Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Ad Hominem

  • Alejandro TamezEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2192-1



Ad hominem is an informal fallacy whereby an interlocutor, often on the losing side of a debate or argument, resorts to character-based attacks directed at their opponent without any reference to the content or substance of her argument.


Making arguments and convincing others of a proposal is an essential part of human social and political life. Without engaging in arguments and the proposing of solutions, human beings would either be constantly warring with one another (why worry about convincing others when force works just as well) or forced to develop a wide range of skills. Both of these tasks, arguably, are considerably more time consuming than convincing others through well-developed and well-articulated arguments. But arguments are not always perfect, nor are we always in a position to adequately assess them. In such circumstances, arguers and assessors often employ extra-argumentative tactics...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Jason, G. (2011). Does virtue epistemology provide a better account of the ad hominem argument? A reply to Christopher Johnson. Philosophy, 86(1), 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Johnson, C. (2009). Reconsidering the ad hominem. Philosophy, 84(2), 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Jolls, C., Sunstein, C., & Thaler, R. (1998). A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review, 50(5), 1471–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Putman, D. (2010). Discussion: Equivocating the ad hominem. Philosophy, 85(334), 551–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Van Eemeren, F., Meuffels, B., & Verburg, M. (2000). The (un)reasonableness of ad hominem fallacies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19(4), 416–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Yap, A. (2013). Ad hominem fallacies, Bias, and testimony. Argumentation, 27(2), 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KansasLawrenceUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Karin Machluf
    • 1
  1. 1.Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA