphasizing treatments for suffering children with leukemia, which regulators found persuasive and appropriate compared to more abstract appeals to evolutionary timescales by biologist George Wald. Such elements provide a moral dimension, guiding decisions beyond pure reason by highlighting consequences like proximity to human lives or plausibility of risks. However, pathos is approached cautiously to avoid perceptions of or , as overuse can erode credibility in peer-reviewed contexts prioritizing objectivity. A 2022 study of papers revealed that those with excessive emotional language garnered 30% fewer citations, indicating reader preference for restraint amid concerns over advocacy-driven framing. In discourse, pathos appears in appeals to collective concern, such as framing neonicotinoid pesticides as threats to pollinators, which bolsters truth claims when paired with but risks amplifying unsubstantiated fears if detached from empirical rigor. Quantitative analyses further show that heightened pathos correlates with increased citations, potentially by enhancing visibility, though this may reflect audience engagement over evidential strength and contrasts with negative effects from overemphasizing in isolation. Training in scientific communication, particularly in STEM, increasingly incorporates pathos development via the rhetorical triangle to improve , urging honest expression of passions—like awe in or in medical applications—while warning against manipulative excess seen in politicized media portrayals. Effective integration demands balance, as emotional appeals must align with verifiable data to sustain trust, especially in interdisciplinary or policy-oriented fields where causal interpretations hinge on distinguishing from proof.

Criticisms, Limitations, and Ethical Concerns

Risks of Emotional Manipulation

Emotional manipulation through pathos exploits vulnerabilities in human cognition, where heightened emotions can suppress and promote acquiescence to unsubstantiated claims. , in his , expressed caution toward overreliance on emotional appeals, noting their potential to sway judgments away from truth toward mere sentiment, though he integrated pathos as a necessary but balanced element of . Modern analyses echo this, highlighting how unchecked pathos fosters unjust outcomes by prioritizing affective responses over evidence, as seen in legal contexts where emotional rhetoric overrides factual deliberation. Empirical research demonstrates that intense emotional appeals, particularly negative ones like , risk inducing psychological reactance—a defensive to restore perceived freedoms eroded by the —thereby reducing effectiveness and prompting resistance. For instance, overstimulation via in advertisements has been linked to maladaptive responses and lower receptivity, with studies showing animated spokespersons outperforming real ones in mitigating backlash (receptivity scores: M=3.442 vs. M=4.067). While a 2018 of 127 studies (N=27,372) found appeals generally boost attitudes and intentions without widespread backfire, vulnerabilities persist when perceptions are low or threats overwhelm coping resources, amplifying avoidance rather than action. Societally, pathos-driven manipulation exacerbates polarization and erroneous support, as emotions prime biases and hinder nuanced ; experiments reveal persuaders deploy emotional even when audiences favor restraint, yielding counterproductive . In domains like , negative appeals often underperform positives, correlating with diminished consumer trust and behavioral compliance due to perceived . This overreliance risks entrenching echo chambers, where repeated emotional priming sustains adherence to flawed ideologies absent logical scrutiny.

Pathos as a Logical Fallacy

Pathos constitutes a logical fallacy, often termed the appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones, when emotional appeals are employed to supplant substantive or rational argumentation, thereby undermining the validity of a conclusion. This occurs because emotions, while capable of motivating action or engagement, do not inherently verify factual claims or establish causal links, potentially leading audiences to accept on affective grounds rather than merit. In logical terms, the fallacy violates principles of deductive or inductive validity by introducing irrelevant that exploit psychological vulnerabilities instead of addressing the argument's core propositions. The fallacy manifests in subtypes, such as ad misericordiam (), where sympathy for an individual's plight is invoked to waive scrutiny of their actions or claims, as in defending a criminal's guilt by emphasizing their impoverished background without refuting of the . Similarly, ad metum () exaggerates threats to bypass reasoned , exemplified by political warning of imminent catastrophe from policy changes without probabilistic data or historical precedents. These tactics correlate with cognitive biases, including the , where emotional valence influences judgment more than empirical utility, as documented in research. Distinguishing fallacious pathos from legitimate rhetorical use hinges on context: in persuasive discourse, pathos supplements and to humanize arguments, but devolves into when it singularly bears the persuasive load or distorts facts, as critiqued in analyses of demagoguery where emotional fervor overrides verifiable outcomes. Empirical studies on , such as those examining decisions, reveal that unchecked emotional appeals increase rates for unsubstantiated claims by up to 20-30% in simulated trials, underscoring the fallacy's potency in eroding deliberative reasoning. Countering it requires isolating emotional elements and demanding corresponding logical or evidential support, thereby restoring argumentative integrity.

Empirical Evidence on Effectiveness and Overreliance

A of 127 studies encompassing 27,372 participants found that fear appeals, a common form of pathos, produce a small but positive overall effect on attitudes, intentions, and behaviors (Cohen's d = 0.29), with greater when messages include statements addressing response feasibility and when depicting high susceptibility and severity. This supports the , where emotional arousal motivates protective action only if paired with actionable solutions, though effects diminish for repeated behaviors compared to one-time actions. Guilt appeals similarly demonstrate small persuasive effects (Hedges' g = 0.19) across 26 studies and 7,512 participants, influencing guilt feelings, attitudes, behavioral intentions, and actual s, particularly when employing narrative formats, imagination-based inductions, or unstable attributions for the evoked guilt rather than stable ones. Anger appeals show weaker and more variable results, with a modest positive effect on (r = 0.15) but negligible impacts on attitudes or intentions overall; effectiveness improves with message-relevant , strong logical arguments, and self- or response-efficacy components, while high-intensity without these elements yields negative outcomes. Overreliance on pathos without complementary rational or credibility-based elements risks reduced or counterproductive results, as evidenced by curvilinear effects in appeals where excessive intensity leads to , and by diminished impacts in fear appeals lacking efficacy messaging, though outright backfiring remains rare in aggregated data. Cultural and moderators further highlight limitations: affective appeals outperform cognitive ones in collectivistic s but underperform in individualistic ones, suggesting isolated emotional strategies fail to generalize across diverse populations. These findings underscore that pathos enhances most reliably when integrated with logical support, as standalone emotional manipulation correlates with short-term attitude shifts but weaker sustained behavioral change.

References

  1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/
  2. https://www.lsu.edu/hss/english/files/university_writing_files/item35402.pdf
  3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/philrhet.54.2.0149
  4. https://pressbooks.pub/openrhetoric/chapter/aristotles-rhetorical-appeals/
  5. https://www.litcharts.com/literary-devices-and-terms/pathos
  6. https://www.etymonline.com/word/pathos
  7. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/rhetorical-devices/pathos/
  8. https://www.davidpublisher.com/Public/uploads/Contribute/5cc1077dd950d.pdf
  9. https://www.coursehero.com/lit/Rhetoric/book-1-chapters-1-3-summary/
  10. https://shs.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2018-4-page-361?lang=en
  11. https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/2-characterization-in-homer-and-agamemnons-appeal-in-iliad-4/
  12. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24759740
  13. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/classical-quarterly/article/tisias-and-corax-and-the-invention-of-rhetoric/31DD89B308C9AF40F6B042A960F9515C
  14. https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1609&context=saffy_text
  15. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/tragic-pathos/gorgias-a-strange-trio-the-poetic-emotions/C02761AD990D1A1AF92F780D85DEF50D
  16. https://akroterion.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/1/15
  17. https://kairos.technorhetoric.net/stasis/2017/honeycutt/aristotle/rhet2-1.html
  18. https://www.americanrhetoric.com/aristotleonrhetoric.htm
  19. https://jasontham.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/fjelstad_restraintemotion_deor_2003.pdf
  20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4339615
  21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3093050
  22. https://ourspace.uregina.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/ae0bc584-1534-49eb-a0f5-557e680a0f4f/content
  23. https://scholarworks.indianapolis.iu.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/2794/MastersThesis.pdf?sequence=3
  24. https://www.academia.edu/43011599/Boethius_An_Overview_of_the_Structure_of_Rhetoric_a_brief_summary_of_classical_rhetoric_
  25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43576950
  26. https://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5115&context=etd
  27. https://pressbooks.pub/divingintorhetoric/chapter/augustine-and-scholasticism/
  28. https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=comm_articles
  29. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-04391-015
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103116300920
  31. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10510974.2021.1953094
  32. https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/75/2/101/7916611
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10668933/
  34. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-81605-6
  35. https://academic.oup.com/book/4873/chapter/147244680
  36. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2003/2003.05.27/
  37. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-015-9082-2_1
  38. https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2021/11/17/reason-is-the-slave-to-the-passions/
  39. https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/emotion-reason-and-action-in-kant/
  40. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4971293
  41. https://journal-redescriptions.org/articles/178/files/submission/proof/178-1-352-1-10-20190830.pdf
  42. https://methods.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-communication-research-methods/chpt/rhetoric-aristotle-s-pathos
  43. https://pureuat.roehampton.ac.uk/ws/files/598278/2016_Persuasion_through_emotions_in_Athenian_deliberative_oratory.pdf
  44. https://www.academia.edu/36738592/Oratory_and_Emotion_in_Classical_Greece
  45. https://dcc.dickinson.edu/cicero-verres/modes-of-persuasion
  46. https://classicalwisdom.substack.com/p/how-to-give-a-speech
  47. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstreams/ac1ebec1-5919-496c-9720-62fcce693f8e/download
  48. https://romanroadspress.com/2016/01/cicero-on-rhetoric/
  49. https://pressbooks.pub/divingintorhetoric/chapter/middle_ages/
  50. https://www.artofmanliness.com/character/knowledge-of-men/history-of-rhetoric/
  51. https://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/34990/1/Tevi_12550.pdf
  52. https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/ethos-pathos-logos/
  53. https://fiveable.me/media-criticism/unit-7/classical-rhetoric-modern-media/study-guide/pPrxd2y2SIRE2VcP
  54. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1535685X.2022.2115651
  55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274661683_Logos_Ethos_and_Pathos_in_Political_Discourse
  56. https://mediaengagement.org/research/the-paradox-of-pathos/
  57. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379422000609
  58. https://academic.oup.com/ej/article/132/643/1037/6490125
  59. https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2024/09/emotional-appeals-are-effective-online-debate-strategy.html
  60. https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/448723-testing-the-link-between-politics-and-appeals-to-emotion
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10840446/
  62. https://ejpr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1475-6765.12733
  63. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.32731/smq.272.062018.02
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7498694/
  65. https://papersowl.com/examples/pathos-in-advertising-the-power-of-emotional-appeal/
  66. https://www.thebrief.ai/blog/emotional-advertising-examples/
  67. https://popupsmart.com/blog/emotional-appeal-advertising
  68. https://littera-scripta.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/1_2022-08-Alferova.pdf
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8199559/
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306457321001539
  71. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/nvsm.1763
  72. https://execdev.unc.edu/pathos-and-persuasion-why-emotions-are-critical-for-influencing-others/
  73. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-024-09631-2
  74. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-aesthetics/
  75. https://www.yourdictionary.com/articles/examples-pathos-literature-rhetoric-music
  76. https://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/power_pathos/
  77. https://www.metmuseum.org/essays/romanticism
  78. https://www.colby.edu/music/saunders/MU352/Sisman_Pathos.pdf
  79. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-emotional-pathos-in-english-literature-and-musical-compositions/
  80. https://jodoran.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-use-of-pathos-in-scientific-discourse.pdf
  81. https://www.yomu.ai/blog/using-emotional-appeals-in-academic-writing
  82. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/2444
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1751157725000914
  84. https://physicsworld.com/a/ethos-logos-pathos-the-three-steps-to-communicating-science/
  85. https://www.editage.com/insights/rhetorical-appeals-in-scientific-writing-ethos-pathos-and-logos
  86. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/Diablo_Valley_College/Persuasion_and_Critical_Thinking/03%253A_Persuasive_Strategies/3.03%253A_Pathos
  87. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=law_jurisprudence
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5789790/
  89. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/people-use-emotion-to-persuade-even-when-it-could-backfire.html
  90. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339719657_When_and_Why_Negative_Emotional_Appeals_Work_in_Advertising_A_Review_of_Research
  91. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Emotion
  92. https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion/
  93. https://quillbot.com/blog/reasoning/appeal-to-emotion/
  94. https://human.libretexts.org/Courses/Oxnard_College/A_Guide_to_Successful_College_Writing/05%253A_Rhetorical_Analysis/5.05%253A_Rhetorical_Fallacies
  95. https://human.libretexts.org/Courses/City_College_of_San_Francisco/Writing_Reading_and_College_Success%253A_A_First-Year_Composition_Course_for_All_Learners_%28Kashyap_and_Dyquisto%29/02%253A_Writing_and_the_Art_of_Rhetoric/2.05%253A_Logical_Fallacies_-_How_to_Spot_Them_and_Avoid_Making_Them
  96. https://www.bachelorprint.com/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion/
  97. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-writingskillslab/chapter/manipulative-appeals-to-pathos/
  98. https://pressbooks.pub/centralarizonacollege/chapter/chapter-12-rhetorical-appeals-and-fallacies/
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10568480/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.