(Appeal to Credibility)
Definition: A persuasive appeal based on credibility. When an audience believes a communicator to be trustworthy, ethical, and morally sound, his arguments are more effective. One of Aristotle’s three modes of persuasion, alongside logos (logic) and pathos (emotion), ethos builds trust through good sense, strong character, and goodwill.
An appeal to ethos is an attempt to establish authority based on one's virtue, good moral character, experience, mastery of content, or knowledge concerning a specific topic.
A communicator can develop ethos by showcasing advanced qualifications and credentials, acknowledging opponents' arguments and positions, and presenting facts and arguments without intentional obfuscation, bias, trickery, omission, or deceit.
Credibility & Trust: Ethos hinges on the perceived credibility and trustworthiness of the communicator and is established through expertise, honesty, integrity, authority, and sincerity.
Credentials & Qualifications: Advanced experience, degrees, credentials, knowledge, or special training appropriate to the topic.
Moral Character: Honesty, fairness, goodwill toward the audience, and a sense of shared values.
Situated (External) Ethos
A speaker's character, position, authority, standing, and reputation in the real word.
Invented (Internal) Ethos
Written Language: The communicator's persona or image expressed in a text by language, allusions, metaphors, structure, pacing, content, tone, and connection with the reader.
Spoken Words: The communicator's gravitas developed by her physical appearance, tone, pacing, verbal inflection, gestures, eye contact, posture, and movements.
Expertise & Authority: Communicators establish ethos by showcasing their knowledge, expertise, qualifications, or experience in a particular field.
Goodwill & Empathy: Demonstrating goodwill towards the audience by showing empathy, understanding their concerns, and addressing their needs fosters a positive ethos.
Language & Tone: Employing respectful language, diction, and style with a sincere, empathetic tone.
Ethical Communication: Presenting facts and arguments fairly and without intentional obfuscation, bias, trickery, omission, or deceit.
Virtuous Intention: Demonstrating the intention to solve a problem or debate in accordance with truth, utility, and the collective good of the stakeholders.
According to Aristotle, communicators develop credibility by demonstrating:
Sagacity: One's knowledge of the issues, wisdom, expertise, insight into the ways of the world).
Moral Character: Moral excellence, credibility, justice, self-control, common sense)
Goodwill: Concern for the audience's survival, emotional state, and growth.
The term ethos and the modern English word ethics share a common origin and have overlapping meanings, but they are used in different contexts.
Common Origin: Both ethos and ethics derive from the same Greek word "ἦθος" (êthos), which means character or custom.
Modern English: In contemporary usage, ethics refers to the principles of right and wrong that guide an individual's behavior.
Rhetorical Appeal: In rhetoric, ethos refers to the credibility, character, and authority of the speaker or writer.
Common Intention: Ethos is linked to ethical communication which prioritizes honesty, transparency, and integrity in to establish trust.
Credentials & Background
Expertise & Knowledge: Does the speaker have credentials, experience, or expertise on the topic?
History & Track Record: Consider the speaker’s past actions, achievements, or consistent behavior that establish his or her reliability.
Reputation & Standing
Public Perception: Analyze how the speaker is perceived by the audience and society at large. Are they generally viewed as trustworthy and credible?
Affiliations: Are they associated with respected organizations, institutions, or figures?
Gravitas & Trust
Appearance & Demeanor: Does the speaker appear confident, sincere, and composed?
Body Language & Presentation: Does the speaker’s appearance, body language, and overall presentation transmit confidence and trust?
Character & Ethics: Examine any indications of the speaker’s moral character, honesty, and ethical standards.
Language & Tone
Formal vs. Informal Language: Determine whether the language used is appropriate for the audience and context. Language should be tuned to the audience.
Language & Tone: Does the speaker employ respectful language, diction, and style with a sincere, empathetic tone?
Confidence & Authority: Look for a confident tone and authoritative language that conveys expertise and reliability.
Character & Values
Values & Integrity: Do they align with ethical principles that resonate with the audience?
Personal Stories & Character References: Do they use personal anecdotes or respected endorsements to enhance credibility?
Consistency: Do their past actions, writings, or speeches align with their current message?
Arguments & Evidence
Evidence & Sources: Does the communicator present empirical evidence and verifiable sources or anecdotes, viewpoints, and articles of faith?
Citations & References: Does the communicator properly document and disclose the nature of her sources?
Transparency & Honesty: Does the speaker leave out important details or engage in obfuscation, bias, trickery, and deceit?
Demonstration of Ethics
Ethical Stance: Analyze how the speaker’s ethical stance and commitment to moral principles are conveyed. Do they emphasize honesty, integrity, and ethical behavior?
Acknowledgment of Counterarguments: Do they fairly present opposing views, or do they dismiss them outright?
Concessions & Middle Ground: Does the speaker make concessions and present facts and arguments without intentional obfuscation, bias, trickery, omission, or deceit?
Virtuous Intention: Does the communicator demonstrate the intention to solve a problem or debate in accordance with truth, utility, and the collective good of the stakeholders?
Ethical Communication: Does the communicator prioritize honesty, transparency, and integrity in establishing and maintaining credibility?
Appeal to Shared Values: Identify any appeals to values and beliefs that the audience shares, fostering a sense of trust and alignment.
Context & Audience
Target Audience Perception: Is the audience likely to view the speaker as credible or biased?
Cultural & Social Factors: Do they adapt their ethos to fit the audience’s values and expectations?
Strong Ethos: A medical doctor discussing health issues with clear evidence and years of experience.
Weak Ethos: A celebrity endorsing a scientific claim without qualifications or supporting data.
Credibility Analysis (Ethos): UFO whistleblower Jacob Barber.
"Whistleblower reveals UAP retrieval program; object caught on video" - NewsNation (Evaluate crediblity of Jacob Barber)
Professional Credentials: A medical doctor writing an article on public health issues highlights their medical degree and years of experience in the healthcare field.
Personal Experience: A survivor of a natural disaster speaks about emergency preparedness, drawing on their own experiences to underscore their authority on the topic.
Moral Character: A well-known philanthropist discusses the importance of charity and giving back to the community, emphasizing their long history of charitable work.
Reputation: A respected journalist presents an investigative report on government corruption, relying on their established reputation for thorough and unbiased reporting.
Affiliation with Respected Institutions: A scientist affiliated with a prestigious university shares findings from a research study, using the institution's reputation to bolster their credibility.
Demonstration of Knowledge: An environmental activist cites specific statistics and scientific studies to demonstrate their deep understanding of climate change.
Ethical Stance: A politician advocating for government transparency highlights their consistent record of honesty and ethical behavior in public office.
Endorsements from Credible Sources: An author mentions endorsements and positive reviews from other respected figures in their field to establish credibility for their new book.
Professional Language & Tone: A lawyer presenting a case in court uses precise legal language and maintains a formal tone, reflecting their expertise and professionalism.
Evidence of Past Success: A business leader giving a keynote speech on entrepreneurship references their successful ventures and business achievements to gain the audience’s trust.
Ad Hominem: Attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself.
Example: “Of course that doctor advocates vaccination—he probably owns stock in a pharmaceutical company.”
False Authority: Relying on claims of expertise when the claimed expert (a) lacks adequate background/credentials in the relevant field, (b) departs in major ways from the consensus in the field, or (c) is biased, e.g., has a financial stake in the outcome.
Example: “Dr. X is an engineer, and he doesn’t believe in global warming.”
Guilt by Association: Linking the person making an argument to an unpopular person or group.
Example: “My opponent is a card-carrying member of the ACLU.”
Poisoning the Well: Undermining an opponent’s credibility before he or she gets a chance to speak.
Example: “The prosecution is going to bring up a series or so-called experts who are getting a lot of money to testify here today.”
Transfer Fallacy: Associating the argument with someone or something popular or respected; hoping that the positive associations will “rub off” onto the argument.
Examples: In politics, decorating a stage with red, white, and blue flags and bunting; in advertising, using pleasant or wholesome settings as the backdrop for print or video ads.
Name-Calling: Labeling an opponent with words that have negative connotations in an effort to undermine the opponent’s credibility.
Example: “These rabble-rousers are nothing but feminazis.”
Plain Folk: Presenting yourself as (or associating your position with) ordinary people with whom you hope your audience will identify; arguers imply that they or their supporters are trustworthy because they are ‘common people’ rather than members of the elite.
Example: “Who would you vote for—someone raised in a working-class neighborhood who has the support of Joe the Plumber or some elitist whose daddy sent him to a fancy school?”
Testimonial Fallacy: Inserting an endorsement of the argument by someone who is popular or respected but who lacks expertise or authority in the area under discussion.
Example: “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV”—a famous example of a celebrity endorsement for a cough syrup (Deis, 2011, n.p.).
How to Evaluate Trustworthiness in Science:
"How to Evaluate Trustworthiness in Science" - National Institutes of Health