Abstract
The study of threat and fear appeal arguments has given rise to a sizeable literature. Even within a public health context, much is now known about how these arguments work to gain the public's compliance with health recommendations. Not-withstanding this level of interest in, and examination of, these arguments, there is one aspect of these arguments that still remains unexplored. That aspect concerns the heuristic function of these arguments within our thinking about public health problems. Specifically, it is argued that threat and fear appeal arguments serve as valuable shortcuts in our reasoning, particularly when that reasoning is subject to biases that are likely to diminish the effectiveness of public health messages. To this extent, they are rationally warranted argument forms rather than fallacies, as has been their dominant characterization in logic.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 25-50 |
Number of pages | 26 |
Journal | Informal Logic |
Volume | 32 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 1 Jan 2012 |
Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- Argumentum ad baculum
- Cognitive bias
- Fallacy
- Fear appeal argument
- Heuristics
- Public health
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Philosophy