Editing Appeal to emotion (section)

==Modern theories==

A social psychology theory suggests that attitudes have three components — [[affect (psychology)|affect]], [[cognition]] and [[behavior]]. The cognitive dimension refers "to beliefs that one holds about the attitude object, and behavior has been used to describe overt actions and responses to the attitude object". Affect, meanwhile, describes "the positive and negative feelings that one holds toward an attitude object", that is, the emotional dimension of an attitude.<ref>This theory is known as the "tripartite theory." For a summary of the theory and a list of its developers, see, e.g., Leandre Fabrigar, Tara MacDonald and Duane Wegener, "The Structure of Attitudes" in Dolores Albarracin et al., ''The Handbook of Attitudes'', Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2005, p. 82.</ref> Modern theorists have modified the tripartite theory to argue that an attitude "does not consist of these elements, but is instead a general evaluative summary of the information derived from these bases."<ref>Leandre Fabrigar, Tara MacDonald and Duane Wegener, "The Structure of Attitudes" in Dolores Albarracin et al., ''The Handbook of Attitudes'', Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2005, p. 82., citing Cacioppo et al., 1989; Crites, Fabrigar & Petty, 1994; Zanna & Rempel, 1988</ref>

Political scientist [[George E. Marcus|George Marcus]] (writing with Russell Neuman and Michael Mackuen) identifies two mental systems through which reason and emotion interact in managing and processing political stimuli:<ref>George Marcus, Russell Neuman and Michael Mackuen, ''Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment'', University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 9.</ref>

::First, the disposition system "provides people with an understanding, an emotional report card, about actions that are already in their repertoire of habits." That is, the first system is that which monitors the casual processing of political information through habit, through which most of our information processing is done.<ref name=Marcus10>George Marcus, Russell Neuman and Michael Mackuen, ''Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment'', University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 10.</ref>

The second system, the surveillance system, "acts to scan the environment for novelty and sudden intrusion of [[threat]]."<ref name=Marcus10/>  In other words, the second system monitors the environment for any signs of threat. If a threat is found, that system takes people out of habitual, casual processing and puts them in a state of alertness and receptivity to new information:

::"what is interesting about this second emotional system is that the onset of increased anxiety stops ongoing activity and orients attention to the threatening appearance so that learning can take place. [...] when the system detects unexpected of threatening stimuli, however, it evokes increased anxiety, it interrupts ongoing activity, and it shifts attention away from the previous focus and toward the intrusive stimuli."<ref>George Marcus, Russell Neuman and Michael Mackuen, ''Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment'', University of Chicago Press, 2000, pp. 10–11.</ref>

Marcus further argues that "emotional engagement will motivate people toward making more deeply reasoned decisions about politics than those who remain dispassionate".<ref>George Marcus, Russell Neuman and Michael Mackuen, ''Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment'', University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 95, see also p. 129.</ref>  Other people have argued that "when an emotion is aroused and experienced, it can involve a number of psychological processes that can then be used as a platform for promoting and securing influence and compliance".<ref>Anthony R. Pratkanis, "Social Influence Analysis: An Index of Tactics" in ''The Science of Social Influence,'' A. Pratkanis, ed., Psychology Press, 2007,  p. 149</ref>

Regardless, it would stand to reason, then, that affecting a subject's emotional state, in conjunction with a political message, could affect that subject's attitudes.

In modern philosophy, there are two main types of appeal to emotion.<ref name="plato.stanford.edu">{{Cite book|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/fallacies/|title=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|first=Hans|last=Hansen|editor-first=Edward N.|editor-last=Zalta|date=September 26, 2019|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|via=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref> One is the appeal to force (known as ''[[ad baculum]]''), the other is the appeal to sympathy, known as ''[[ad misericordiam]]''.<ref name="plato.stanford.edu"/> These are only considered fallacies when used for [[doxastic]] systems.<ref name="plato.stanford.edu"/>