5.2: Emotional Appeals
- Page ID
- 271582
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\dsum}{\displaystyle\sum\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\dint}{\displaystyle\int\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\dlim}{\displaystyle\lim\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)
\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)
\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
\(\newcommand{\avec}{\mathbf a}\) \(\newcommand{\bvec}{\mathbf b}\) \(\newcommand{\cvec}{\mathbf c}\) \(\newcommand{\dvec}{\mathbf d}\) \(\newcommand{\dtil}{\widetilde{\mathbf d}}\) \(\newcommand{\evec}{\mathbf e}\) \(\newcommand{\fvec}{\mathbf f}\) \(\newcommand{\nvec}{\mathbf n}\) \(\newcommand{\pvec}{\mathbf p}\) \(\newcommand{\qvec}{\mathbf q}\) \(\newcommand{\svec}{\mathbf s}\) \(\newcommand{\tvec}{\mathbf t}\) \(\newcommand{\uvec}{\mathbf u}\) \(\newcommand{\vvec}{\mathbf v}\) \(\newcommand{\wvec}{\mathbf w}\) \(\newcommand{\xvec}{\mathbf x}\) \(\newcommand{\yvec}{\mathbf y}\) \(\newcommand{\zvec}{\mathbf z}\) \(\newcommand{\rvec}{\mathbf r}\) \(\newcommand{\mvec}{\mathbf m}\) \(\newcommand{\zerovec}{\mathbf 0}\) \(\newcommand{\onevec}{\mathbf 1}\) \(\newcommand{\real}{\mathbb R}\) \(\newcommand{\twovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\ctwovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\threevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cthreevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\mattwo}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{rr}#1 \amp #2 \\ #3 \amp #4 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\laspan}[1]{\text{Span}\{#1\}}\) \(\newcommand{\bcal}{\cal B}\) \(\newcommand{\ccal}{\cal C}\) \(\newcommand{\scal}{\cal S}\) \(\newcommand{\wcal}{\cal W}\) \(\newcommand{\ecal}{\cal E}\) \(\newcommand{\coords}[2]{\left\{#1\right\}_{#2}}\) \(\newcommand{\gray}[1]{\color{gray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\lgray}[1]{\color{lightgray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\rank}{\operatorname{rank}}\) \(\newcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\col}{\text{Col}}\) \(\renewcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\nul}{\text{Nul}}\) \(\newcommand{\var}{\text{Var}}\) \(\newcommand{\corr}{\text{corr}}\) \(\newcommand{\len}[1]{\left|#1\right|}\) \(\newcommand{\bbar}{\overline{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bhat}{\widehat{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bperp}{\bvec^\perp}\) \(\newcommand{\xhat}{\widehat{\xvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\vhat}{\widehat{\vvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\uhat}{\widehat{\uvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\what}{\widehat{\wvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\Sighat}{\widehat{\Sigma}}\) \(\newcommand{\lt}{<}\) \(\newcommand{\gt}{>}\) \(\newcommand{\amp}{&}\) \(\definecolor{fillinmathshade}{gray}{0.9}\)- Define and differentiate among common emotional appeals, including fear, hope, humor, sex, and pity appeals.
- Explain the underlying mechanisms and conditions for the effectiveness of fear appeals (using Witte's EPPM) and hope appeals (using Chadwick's PHT).
- Apply strategic guidelines to ethically craft and utilize fear, hope, and humor appeals in your own persuasive communication.
Understanding Emotional Appeals
Building on our understanding that persuasion extends beyond pure logic, and that human decisions are profoundly influenced by emotion and various motivational drivers, this chapter delves into specific, powerful emotional appeals. We've seen how internal and external motivations, along with appeals to fundamental human needs, can sway an audience. Now, we will explore particular emotional tactics that persuaders frequently employ to evoke strong responses and drive action. This chapter will examine the mechanics, effectiveness, and ethical considerations behind fear, hope, humor, sex, and pity appeals, providing you with a deeper understanding of how these potent emotions are leveraged in persuasive communication.
Fear Appeals
From childhood warnings ("You'll shoot your eye out!") to public service announcements like "this is your brain on drugs," fear appeals are pervasive. "Fear taps into our primal concerns for survival, making us more apt to take action" (Lindstrom, p. 29), increasing "advertising’s effect on consumer interest, recall, persuasiveness, and behavior change" (Williams).
Witte's (1992) Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) details how fear appeals work. When encountering a fear message (containing a threat and a recommended solution), individuals first appraise the threat:
- Perceived Severity: The perceived magnitude of the threat.
- Perceived Susceptibility: The perceived likelihood that the threat will affect them (e.g., a woman is not susceptible to testicular cancer, so she would likely ignore related warnings).
If the perceived threat is low, the message is rejected. If high, they then appraise efficacy:
- Response Efficacy: Belief that the recommended behavior will prevent or reduce the threat.
- Self-Efficacy: Belief in one's capability to perform the recommended behavior.
Fear appeals work when people perceive the threat as severe and relevant, and believe they are capable of and that the recommended response will address the threat.
According to the Extended Parallel Process Model, the first thing someone does when reading the message is to appraise the threat. This includes assessing whether they perceive that the threat is severe, which refers to their perception of the magnitude of the threat (i.e., perceived severity), and whether they perceive that they are susceptible to the threat, which refers to their perception of the likelihood that the threat will impact them (i.e., perceived susceptibility).
For example, in an ad that utilizes fear appeals to motivate students to wear proper footwear to prevent slip accidents in the snow, this would be whether or not someone reading the message perceives that falls on snow and ice are severe (e.g., “Falls cause more than 1,500 deaths and 300,000 injuries per year”) and whether or not they perceive that they are susceptible to falling on snow and ice (e.g., “On University Campuses”). For example, a student in Florida might perceive that falling on snow and ice is severe, but they might not believe they are susceptible to falling on snow and ice on their Florida campus. A student in Alaska, on the other hand, might perceive that falling on snow and ice is severe and that they are susceptible to it on their Alaska campus.
If someone perceives the threat as high (i.e., if the person believes the threat is severe and that they are susceptible to it) then they will keep reading the message. The next thing they will do is appraise the efficacy. This includes assessing whether they believe that the recommended behavior will prevent or reduce the threat, which is referred to as response efficacy, and whether they believe they are capable of doing the recommended behavior, which is referred to as self-efficacy.
In the above example, this would be whether or not someone reading the message perceives that the recommended behavior to wear ice cleats would prevent a fall on ice (i.e., response efficacy) and whether they believe they are capable of affording, using, and finding ice cleats (i.e., self-efficacy). For example, someone might believe that ice cleats would work to prevent falls (i.e., high response efficacy) but might also think they would not be able to afford them (i.e., low self-efficacy). Someone else might think that ice cleats would work to prevent falls (i.e., high response efficacy) and might also think they could afford to purchase them (i.e., high self-efficacy).
If someone perceives the efficacy as low (i.e., if the person does not believe that the recommended behavior would prevent the threat and/or does not believe they are capable of enacting the recommended behavior) then they will reject the message. If someone perceives the efficacy as high (i.e., they have both high response efficacy and self-efficacy), they will accept the message. According to the Extended Parallel Process Model, someone who accepts the message is then likely to change their behavior accordingly.
The Extended Parallel Process Model states that message acceptance leads to behavior change; however, message acceptance does not always guarantee behavior change. For example, someone might accept the message and intend to buy and use ice cleats but not follow through. There are several factors that influence the strength of the relationship between message acceptance and behavior change.
First, in order to best predict behavior change, the message acceptance beliefs must relate to specific intentions and a subsequent specific behavior. Any given behavior can include an action, target, context and time period. For example, a goal might be “to use ice cleats every time when walking outside during winter.” In this example, “using ice cleats” is the action, “every time” is the target, “when walking outside” is the context, and “during winter” is the time period. As the specificity of the behavior increases, message acceptance becomes a better predictor of behavior change.
Additionally, the temporal stability of message acceptance influences the strength of the relationship between message acceptance and behavior. If an individual’s message acceptance fluctuates over time (e.g., some days I perceive the threat of falling to be high and other days I do not), then message acceptance measured at one particular time might not predict subsequent behavior change (e.g., Rhodes & Dickau, 2013). As the stability of an individual’s message acceptance increases over time, message acceptance becomes a better predictor of behavior.
Fear can be an effective persuasive tool when following the Extended Parallel Process Model. Very importantly, however, there are certain conditions where fear may be appropriate and other conditions where fear may be inappropriate or even unethical. Indeed, Peters, Ruiter, and Kok (2013) note that high feelings of threat when coupled with low efficacy can cause people to engage in health-defeating behaviors. Thus, using fear only works when the population has a high baseline efficacy or when the message also includes powerful information to enhance efficacy (Peters et al., 2013). Together, this suggests that fear is only appropriate when the message recipients have high response and self-efficacy regarding the recommended behavior or when it is possible to strongly increase their response and self-efficacy with the message. When efficacy is low, other persuasive tools should be used (e.g., see Chapters 12 & 13 on Hope Appeals).
Caveats and Ethical Use of Extended Parallel Process Model (Fear Appeals)
Fear can be effective, but too much can seem manipulative. When fear is combined with disgusting images, it can lead to "defensive withdrawal of cognitive resources" (Leshner et al., p. 86), causing people to defensively avoid the message by simply disengaging. Fear appeals also fail if the threat isn't perceived as real or relevant, or if efficacy (response or self) is low. Therefore, fear is only appropriate when the audience already has high baseline efficacy or the message effectively enhances it (Peters et al., 2013).
- Perceived Severity: Use vivid language detailing harm and consequences (Witte & Allen, 2000; Witte, 1994, p. 120).
- Perceived Susceptibility: Employ personalistic language or imagery highlighting the target's likelihood of experiencing the threat (Witte & Allen, 2000).
- Response Efficacy: Provide examples of past success or explicitly state how the behavior prevents the threat.
- Self-Efficacy: Offer examples of others' success, verbal encouragement (O’Keefe, 2016), or state ease/affordability.
- (Examples for water, Vitamin D, and reflective clothing from original text can be summarized here, or moved to a separate "Examples" section for the chapter.)
Hope Appeals
Hope, a discrete, future-oriented emotion, can motivate behavior by focusing thoughts on achieving future rewards (Chadwick, 2015). It's also a crucial coping strategy, positively linked to individual resilience, psychological well-being, and decreased depression and distress (Tao et al., p. 3). Hope facilitates goal-directed actions and can even broaden openness to different perspectives, making individuals more susceptible to persuasion (Tao et al., p. 3).
Emotions significantly influence susceptibility to misinformation; while depression is linked to belief in misinformation and conspiracy theories, and fear can make one vulnerable to misinformation by driving threat avoidance, hope can counteract such effects. A study during the COVID-19 pandemic found that hope appeals reduced misconceptions to a similar degree as factual correction. Notably, hope appeals induce more positive feelings and, especially when combining optimistic outlooks with individual and collective efficacy, are powerful in counteracting misperception-inducing threats and fear, particularly in public health crises (Tao et al., p. 9).
Persuasive Hope Theory (PHT) (Chadwick, 2015) outlines an effective hope appeal message as presenting a specific opportunity and a recommended behavior to achieve a desired outcome. Individuals appraise the opportunity based on:
- Perceived Importance: Personal relevance.
- Perceived Goal Congruence: Consistency with personal goals.
- Perceived Possibility: Likelihood of the outcome.
- Perceived Future Expectation: Belief the outcome leads to a better future.
If both opportunity and efficacy (response and self-efficacy) are perceived as high, hope is felt, leading to increased attention, interest, perceived effectiveness, and behavioral intentions (Chadwick, 2015). Similar to EPPM, these outcomes don't guarantee behavior change; specificity of the behavior and temporal stability of hope perceptions influence follow-through (Rhodes & Dickau, 2013).
- Importance: Use second-person ("you"), focus on personal benefit (Chadwick, 2010).
- Goal Congruence: Use second-person, link to audience goals (e.g., "Protecting the climate saves you a lot of money") (Chadwick, 2010).
- Possibility: Use "we," assert possibility, use modifiers like "very" (Chadwick, 2010).
- Future Expectation: Use second-person, explicitly state future improvements, use modifiers (Chadwick, 2010).
- Response Efficacy: Provide examples of past success or explicitly state how the behavior achieves the outcome.
- Self-Efficacy: Offer examples of others' success, verbal encouragement (O’Keefe, 2016), or state ease/affordability.
Humor Appeals
While universally enjoyed, humor's persuasive power is nuanced. Defined as a psychological response involving appraisal of funniness, amusement, and laughter (Warren et al.), humor in advertising increases brand recognition, brand attitudes, and audience attention (Eisend, p. 191). Interestingly, it doesn't appear to significantly impact cognitive message processing, and its overall effect on credibility can be negative (Eisend, p. 200). Specific types of humor yield varied results: incongruity resolution can improve perceived competence (if resolved), tension relief enhances warmth, while humorous self-disparagement reduces competence, and other-disparagement reduces both warmth and competence (Hoang et al.).
Caution is advised, as humor is subjective and can easily offend. Furthermore, humor may be ineffective in contexts like health communication, where people typically take topics seriously (Walter et al., p. 365).
Sex Appeals
The adage "sex sells" suggests the power of sexual appeals, which are "persuasion attempts that uses words, images and/or actions by models to evoke sexual thoughts, feelings, and/or arousal in a target audience" (Wirtz et al., p. 169). Research indicates they are "attention-getting, arousing, affect-inducing, and memorable" (Reichert et al., p. 1). In social marketing, relevant, non-sexist, and gender-appealing sexual appeals can increase interest in a topic (Reichert et al., p. 13), a vital asset in a saturated media environment.
However, studies show mixed results for behavioral change. While a social media ad using sex appeal garnered more engagement than a control ad, it didn't lead to higher sales (Stewart et al., p. 701). Other research suggests people remember the sexual content but not the associated brands, potentially due to "cognitive overload" and an evolutionary predisposition to focus on sexual cues (Lawrence et al.). Thus, while sexual appeals capture attention and are memorable, evidence for their ability to drive long-term behavior or attitude change remains limited.
Pity Appeals
The iconic Sarah McLachlan ASPCA ad, mentioned earlier in a previous section, is a classic pity appeal. Pity, broadly, is the compassion, sympathy, or sorrow felt when witnessing distress, pain, or misfortune, especially in those unable to help themselves. This elicits a desire to alleviate suffering, often accompanied by feelings of sadness or regret.
Historically, classical rhetoricians dismissed the appeal to pity as a logical fallacy, argumentum ad misericordiam (Walton, p. 1), arguing it bypasses reason and is susceptible to manipulation. However, others contend that emotions, including pity, are often informative and can be "more reliable guides to action than argument" (Kimball, p. 302). Regardless of its philosophical standing, pity's persuasive power is undeniable. GoFundMe campaigns, heavily reliant on compassion, have raised over $30 billion since 2010, with significant spikes during public distressing events (Beaty).
Exercises
- Find a public service announcement (PSA) or health campaign that primarily uses a fear appeal. Analyze it using Witte's Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM). Describe how the message attempts to communicate perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, response efficacy, and self-efficacy. Based on your analysis, do you believe this fear appeal is likely to be effective? Why or why not?
- Find a public service announcement (PSA) or health campaign that primarily uses a hope appeal. Analyze it using Chadwick's Persuasive Hope Theory (PHT). Describe how the message conveys perceived importance, goal congruence, possibility, future expectation, response efficacy, and self-efficacy. Based on your analysis, do you believe this hope appeal is likely to be effective? Why or why not?
References
Beaty, Thalia. "GoFundMe Says $30 Billion Has Been Raised on Its Crowdfunding and Nonprofit Giving Platforms." AP News,The Associated Press, 6 Feb. 2024, apnews.com/article/gofundme-crowdfunding-tim-cadogan-classy-nonprofits-e89b4e9871b8e8bdc0173d4dce22272d.
Chadwick, A. E. (2010). Persuasive hope theory and hope appeals in messages about climate change mitigation and seasonal influenza prevention. Doctoral Dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University.
Chadwick, A. E. (2015). Toward a theory of persuasive hope: Effects of cognitive appraisals, hope appeals, and hope in the context of climate change. Health Communication, 30(6), 598-611.
Eisend, Martin. "A Meta-Analysis of Humor in Advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 37, 2009, pp. 191–203. DOI:10.1007/s11747-008-0096-y.
Hoang, Chi et al. "Using Different Advertising Humor Appeals to Generate Firm-level Warmth and Competence Impressions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2023, doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2023.08.002.
Kimball, Robert H. "A Plea for Pity." Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 37 no. 4, 2004, p. 301-316. Project MUSE, doi.org/10.1353/par.2004.0029.
Lawrence, Helena et al. “Sex Does Not Sell: Effects of Sexual Advertising Parameters on Women Viewers' Implicit and Explicit Recall of Ads and Brands.” Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 128, No. 2, 2021, pp. 692-713. doi:10.1177/0031512521990352.
Lerner, Jennifer S., et al. "Emotion and Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology. vol. 66, no. 1, 2015, pp. 799-823, doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2015). Persuasion: Theory and research (Third edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Leshner, Glenn et al. "Motivated Processing of Fear Appeal and Disgust Images in Televised Anti-Tobacco Ads." Journal of Media Psychology, vol. 23, no. 2, 2011, pp. 77–89, doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000037.
Lindstrom, Martin. Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy What We Buy. Broadway Books, 2010.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2015). Persuasion: Theory and research (Third edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Williams, Kaylene C. "Fear Appeal Theory." Research in Business and Economics Journal. vol. 5, no. 1, 2012, pp. 1-21. www.aabri.com/manuscripts/11907.pdf.
Wirtz, John G. et al. "The Effect of Exposure to Sexual Appeals in Advertisements on Memory, Attitude, and Purchase Intention: A Meta-Analytic Review." International Journal of Advertising, vol. 37, no. 2, 2018, pp. 168–198, doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2017.1334996.
Adapted from:
Worthington, D. (n.d.). 05: Emotional Appeals. In Persuasion Theory in Action. Social Sci LibreTexts.