An Experimental Study on the Evaluation of Metaphorical Ad Hominem Arguments
Francesca Ervas
;Oriana Mosca
2024-01-01
Abstract
Metaphors are emotionally engaging, influencing the evaluation of arguments. The paper empirically investigates whether metaphors in the premise can lead the evaluator to judge an ad hominem argument as sound when the arguer instead committed a fallacy. The results show that ad hominem arguments with conventional and positive metaphors are more persuasive compared to those with novel and negative metaphors. Arguments with conventional metaphors are also perceived as more ambiguous, but less convincing, and emotionally appealing. Additionally, participants believe in the conclusion more when the premise contains a positive rather than a negative metaphor, which instead helps the evaluator detect the fallacy.File | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|
An+Experimental+Study+on+the+Evaluation+of+Metaphorical+Arguments+by+Francesca+Ervas+and+Oriana+Mosca.pdf open access
Type: versione editoriale
Size 360.39 kB
Format Adobe PDF
|
360.39 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.