Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science pp 1–3Cite as

Ad Hominem

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

  • 176 Accesses

Synonyms

Tu Quoque, argumentum ad hominem, character attack

Definition

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.

Introduction

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 via an institution.

References

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. (2009). Reconsidering the ad hominem. Philosophy, 84(2), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolls, C., Sunstein, C., & Thaler, R. (1998). A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review, 50(5), 1471–1550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putman, D. (2010). Discussion: Equivocating the ad hominem. Philosophy, 85(334), 551–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yap, A. (2013). Ad hominem fallacies, Bias, and testimony. Argumentation, 27(2), 97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

    Alejandro Tamez

Authors
  1. Alejandro Tamez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alejandro Tamez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

    Todd K. Shackelford

  2. Rochester, MI, USA

    Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Section Editor information

  1. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Karin Machluf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Tamez, A. (2019). Ad Hominem. In: Shackelford, T., Weekes-Shackelford, V. (eds) Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2192-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2192-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16999-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16999-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation