Comparing logical and emotional arguments for disaster mitigation

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.