A study on the influence of individual and group dynamics on students’ interpretation of logos and pathos

Abstract

Traditional approaches to rhetorical instruction often treat logos, ēthos, and pathos as distinct, independent categories, limiting students’ ability to recognize their interconnected nature. In practice, however, persuasive appeals rarely function in isolation; instead, they frequently overlap and reinforce one another in complex ways. Without opportunities to explore these interactions, students’ understanding of persuasion risks remaining superficial and fragmented, hindering their ability to analyze and construct nuanced arguments effectively. This study begins by examining the theoretical ambiguities in Aristotle’s Rhetoric concerning the integration of persuasive appeals, with a particular focus on how modern scholarship has debated whether emotional appeals (Pathos) can be embedded within enthymematic reasoning. Building on this foundation, the study challenges compartmentalized approaches to rhetorical education by examining how Japanese university students intuitively recognize the interplay between logos and pathos, particularly in collaborative learning settings. The findings from a classroom-based experiment reveal that students working individually were more likely to categorize and classify statements as either logos or pathos, whereas those participating in collaborative discussions were significantly more inclined to recognize the coexistence of multiple rhetorical appeals. These results suggest that peer interaction fosters deeper analytical engagement, enhances students’ ability to navigate rhetorical complexity, and refines and sharpens their interpretative reasoning—ultimately preparing them for more sophisticated engagement with persuasive discourse in real-world contexts.