15.4: Logical Appeals

15.4.1: Different Lines of Reasoning

Learning Objective

Demonstrate the use of inductive and deductive reasoning

Key Points

• Inductive reasoning, also known as induction, is a kind of reasoning that constructs general propositions that are derived from specific examples.
• Inductive reasoning is probabilistic; it only states that, given the premises, the conclusion is probable.
• One important aspect of inductive reasoning is associative reasoning: seeing or noticing similarity among the different events or objects that you observe.
• Deductive reasoning is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements, laws, or principles regarding what is known, in order to reach a logically certain conclusion.

Key Terms

inductive reasoning

A kind of reasoning that constructs or evaluates general propositions that are derived from specific examples. Inductive reasoning contrasts with deductive reasoning, in which specific examples are derived from general propositions.

syllogism

An inference in which one proposition (the conclusion) follows necessarily from two other propositions, known as the premises.

deductive reasoning

The process of reasoning that uses given true premises to reach a conclusion that is also true. Deductive reasoning contrasts with inductive reasoning.

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things. Reason, or “reasoning,” is associated with thinking, cognition, and intelligence. It is the means by which rational beings understand cause and effect, truth and falsehood, validity, and what is good or bad. The result is a reason that could then be used to explain or justify some event, phenomenon, or behavior.

As you develop arguments for your persuasive speech, you are likely to engage in two different lines of reasoning: inductive, which uses associations, and deductive.

Inductive Reasoning and Associative Reasoning

Inductive reasoning, also known as induction, is a kind of reasoning that constructs general propositions that are derived from specific examples based on previous observations. One important aspect of inductive reasoning is associative reasoning: seeing or noticing similarity among the different events or objects that you observe. For example, if you throw a ball in the air and it comes back down, again and again, you observe the same event happening and are likely to conclude that when you kick a ball in the air, it will come back down.

Inductive reasoning is probabilistic; it only states that, given the premises, the conclusion is probable. Consider these simple logical statements, known as syllogisms. Here is a statistical syllogism to illustrate inductive reasoning:

1. 90% of humans are right-handed.
2. Joe is a human.
3. Therefore, the probability that Joe is right-handed is 90%. If you were required to guess, you would choose “right-handed” in the absence of any other evidence.

Here is another stronger example:

100% of life forms that we know of depend on liquid water to exist. Therefore, if you discover a new life form, it will probably depend on liquid water to exist.

This argument could have been made every time a new life form was found, and would have been correct every time. While it is possible that in the future a life form that does not require water will be discovered, in the absence of other factors, the conclusion is probably correct, as it has been in the past.

Inductive reasoning is used to determine properties or relationships based on previous observations or experiences, and then to formulate general statements or laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. The conclusion of an inductive argument follows with some degree of probability.

Inductive reasoning involves association or analogical reasoning. In order to engage in inductive reasoning, we must observe, see similarities, and make associationsbetween conceptual entities. The ability to structure our perceptions relies on the associative network in our brain, which allows us see the likeness and form a concept, about the similarities.

Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

There are key differences between deductive and inductive reasoning.

A chart that shows the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning based on the premise, conclusion, validity, and usage.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements, laws, or principles regarding what is known, in order to reach a logically certain conclusion. Deductive reasoning involves using given, true premises to reach a conclusion that is also true. If you accept or know the general principle as true, then you can apply it to the specific case to conclude that it is also true.

Consider the general principle of the law a gravity: what goes up must come down. Now, when you throw the ball in the air, you conclude that it will fall down based on your knowledge of the general law of gravity. Deductive reasoning contrasts with inductive reasoning in that a specific conclusion is arrived at from the general principle when reasoning deductively. If the rules and logic of deduction are followed, this procedure ensures an accurate conclusion. Here is a classic example of a deductive argument:

1. All men are mortal.
2. John is a man.
3. Therefore, John is mortal.

The first premise states that all objects classified as “men” have the attribute “mortal. ” The second premise states that “John” is classified as a “man”—a member of the class or group of “men. ” The conclusion then states that “John” must be “mortal” because he inherits this attribute from his classification as a “man. ” If both premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion of the argument follows by logical necessity.

Conclusion

In summary, with inductive reasoning, you are making observations of specific or particular events and then drawing a general conclusion; whereas with deductive reasoning, you are starting with a general statement and applying it to particular instances when you draw your final conclusion about a particular instance, person, or object.

15.4.2: Deploying a Rational Appeal

Learning Objective

Explain how to construct a rational appeal

Key Points

• Deploying rational appeals focuses on reasoning and how you use evidence to reason with your audience and invention, how arguments are formed based on the classical proof of logos–rational appeal and logic.
• The burden of proof is on you the speaker to develop the right appeals for the particular audience.
• When deploying deductive reasoning consider whether or not the audience is likely to accept the general premise as valid and true before you attempt to deduce other ideas or courses of action based on the general premise.
• When deploying inductive reasoning consider if you have observed or collected enough evidence to draw a highly probable conclusion.
• When deploying associative reasoning, you will want to make sure that the ideas are indeed similar and that there are not obvious or outstanding differences which would negate the association you propose.
• As you deploy a rational appeal consider if your reasoning is sound, whether the audience will accept your evidence and reasoning, and what objections the audience might raise so you can address the most significant points of disagreement in your message.

Key Term

Invention

the formulation of arguments based on logos–rational appeal or logic.

Forming a Rational Appeal

A rational appeal uses logical arguments and factual evidence to persuade individuals that whatever thesis you are supporting is viable and likely to result in the obtainment of goals. When you focus on rational appeals you are dealing with the mind and cognition of the audience .

The Mind

When you focus on rational appeals, you are dealing with the audience’s mind and cognition.

A neon sign that has the word “mind” in an oval.

The study of rhetoric has historically focused on three types of persuasive appeals–ethos, pathos, and logos. Our focus on reasoning and how you to use evidence to reason with your audience is part of the study of logos. Additionally, you are concerned with invention, which is the first of the five canons of rhetoric identified by Cicero, the classical Roman rhetorician. Invention is how you formulate arguments based on logos–rational appeal or logic.

When you appeal to reason you use logically constructed arguments using your evidence to persuade your audience to agree with you. You might use many different forms of evidence to support your rational appeal. Basically, the burden of proof is on you the speaker as you develop your appeals to the audience. As you deploy a rational appeal consider: Is my reasoning sound, and what will the audience accept as a believable evidence?

Is Your Reasoning Sound?

Prior to your speech, it is important to consider the soundness of your evidence and reasoning.

Deductive reasoning: For example, if you are engaging in deductive reasoning, you will want to consider whether or not the audience is likely to accept the general premise as valid and true before you attempt to deduce other ideas or courses of action based on the general premise.

If you are quoting an authority and drawing conclusions from the authority, it is important to ask if the audience will accept or believe the authority. Remember to quote or use sources that the audience is familiar and will believe; using other authorities or sources will likely not be productive.

Inductive reasoning: If you are engaging in inductive reasoning, you will want to consider whether you have observed or collected enough evidence to draw a highly probable conclusion. Or, did you draw a hasty conclusion based on too few examples or observations?

If you are using statistical evidence as part of your inductive reasoning, it is important to consider how the data was collected and whether it is truly valid. If you do not have valid statistical data, then the inductions will not be valid. Before using any data, ask:

• Is the source biased, or perceived as biased?
• Is the source competent in the field being consulted?
• Is the information current?

Associative reasoning (analogy): When engaging in associative reasoning, you will want to make sure that the ideas are indeed similar and that there are no obvious or outstanding differences which would negate the association in the mind of your audience.

Address Resistance and Concerns of the Audience

Finally, in persuasive situations it is important to anticipate the potential resistance and counterarguments your audience might feel. When you have a sense of what objections the audience might raise, you can and should address the most significant points of disagreement in your message.

Arguments from reason (logical arguments) have some advantages, namely that data are (ostensibly) difficult to manipulate, so it is harder to argue against such an argument; and such arguments make the speaker look prepared and knowledgeable to the audience, enhancing ethos. In addition, if you have built ethos with the audience then it will enhance your appeal with arguments from reason.

15.4.3: Logical Fallacies

Learning Objective

Give examples of formal and informal logical fallacies

Key Points

• “Formal” refers to the form of the argument. An argument that contains a formal fallacy will always be invalid. However, even if a premise is not accurate, the formal conclusion could still be valid if the rules of logic are followed.
• An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that occurs due to a problem with the content, rather than mere structure, of the argument and is often due to a misconception or a presumption.
• Common Fallacy–hasty generalization: argues from limited examples or a special case to a create general rule that applies to many cases.
• Common Fallacy–Popular sentiment or bandwagon appeal (argumentum ad populum):—appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty, “Everyone is doing it”.
• Common Fallacy–If it comes before, it is the cause, post hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation.
• Common Fallacy–Two events co-occurring is not causation, cum hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that correlation implies a causal relation.

Key Terms

fallacy

An error in reasoning often due to a misconception or a presumption; used in informal discourse to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason

straw man

An insubstantial concept, idea, endeavor or argument, particularly one deliberately set up to be weakly supported, so that it can be easily knocked down; especially to impugn the strength of any related thing or idea.

red herring

A clue or information that is or is intended to be misleading, that diverts attention from a question;often thought to relate to using smelly fish to train dogs to recognize the real scent of something they were suppose to be tracking.

Errors in reasoning–formal and informal

A fallacy is an error in reasoning. There are two basic categories of fallacies–formal and informal.

Formal Fallacies

Formal fallacies occur when there is a problem with the form, or structure, of the argument. “Formal” refers to the form of the argument. An argument that contains a formal fallacy will always be invalid.

Consider an example with a visualization of faulty reasoning involving categorical deduction.

Categorical Deduction

Deductive reasoning can be valid, while the major premise is not valid.

An example of a deduction that says “All flowers are animals. All animals can jump. Therefore, all flowers can jump.”

1. All flowers are animals.
2. All animals can jump.
3. Therefore, all flowers can jump.

Even though it is quite obvious that the first premise is not true and further that the conclusion is not true, the whole syllogism is still valid. By applying formal logic to the syllogism in the example, the conclusion is still valid.

Informal Fallacies

An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that occurs due to a problem with the content, rather than mere structure, of the argument. In informal logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an error in reasoning often due to a misconception or a presumption. Some of the more frequent common logical fallacies are:

• Converse fallacy of accidental or hasty generalization: argues from limited examples or a special case to a general rule. Argument: Every person I’ve met has ten fingers, therefore, all people have ten fingers. Problem: Those, who have been met.are not a representative subset of the entire set.
• Making the argument personal (argumentum ad hominem): attacking or discrediting the opposition’s character. Argument: What do you know about the U.S? You aren’t even a citizen. Problem: personal argument against an opponent, instead of against the opponent’s argument.
• Popular sentiment or bandwagon appeal (argumentum ad populum): an appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty. Argument: Everyone is doing it. Problem: Concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it.
• Red herring (Ignoratio Elenchi): intentionally or unintentionally misleading or distracting from the actual issue. Argument: I think that we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend that you support this because we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected. Problem: Here the second sentence, though used to support the first, does not address the topic of the first sentence, instead switching the focus to the quite different topic.
• Fallacy of false cause (non sequitur): incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for “It does not follow. ” Argument: I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining. Problem: The conclusion is false because the sun can shine while it is raining.
• If it comes before it is the cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc): believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation. Argument: It rained just before the car died. The rain caused the car to break down. Problem: There may be no connection between the two events.
• Two events co-occurring is not causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc): believing that correlation implies a causal relation. Argument: More cows die in the summer. More ice cream is consumed in summer months. Therefore, the consumption of ice cream in the summer is killing cows. Problem: No premise suggests the ice cream consumption is causing the deaths. The deaths and consumption could be unrelated, or something else could be causing both, such as summer heat.
• Fallacy of many questions or loaded question (Plurium Interrogationum): groups more than one question in the form of a single question. Argument: Have you stopped beating your wife? Problem: Either a yes or no answer is an admission of guilt to beating your wife.
• Straw man: creates the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever actually refuting the original. Argument: Person A: Sunny days are good Person B: If all days were sunny, we’d never have rain, and without rain, we’d have famine and death. Therefore, you are wrong. Problem: B has misrepresented A’s claim by falsely suggesting that A claimed that only sunny days are good, and then B refuted the misrepresented version of the claim, rather than refuting A’s original assertion.
• The false dilemma or either-or fallacy: the listener is forced to make a choice between two things which are not really related or relevant. Argument: If you are not with us, you are against us. Problem: The presentation of a false choice often reflects a deliberate attempt to eliminate any middle ground.
• Card-stacking, or cherry picking: deliberate action is taken to bias an argument by selective use of facts with opposing evidence being buried or discredited. Argument: Learn new skills, become a leader and see the world. Problem: Only the positive benefits of military service are used to recruit , and not the hazards.

As a speaker you want to carefully consider your reasoning and how you draw your logical conclusions in order to avoid faulty reasoning.

15.5: Emotional Appeals

15.5.1: Defining Emotional Appeal

An emotional appeal is used to sway the emotions of an audience to make them support the speaker’s argument.

Learning Objective

Break down the components that make up an emotional appeal

Key Points

• Pathos represents an appeal to the emotions of an audience.
• An emotional appeal uses the manipulation of the emotions rather than valid logic to win an argument.
• Emotional appeal is a logical fallacy, whereby a debater attempts to win an argument by trying to get an emotional reaction from the opponent and audience.
• In debating terms, emotional appeals are often effective as a rhetorical device, but are generally considered naive or dishonest as a logical argument, since they often appeal to the prejudices of listeners rather than offer a sober assessment of a situation.

Key Term

logical fallacy

A fallacy; a clearly defined error in reasoning used to support or refute an argument, excluding simple unintended mistakes.

Emotional Appeal Defined

Pathos represents an appeal to the audience’s emotions. Pathos is a communication technique used most often in rhetoric (where it is considered one of the three modes of persuasion, alongside ethos and logos), and in literature, film, and other narrative art.

Emotional appeal can be accomplished in a multitude of ways:

• By a metaphor or storytelling, common as a hook
• By a general passion in the delivery
• By an overall emotion
• By the sympathies of the speech or writing as determined by the audience

The pathos of a speech or writing is only ultimately determined by the audience.

The Purpose of an Emotional Appeal

An emotional appeal is directed to sway an audience member’s emotions and uses the manipulation of the recipient’s emotions rather than valid logic to win an argument. An emotional appeal uses emotions as the basis of an argument’s position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the presenter. In an emotional appeal, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based arguments instead of facts. Therefore, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.

Emotional appeal is a logical fallacy, whereby a debater attempts to win an argument by trying to get an emotional reaction from the opponent and audience. It is generally characterized by the use of loaded language and concepts (God, country, and apple pie being good concepts; drugs and crime being bad ones). In debating terms, emotional appeals are often effective as a rhetorical device, but are generally considered naive or dishonest as a logical argument, since they often appeal to the prejudices of listeners rather than offer a sober assessment of a situation.

Examples of Emotional Appeals

Children are more often than not toddled out as an appeal to emotion. From pictures of starving children to motivate people to give to charity to using them as any excuse to ban things that children shouldn’t even be aware of (e.g., guns), they are repeatedly paraded in front of audiences to appeal to their emotional protective instincts, often overriding anyone’s sense of rationality . “For the children” or “think of the children” as emotional appeals have been used with success in passing political motions such as Proposition Hate in California.

Emotional Appeal

A picture like this could be used as an emotional appeal for a charity campaign to increase funding for soldiers’ families.

A US soldier holds his daughter and his son.

As with children, cute animals override most people’s logic. Even if the pictures of animal testing put out by PETA are 50 years out of date, they still provoke an emotional response rather than a reasoned one when trying to assess cruelty in animal testing.

15.5.2: Producing an Emotional Appeal

Finding words to match the speech context and audience’s disposition is essential to producing an effective emotional appeal.

Learning Objective

Identify the components that produce an emotional appeal in a speech

Key Points

• Producing an emotional appeal requires an understanding of your audience and what may strike their emotions the most.
• An effective way to create emotional appeal is to use words that have a lot of pathos associated with them. Pathos is an emotional appeal used in rhetoric that depicts certain emotional states.
• An example of a speech that is particularly effective at producing an emotional response with its listeners is Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. The speech uses rhetoric to convey the point of equal opportunity for all people.

Key Terms

pathos

An appeal to the audience’s emotions.

Disposition

A habit, a preparation, a state of readiness, or a tendency to act in a specified way.

rhetoric

The art of using language, especially public speaking, as a means to persuade.

Producing an Emotional Appeal

Producing an emotional appeal requires an understanding of your audience and what may strike their emotions the most.

For example, if you are giving a speech at an event to raise money for a children’s hospital, it would be appropriate to use an appeal to emotions relating to children. For instance, the speaker could use an emotionally charged anecdote about a child who was sick and was cured at this hospital. This story stresses the value that the hospital had on improving the child’s health.

In general, an effective way to create emotional appeal is to use words that have a lot of pathos associated with them. Pathos is an emotional appeal used in rhetoric that depicts certain emotional states. Some examples of “pathos” charged words include: strong, powerful, tragic, equality, freedom, and liberty. These words can be used in a speech to intensify an emotional appeal to an audience.

The Emotional Appeals in “I Have a Dream”

An example of a speech that is particularly effective at producing an emotional response with its listeners is Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Emotional Appeals

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speech “I Have a Dream” effectively produced an emotional response from the audience.

The speech uses rhetoric to convey the point of equal opportunity for all people. It is considered by many as a prime example of successful rhetoric and emotional appeal.

In the speech, Martin Luther King Jr. weaves current events into the fabric of American history, underscoring the tragedy with biblical rhetoric. King hinges his call for change on three refrains, or repeated phrases. He frames his vision for the future with the famous phrase, “I have a dream.”

As his speech draws to a close, he wills his vision to become reality across the country, moving on to the refrain, “Let freedom ring!” He closes his speech with the repeated line, “Free at last!” King articulates cruel injustices, leads us in imagining a world without those injustices, and then appeals to his audiences emotions through these phrases and the idea of a world with equal opportunity.

15.5.3: Ethical Usage

When you make emotional appeals avoid unethical tactics, such as exploitative manipulation.

Learning Objective

List the types of manipulative techniques used to emotionally appeal to audiences

Key Points

• Ethos (plural: ethe) is an appeal to the authority or honesty of the presenter.
• Emotional appeals will encourage the audience to identify with your message on a visceral level, bypassing intellectual filters, such as skepticism and logic.
• It may be appealing to take a shortcut to making the audience sympathize with your point of view. However, emotional appeals don’t always hold up well after the fact–so fortify your emotional appeal by engaging the intellect, too.

Key Terms

ethos

A rhetorical appeal to an audience based on the speaker/writer’s credibility.

manipulation

The usage of psychological influence over a person or situation to gain a positive outcome.

ethics

The study of principles relating to right and wrong conduct.

Ethical Usage

Emotional appeals are very powerful. When you stir sympathy in your listeners, you encourage them to identify with your message on a visceral level, bypassing intellectual filters, such as skepticism and logic.

However, this may be unethical because you are not allowing your listeners to logically consider your argument and rationally determine how they would react to your argument in absence of an emotional appeal.

It may be appealing to take a shortcut toward making the audience sympathize with your point of view. An emotional appeal may save you the trouble of working out a good argument. However, emotional appeals don’t always hold up well after the fact when your audience has had a chance to process your message.

Therefore, be sure to substantiate your emotional appeal with both logic and facts.

Emotional Manipulation

Since emotional appeals are very strong, they can sometimes be used inappropriately in order to gain something from the audience members.

Manipulation

Adolf Hitler is an example of a political figure who used emotional manipulation.

For example, an emotional appeal could be used in a political rally to persuade people to vote for the candidate, especially if the vote will happen in the next few days. This emotional appeal may persuade audience members to vote for you or your candidate, but it may also be unethical or considered manipulative if the audience members do not have a chance to rationally process the message before the vote takes place.

This is especially critical for situations, such as politics, which people generally have emotionally charged opinions about.

Some inappropriate uses of manipulative techniques of emotional appeals include:

• Lying or lying by omission: telling outright falsehoods or misleading by leaving out crucial pieces of information.
• Denial: refusing to admit that you or your affiliates have done anything wrong.
• Covert intimidation: using subtle, indirect or implied threats.
• Guilt tripping: suggesting that the audience does not care enough, is too selfish, or has it easy. Guilt tripping encourages self-doubt and submissive behavior.
• Shaming: using tactics, such as direct criticism, a fierce look or glance, an unpleasant tone of voice, rhetorical comments, and subtle sarcasm to undermine audience members.
• Playing the victim: putting on the role of a victim of circumstances or the bad behavior of others in order to evoke sympathy.
• Vilifying the victim: acting as though the victim of the bad behavior of your (or your associates) did something to deserve negative consequences.
• Seduction: using charm, praise, and flattery to manipulate others.

In order to ethically portray an emotional appeal, be sure to avoid these inappropriate uses and manipulative techniques for emotional appeals. Emotional appeals can be effective if they are not manipulative and are used to further an honest message.

How to Prove that You are Ethical

Ethos (plural: ethe) is an appeal to the authority or honesty of the presenter. It is how well the presenter convinces the audience that he or she is qualified to present (speak) on the particular subject. It can be done in many ways:

• By being a notable figure in the field in question, such as a college professor or an executive of a company whose business is that of the subject.
• By having a vested interest in a matter, such as the person being related to the subject in question.
• By using impressive logos that show the audience that the speaker is knowledgeable on the topic.
• By appealing to a person’s ethics or character.

15.6: Motivational Appeals

15.6.1: Motivating Listeners

Motivational appeals arouse the audience to take action toward a desired goal to satisfy unmet needs or desires.

Learning Objective

Explain the steps that make up Alan Monroe’s motivated sequence for organizing persuasive speeches, and how Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs serves as a method for motivating listeners

Key Points

• We can divide our motives into two basic types: internal, intrinsic and external or extrinsic motives. Some are more intrinsic than others, but basically a motive or motivator is external if someone controls the means for you to satisfy the need or desire.
• It is important to understand the current state of unfulfilled desires or need states that exist in your audience in order to select the appropriate motives for your appeal.
• You can use Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to select an unsatisfied need for your motivational appeals. The lower level needs such as Physiological and Safety needs will have to be satisfied before higher level needs, such as achievement or self-actualization can be addressed.
• Monroe’s Motivated Sequence is one method to organize your appeal to the listeners. The five steps in order are: Get Attention, Explain Need, Satisfaction (how your solution will met the need), Visualization (picture audience living with solution in place), and Action (what audience can do now).

Key Terms

Motivated sequence

a technique for organizing persuasive speeches that inspires people to take action, developed by Alan Monroe. Includes five steps—attention, need, satisfaction, visualization, and action.

motive

An incentive to act; a reason for doing something; anything that prompted a choice of action.

motivation

Willingness of action especially in behavior

Motivating Listeners

Motivation arouses us to action toward a desired goal

Motivation is the psychological feature that arouses us to action toward a desired goal and prompts us to want to continue behaviors toward the goal. If you have not eaten, then you are motivated by your hunger and you respond by seeking out food and eating. Motivation may be rooted in a basic need to minimize physical pain and maximize pleasure and it may also include specific physical, cognitive, and emotional needs or desires, too.

Internal, Intrinsic, and External Motives vs. Extrinsic Motives

We can divide our motives into two basic types: internal, intrinsic and external or extrinsic motives. There is no a clear cut distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motives. Some are more intrinsic than others, but basically, a motive or motivator is extrinsic if someone controls the means or directs you to satisfy the need or desire. For example, if you are motivated to study because a professor says you will fail the class if you do not, then you are extrinsically motivated and passing the class is the desired reward.

Motivation

External motivation (the stick) directs one’s action to get the reward (the carrot).

An image of a man chasing a carrot. The man has a stick (baseball bat) behind him as motivation.

Sixteen Basic Motivators

Here are sixteen basic desires that motivate our actions and define our personalities:

• Acceptance: the need for approval;
• Curiosity: the need to learn;
• Eating: the need for food;
• Family: the need to raise children;
• Honor: the need to be loyal to the traditional values of one’s clan/ethnic group;
• Idealism: the need for social justice;
• Independence: the need for individuality;
• Order: the need for organized, stable, predictable environments;
• Physical activity: the need for exercise;
• Power: the need for influence of will;
• Romance: the need for sex;
• Saving: the need to collect;
• Social contact: the need for friends (peer relationships);
• Social status: the need for social standing/importance;
• Tranquility: the need to be safe;
• Vengeance: the need to strike back.

Unsatisfied Needs or Desires Can Motivate the Listener

It is important to remember that only an unsatisfied need or desire can be used to motivate the listener. You need to understand the current state of the audience to select the appropriate motives for your appeal.

Abraham H. Maslow developed a Hierarchy of Needs, consisting of five hierarchic classes that can be a useful method to selecting needs for motivational appeals. The lower level physiological and safety needs must be satisfied before higher level needs can be addressed. According to Maslow, if you are trying to motivate your listeners to satisfy a particular need, you want to make sure the lower level needs are being met before you can motivate them to address an upper level need. The basic requirements build on the first step in his pyramid. If there is any deficit on this level, the whole behavior of a human will be oriented to satisfy this deficit. The second level awakens a need for security; it is oriented on a future need for security. After securing those two levels, the motives shift to the social sphere, which form the third stage. Psychological requirements comprise the fourth level, while the top of the hierarchy is the need for self-realization. The needs, listed from basic (lowest-earliest) to most complex (highest-latest) are as follows :

Hierarchy of Needs

Employees are often motivated by their needs.

• Physiology (hunger, thirst, sleep, etc.)
• Safety/Security/Shelter/Health
• Belongingness/Love/Friendship
• Self-esteem/Recognition/Achievement
• Self actualization—realizing one’s full potential

Monroe’s Motivated Sequence

Now we can apply this knowledge to motivate our listeners. This is a strategy for organizing a speech using motives. Alan Monroe’s motivated sequence is a method for organizing persuasive speeches. It consists of these steps on how to organize a motivational appeal to the audience:

• Attention: get the attention of your audience using a detailed story, shocking example, dramatic statistic, quotations, etc.
• Need: show how the topic applies to the psychological need of the audience members; audience needs are what motivates action. Go beyond establishing that there is a significant problem. Show the need will not go away by itself. Use statistics, examples, etc. Convince your audience that they each have a personal need to take action.
• Satisfaction: you need to solve the issue. Provide specific and viable solutions that the government or communities can implement to solve the problem.
• Visualization: tell the audience what will happen if the solution is implemented or does not take place. Picture the audience in the new world with the solution in place. Be visual and detailed.
• Action: tell the audience what action they can take personally to solve the problem.

The advantage of Monroe’s Motivated Sequence is that it emphasizes what the audience can do. Too often the audience feels like a situation is hopeless; Monroe’s motivated sequence emphasizes the action the audience can take.