Abstract

Previous research in argumentation has closely examined distortions of the opposition—particularly the straw man—and has recently provided some experimental evidence on their effects on persuasive outcomes. However, comparatively little empirical attention has been given to the inverse practice of faithfully reformulating an opponent’s contribution. The effects of accurate and inaccurate representations on speaker ethos and perceived reasonableness also remain underexplored. This paper addresses these gaps through three pre-registered experimental studies comparing accurate reformulation, misrepresentation, and no reformulation of the opposition. Experiment 1 assesses the impact of these practices on perceived trustworthiness using a six-item, 7-point semantic differential scale. Experiment 2 examines judgments of reasonableness using a scale repeatedly employed in pragma-dialectical effectiveness research. Experiment 3 measures persuasiveness at both the attitudinal and behavioral intention levels. Participants read a series of pre-tested argumentative exchanges between two speakers in a charitable-giving context. Results show that, in the cases examined, misrepresenting the opposition negatively impacted both trustworthiness and reasonableness judgments, addressing concerns that adhering to dialectical standards may diminish rhetorical success.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2026-03-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-026-09692-5
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (5)

  1. Argumentation
  2. Argumentation
  3. Argumentation
  4. Argumentation
  5. Argumentation
Also cites 39 works outside this index ↓
  1. Aikin, S., and J. Casey. 2016. Straw men, iron men, and argumentative virtue. Topoi 35: 431–440. https://doi.…
    Topoi  
  2. Straw Man Arguments
  3. Allen, M., J. Hale, P. Mongeau, S. Berkowitz-Stafford, S. Stafford, W. Shanahan, P. Agee, K. Dillon, R. Jacks…
    Communication Monographs  
  4. Applbaum, R.F., and K.W.E. Anatol. 1972. The factor structure of source credibility as a function of the spea…
    Speech Monographs  
  5. Aristotle. 1984. Complete works of aristotle: The revised Oxford translation, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton Univer…
  6. Barr, D.J., R. Levy, C. Scheepers, and H.J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis …
    Journal of Memory and Language  
  7. Bates, D., M. Mächler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker. 2015. Fitting linear Mixed-Effects models using lme4. Journa…
  8. Baudhuin, E.S., and M.K. Davis. 1972. Scales for the measurement of ethos: Another attempt. Speech Monographs…
    Speech Monographs  
  9. Bizer, G.Y., S.M. Kozak, and L.A. Holterman. 2009. The persuasiveness of the straw man rhetorical technique. …
    Social Influence  
  10. Caviola, L., S. Schubert, and J. Nemirow. 2020. The many obstacles to effective giving. Judgment and Decision…
    Judgment and Decision Making  
  11. Christensen, R. H. B. 2023. ordinal: Regression Models for Ordinal Data (Version 2023.12–4.1, p. 2023.12–4.1)…
  12. De Rijk, F. 2024. Principle of charity. In Migration: A philosophical toolkit, ed. M. Pauly. University of Gr…
  13. de Saussure, L. 2018. The Straw Man Fallacy as a Prestige-Gaining Device. In Argumentation and Language—Lingu…
  14. Fayant, M.-P., H. Sigall, A. Lemonnier, E. Retsin, and T. Alexopoulos. 2017. On the limitations of manipulati…
    International Review of Social Psychology  
  15. Govier, T. 1981. Uncharitable thoughts about charity. Informal Logic 4(1). https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v4i1.2761
  16. Hauser, D.J., P.C. Ellsworth, and R. Gonzalez. 2018. Are manipulation checks necessary? Frontiers in Psycholo…
    Frontiers in Psychology  
  17. Hoeken, H. 1994. Evaluating Persuasive Texts: The Problems of How and What to Measure. In Functional Communic…
  18. Dillard, J. P., J. E. Hunter, and M. Burgoon. 1984. Sequential-request persuasive strategies. Meta-analysis o…
  19. Katriel, T., and M. Dascal. 1989. Speaker’s commitment and involvement in discourse. In From sign to text: A …
  20. Lewiński, M., and S. Oswald. 2013. When and how do we deal with straw men? A normative and cognitive pragmati…
    Journal of Pragmatics  
  21. McCroskey, J.C. 1966. Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs 33 (1): 65–72. https://doi.org/1…
    Speech Monographs  
  22. O’Keefe, D.J. 1999. How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of the ef…
    Annals of the International Communication Association  
  23. O’Keefe, D. J. 2003. The Potential Conflict Between Normatively-Good Argumentative Practice and Persuasive Su…
  24. Persuasion: Theory and research
  25. O’Keefe, D.J., and H. Hoeken. 2021. Message design choices don’t make much difference to persuasiveness and c…
    Frontiers in Psychology  
  26. Petty, R.E., J.T. Cacioppo, and R. Goldman. 1981. Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based per…
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology  
  27. Rains, S.A., T.R. Levine, and R. Weber. 2018. Sixty years of quantitative communication research summarized: …
    Annals of the International Communication Association  
  28. Rapoport, A. 1961. Three modes of conflict. Management Science 7(3):210–218. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.7.3.210
    Management Science  
  29. Rubin, R.B. 2004. Source Credibility Scale—McCroskey. In Communication Research Measures: A Sourcebook, ed. R…
  30. Effective Altruism and the Human Mind: The Clash Between Impact and Intuition
  31. Schumann, J. 2022. Do people perceive the disagreement in straw man fallacies? An experimental investigation.…
    Languages  
  32. Schumann, J., S. Zufferey, and S. Oswald. 2019. What makes a straw man acceptable? Three experiments assessin…
    Journal of Pragmatics  
  33. Sperber, D., F. Clément, C. Heintz, O. Mascaro, H. Mercier, G. Origgi, and D. Wilson. 2010. Epistemic vigilan…
    Mind & Language  
  34. Tuppen, C.J.S. 1974. Dimensions of communicator credibility: An oblique solution. Speech Monographs 41 (3): 2…
    Speech Monographs  
  35. Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness
  36. Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation
  37. Weber, R., and L. Popova. 2012. Testing equivalence in communication research: Theory and application. Commun…
    Communication Methods and Measures  
  38. Yalch, R.F., and R. Elmore-Yalch. 1984. The effect of numbers on the route to persuasion. Journal of Consumer…
    Journal of Consumer Research  
  39. Younis, R. 2026. Data and materials: (Mis)representing the opposition and rhetorical Success. https://doi.org…