Work

Comparing logical and emotional arguments for disaster mitigation

Year: 2025

Type: article

Abstract: . This study focuses on the critical role of emotional and rational arguments in mobilising public action against existential threats, catastrophes and other disasters to humanity. A study was conducted involving 118 participants, to examine the differential impact of emotional versus logical appeals. A scenario or vignette on the threat and risks of climate change was presented, and participants were presented with arguments designed to evoke emotional responses or to appeal to rational thinking. The results indicate a pronounced effectiveness of emotional arguments, revealing their superiority in fostering engagement and proactive behaviours towards mitigating existential threats. This work provides a comprehensive assessment of argumentative strategies, noting that emotional arguments exert a significant positive influence on participants' willingness to engage with and act upon messages concerning existential threats, risks, disasters, or catastrophes.

Source: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105599

Authors: Aníbal M. Astobiza, Ramón Ortega Lozano

Institutions: University of the Basque Country, Universidad Pontificia Comillas

Language: English

Topic: Climate Change Communication and Perception

Subfield: Sociology and Political Science

Field: Social Sciences

Domain: Social Sciences

Open Access status: hybrid

Estimated APC paid: $3,200

Funders: Universidad de Oviedo, Universidad de Granada