Aristotelian framing: logos, ethos, pathos and the use of evidence in policy frames

June 6, 2018 at 12:23PM
via SpringerLink

Research Note

First Online:

Abstract

In this research note, we propose to complement the analytical toolbox for framing analyses with the categories of Aristotelian rhetoric. As our case, we analyse the function of the use of evidence in frame building in the context of Swiss direct-democratic campaigns preceding votes on smoking bans. Based on rhetoric, a frame can be considered to contain three interrelated elements: (1) political arguments (logos), (2) cultural symbols (ethos), and (3) emotional appeal (pathos). By comparing evidence-based arguments with arguments that do not refer to evidence, the research note illustrates that backing arguments (logos) by evidence increases their trustworthiness (ethos) but not their emotional appeal (pathos). We consider the Aristotelian categories a fruitful tool to enlarge existing framing research with regard to the use of evidence.

Keywords

Logos Ethos Pathos Policy framing Aristotle Use of evidence Policy arguments 

This is a preview of subscription content,

log in

to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant No. CRSII1_141893/1).

References

  1. Andsager, J. (2000). How interest groups attempt to shape public opinion with competing news frames.

    Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77

    (3), 577–592.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  2. Arceneaux, K. (2012). Cognitive biases and the strength of political arguments.

    American Journal of Political Science, 56

    (2), 271–285.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  3. Aristotle. (1926).

    The “art” of rhetoric

    (Vol. XXII) (J. H. Freese, transl.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar

  4. Atkins, J., & Finlayson, A. (2014). “As Shakespeare so memorably said…”: Quotation, rhetoric, and the performance of politics.

    Political Studies, 62

    (1), 1–18.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  5. Baumgartner, F., De Boef, S., & Boydstun, A. (2008).

    The decline of the death penalty and the discovery of innocence

    . New York: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  6. Bonfadelli, H., & Friemel, T. (2012). Learning and knowledge in political campaigns. In H. Kriesi (Ed.),

    Political communication in direct democratic campaigns. Enlightening or manipulating? Challenges to democracy in the 21st century series

    (pp. 168–187). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar

  7. Boswell, C. (2009).

    The political uses of expert knowledge. Immigration policy and social research

    . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  8. Brader, T. (2006).

    Campaigning for hearts and minds. How emotional appeals in political ads work

    . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar

  9. Brockriede, W., & Ehninger, D. (1960). Toulmin on argument: An interpretation and application.

    Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1006,

    45–53.

    Google Scholar

  10. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. (2007). Framing theory.

    Annual Review of Political Science, 10,

    103–126.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  11. Cobb, M. (2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology.

    Science Communication, 27

    (2), 221–239.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  12. Cranmer, M., Petit, R., & Sager, F. (2011). Die argumentative Logik der Tabakmandate des Alten Bern: Eine historische Policy-Analyse.

    Swiss Political Science Review, 17

    (4), 432–446.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  13. D’Angelo, P., & Kuypers, J. A. (2010).

    Doing news framing analysis

    . New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar

  14. Damasio, A. R. (2007).

    Descartes’ Irrtum. Fühlen, Denken und das menschliche Gehirn

    . Berlin: List.

    Google Scholar

  15. Druckman, J., & Bolsen, T. (2011). How scientific evidence links attitudes to behaviors. In D. A. Dana (Ed.),

    The nanotechnology challenge

    (pp. 85–102). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar

  16. Druckman, J., & McDermott, R. (2008). Emotion and the framing of risky choice.

    Political Behavior, 30

    (3), 297–321.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  17. Dunn, W. (2012).

    Public policy analysis

    . Hoboken, NJ: Pearson.

    Google Scholar

  18. Elder, C., & Cobb, R. (1983).

    The political uses of symbols

    . New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar

  19. Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.

    Journal of Communication, 43

    (4), 51–58.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  20. Finlayson, A. (2012). Rhetoric and the political theory of ideologies.

    Political Studies, 60

    (4), 751–767.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  21. Fischer, F. (2009).

    Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry

    . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  22. Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (2012). The argumentative turn revisited. In F. Fischer & H. Gottweis (Eds.),

    The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice

    (pp. 1–30). Durham: Duke University Press.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  23. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001).

    Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again

    . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  24. Gamson, W., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach.

    American Journal of Sociology, 95

    (1), 1–37.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  25. Garsten, B. (2011). The rhetoric revival in political theory.

    Annual Review of Political Science, 14

    (1), 159–180.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  26. Gottweis, H. (2007). Rhetoric in policy making: Between logos, ethos, and pathos. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.),

    Handbook of public policy analysis. Theory, politics, and methods

    (pp. 237–250). Sound Parkway, NW: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar

  27. Gross, K., & D’Ambrosio, L. (2004). Framing emotional response.

    Political Psychology, 25

    (1), 1–29.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  28. Gruszczynski, M., & Michaels, S. (2012). The evolution of elite framing following enactment of legislation.

    Policy Sciences, 45

    (4), 359–384.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  29. Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology.

    Science, 316

    (998), 998–1002.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  30. Haidt, J. (2012).

    The righteous mind. Why good people are divided by politics and religion

    . England: Penguin.

    Google Scholar

  31. Hajer, M. A. (2002). Discourse analysis and the study of policy making.

    European Political Science, 2

    (1), 61–65.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  32. Jerit, J. (2008). Issue framing and engagement: Rhetorical strategy in public policy debates.

    Political Behavior, 30

    (1), 1–24.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  33. Jerit, J. (2009). How predictive appeals affect policy opinions.

    American Journal of Political Science, 53

    (2), 411–426.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  34. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.),

    The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning

    (pp. 267–293). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar

  35. Knape, J. (2000).

    Allgemeine Rhetorik

    . Stuttgart: Reclam.

    Google Scholar

  36. Kohring, M., & Matthes, J. (2002). The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: How the German press framed modern biotechnology.

    Public Understanding of Science, 11

    (2), 143–154.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  37. Kriesi, H. (2012). Political communication: An integrated approach. In H. Kriesi (Ed.),

    Political communication in direct democratic campaigns. Enlightening or manipulating?

    (pp. 1–16). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar

  38. Kühne, R. (2014).

    Political news, emotions, and opinion formation: Toward a model of emotional framing effects

    . National Center of Competence in Research (NCCR) Democracy Working Paper No. 68.

    Google Scholar

  39. Kuypers, J. (2009). What is rhetoric? In J. Kuypers (Ed.),

    Rhetorical criticism. Perspectives in action

    (pp. 1–28). New York: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar

  40. Lakoff, G. (2002).

    Moral politics. How liberals and conservatives think

    . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  41. Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.),

    The policy sciences

    (pp. 3–15). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar

  42. Levin, D. (2005). Framing peace policies: The competition for resonant themes.

    Political Communication, 22

    (1), 83–108.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  43. Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: A review of core processes.

    Annual Review of Psychology, 58

    (1), 259–289.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  44. Lodge, M., & Tabor, C. (2005). Implicit affect for political candidates, parties and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis.

    Political Psychology, 26

    (6), 455–482.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  45. Majdik, Z., & Keith, K. (2011). Expertise as argument: Authority, democracy, and problem-solving.

    Argumentation, 25

    (3), 371–384.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  46. Marcus, G. E. (2000). Emotions in politics.

    Annual Review of Political Science, 3

    (1), 221–250.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  47. Marcus, G., MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., & Keele, L. (2006). The measure and mismeasure of emotion. In D. Redlawsk (Ed.),

    Feeling politics. Emotion in political information processing

    (pp. 31–46). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar

  48. Marx Ferree, M., Gamson, W., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002).

    Shaping abortion discourse. Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States

    . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  49. McAuliffe Straus, R. (2011). Citizens’ use of policy symbols and frames.

    Policy Sciences, 44

    (1), 13–34.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  50. McDermott, R. (2004). The feeling of rationality: The meaning of neuroscientific advances for political science.

    Perspectives on Politics, 2

    (04), 691–706.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  51. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory.

    Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34

    (2), 57–111.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  52. Mukhtarov, F., & Gerlak, A. K. (2014). Epistemic forms of an integrated water resources management: towards knowledge versatility.

    Policy Sciences, 47

    (2), 101–120.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  53. Nutley, S., Morton, S., Jung, T., & Boaz, A. (2010). Evidence and policy in six European countries: Diverse approaches and common challenges.

    Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate & Practice, 6,

    131–144.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  54. Olausson, U. (2009). Global warming—global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty.

    Public Understanding of Science, 18

    (4), 421–436.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  55. Peters, H. P., Heinrichs, H., Jung, A., Kallfass, M., & Petersen, I. (2008). Medialization of science as a prerequisite of its legitimization and political relevance. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.),

    Communicating science in social contexts

    (pp. 71–92). Dordrecht: Springer.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  56. Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). Feeling politics: New research into emotion and politics. In D. R. Redlawsk (Ed.),

    Feeling politics. Emotion in political information processing

    (pp. 1–10). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar

  57. Sager, F. (2017). Evaluation and democracy: Do they fit? In

    Evaluation and program planning

    .

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.08.005

    .

    Google Scholar

  58. Sager, F., Ingold, K., & Balthasar, A. (2017a).

    Policy-Analyse in der Schweiz. Besonderheiten, Theorien, Beispiele

    . Zürich: NZZ Verlag.

    Google Scholar

  59. Sager, F., Widmer, T., & Balthasar, A. (Eds.). (2017b).

    Evaluation im politischen System der Schweiz—Entwicklung, Bedeutung und Wechselwirkungen

    . Zürich: NZZ Verlag.

    Google Scholar

  60. Sager, F., & Zollinger, C. (2011). The Swiss political system in comparative perspective. In C. Trampusch & A. March (Eds.),

    Switzerland in Europe. Continuity and change in the Swiss political economy

    (pp. 27–42). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar

  61. Sanderson, I. (2006). Complexity, “practical rationality” and evidence-based policy making.

    Policy & Politics, 34

    (1), 115–132.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  62. Schlaufer, C., Stucki, I., & Sager, F. (2018). The political use of evidence and its contribution to democratic discourse.

    Public Administration Review

    .

     https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12923

    .

    Google Scholar

  63. Schmidt, V. A. (2012). Discursive institutionalism. Scope, dynamics, and philosophical underpinnings. In F. Fischer & H. Gottweis (Eds.),

    The argumentative turn revisited. Public policy as communicative practice

    (pp. 85–113). Durham: Duke University Press.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  64. Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1995).

    Frame reflection: Toward the resolution if intractable policy controversies

    . New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar

  65. Schram, S. F., Flyvbjerg, B., & Landman, T. (2013). Political political science: A phronetic approach.

    New Political Science, 35

    (3), 359–372.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  66. Self, L. (1979). Rhetoric and phronesis: The Aristotelian ideal.

    Philosophy and Rhetoric, 12

    (2), 130–145.

    Google Scholar

  67. Shulock, N. (1999). The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it?

    Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18

    (2), 226–244.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  68. Snow, D., & Benford, R. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, & S. Tarrow (Eds.),

    From structure to action: Social movement participation across cultures

    (pp. 197–217). Greenwich: JAI.

    Google Scholar

  69. Steenbergen, M., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index.

    Comparative European Politics, 1,

    21–48.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  70. Stucki, I. (2016). Evidence-based arguments in direct democracy: The case of smoking bans in Switzerland.

    Evaluation and Program Planning

    .

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.08.019

    .

    Google Scholar

  71. Stucki, I. (2017). Arguing about smoking bans: The role of evidence in the social construction of conflicting policy ideas.

    Critical Policy Studies, 11

    (4), 411–432.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  72. Stucki, I., Pleger, L., & Sager, F. (2018). The making of the informed voter: A split-ballot survey on the use of scientific evidence in direct-democratic campaigns.

    Swiss Political Science Review

    .

     https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12290

    .

    Google Scholar

  73. Tenbensel, T. (2006). Policy knowledge for policy work. In

    The work of policy: An international survey

    (pp. 199–216). Latham MC: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar

  74. Tersky, A., & Kahneman, D. (2000).

    Choices, values, and frames

    . New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar

  75. Turner, J., & Stets, J. (2005).

    The sociology of emotions

    . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  76. Wesselink, A., Colebatch, H., & Pearce, W. (2014). Evidence and policy: Discourses, meanings and practices.

    Policy Sciences, 47

    (4), 339–344.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  77. Wisse, J. (1989).

    Ethos and pathos

    . Amsterdam: Hakkert.

    Google Scholar

  78. Wohlrapp, H. (2009).

    Der Begriff des Arguments

    . Würzburg: Königshausen and Neumann.

    Google Scholar

  79. Wolf, E. E. A., & Van Dooren, W. (2017). How policies become contested: A spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project.

    Policy Sciences, 50

    (3), 449–468.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  80. Yanow, D. (2000).

    Conducting interpretative policy analysis

    . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018