An Experimental Test of Rational and Emotional Appeals about a Recreation Issue

Abstract

In this study, we measured voting changes on mock ballots after exposure to persuasive appeals about a recreation management issue?a trapping ban ballot initiative. In an experimental design, we exposed university students to one-sided versus balanced appeals and rational versus emotional appeals. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that one-sided appeals influenced votes in the intended directions, causing approximately 10% of subjects to change their votes. Balanced appeals caused fewer than 2.5% of subjects to change their votes. No differences were found between the influence of rational and emotional appeals. Mediation analysis showed that emotional appeals were more readily recalled than rational appeals, but they were not more persuasive. A more complete understanding of persuasion regarding recreation management issues will require sampling the general population outside the laboratory setting, testing additional variables, and studying the effects of rational and emotional appeals in other recreation contexts.