@misc{10481/104440,
year = {2025},
url = {https://hdl.handle.net/10481/104440},
abstract = {This study focuses on the critical role of emotional and rational arguments in mobilizing 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 argu-
ments, 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.},
publisher = {Elsevier},
title = {Comparing logical and emotional arguments for disaster mitigation},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105599},
author = {Monasterio Astobiza, Aníbal and Ortega Lozano, Ramón},
}