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
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (59) · 5 in this index

  1. Argumentation
  2. Aikin, S., and J. Casey. 2013. Don’t feed the trolls: Straw men and iron men. Virtues of Argumentation. Proce…
  3. Aikin, S., and J. Casey. 2016. Straw men, iron men, and argumentative virtue. Topoi 35: 431–440. https://doi.…
    Topoi  
  4. Straw Man Arguments
  5. Allen, M., J. Hale, P. Mongeau, S. Berkowitz-Stafford, S. Stafford, W. Shanahan, P. Agee, K. Dillon, R. Jacks…
    Communication Monographs  
Show all 59 →
  1. Applbaum, R.F., and K.W.E. Anatol. 1972. The factor structure of source credibility as a function of the spea…
    Speech Monographs  
  2. Aristotle. 1984. Complete works of aristotle: The revised Oxford translation, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton Univer…
  3. Aronson, E., and J.M. Carlsmith. 1968. Experimentation in social psychology. In The Handbook of Social Psycho…
  4. Barr, D.J., R. Levy, C. Scheepers, and H.J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis …
    Journal of Memory and Language  
  5. Bates, D., M. Mächler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker. 2015. Fitting linear Mixed-Effects models using lme4. Journa…
  6. Baudhuin, E.S., and M.K. Davis. 1972. Scales for the measurement of ethos: Another attempt. Speech Monographs…
    Speech Monographs  
  7. Bizer, G.Y., S.M. Kozak, and L.A. Holterman. 2009. The persuasiveness of the straw man rhetorical technique. …
    Social Influence  
  8. Caviola, L., S. Schubert, and J. Nemirow. 2020. The many obstacles to effective giving. Judgment and Decision…
    Judgment and Decision Making  
  9. Christensen, R. H. B. 2023. ordinal: Regression Models for Ordinal Data (Version 2023.12–4.1, p. 2023.12–4.1)…
  10. Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking
  11. De Rijk, F. 2024. Principle of charity. In Migration: A philosophical toolkit, ed. M. Pauly. University of Gr…
  12. de Saussure, L. 2018. The Straw Man Fallacy as a Prestige-Gaining Device. In Argumentation and Language—Lingu…
  13. Fayant, M.-P., H. Sigall, A. Lemonnier, E. Retsin, and T. Alexopoulos. 2017. On the limitations of manipulati…
    International Review of Social Psychology  
  14. Govier, T. 1981. Uncharitable thoughts about charity. Informal Logic 4(1). https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v4i1.2761
  15. Hauser, D.J., P.C. Ellsworth, and R. Gonzalez. 2018. Are manipulation checks necessary? Frontiers in Psycholo…
    Frontiers in Psychology  
  16. Hoeken, H. 1994. Evaluating Persuasive Texts: The Problems of How and What to Measure. In Functional Communic…
  17. Jackson, S. 1992. Virtual standpoints and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In F. H. van Eemeren & J…
  18. Jackson, S., and M. Allen. 1987. Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of one-sided and two-sided argumentation.…
  19. Dillard, J. P., J. E. Hunter, and M. Burgoon. 1984. Sequential-request persuasive strategies. Meta-analysis o…
  20. Katriel, T., and M. Dascal. 1989. Speaker’s commitment and involvement in discourse. In From sign to text: A …
  21. Argumentation
  22. Lewiński, M., and S. Oswald. 2013. When and how do we deal with straw men? A normative and cognitive pragmati…
    Journal of Pragmatics  
  23. Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference
  24. McCroskey, J.C. 1966. Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs 33 (1): 65–72. https://doi.org/1…
    Speech Monographs  
  25. 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  
  26. O’Keefe, D. J. 2003. The Potential Conflict Between Normatively-Good Argumentative Practice and Persuasive Su…
  27. O’Keefe, D.J. 2006. Pragma-dialectics and persuasion effects research. In Considering Pragma-Dialectics: A Fe…
  28. Persuasion: Theory and research
  29. O’Keefe, D.J., and H. Hoeken. 2021. Message design choices don’t make much difference to persuasiveness and c…
    Frontiers in Psychology  
  30. Oswald, S. 2016. Commitment attribution and the reconstruction of arguments. In The psychology of argument: C…
  31. Oswald, S., and M. Lewiński. 2014. Pragmatics, cognitive heuristics and the straw man fallacy. In Rhetoric & …
  32. 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  
  33. Argumentation
  34. Rains, S.A., T.R. Levine, and R. Weber. 2018. Sixty years of quantitative communication research summarized: …
    Annals of the International Communication Association  
  35. Fights, Games, and Debates
  36. Rapoport, A. 1961. Three modes of conflict. Management Science 7(3):210–218. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.7.3.210
    Management Science  
  37. R Core Team. 2024. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Computer software]. https://www.R…
  38. Rubin, R.B. 2004. Source Credibility Scale—McCroskey. In Communication Research Measures: A Sourcebook, ed. R…
  39. Effective Altruism and the Human Mind: The Clash Between Impact and Intuition
  40. Schumann, J. 2022. Do people perceive the disagreement in straw man fallacies? An experimental investigation.…
    Languages  
  41. Schumann, J., S. Zufferey, and S. Oswald. 2019. What makes a straw man acceptable? Three experiments assessin…
    Journal of Pragmatics  
  42. Argumentation
  43. Relevance: Communication and cognition
  44. Sperber, D., F. Clément, C. Heintz, O. Mascaro, H. Mercier, G. Origgi, and D. Wilson. 2010. Epistemic vigilan…
    Mind & Language  
  45. Tuppen, C.J.S. 1974. Dimensions of communicator credibility: An oblique solution. Speech Monographs 41 (3): 2…
    Speech Monographs  
  46. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 1999. Delivering the Goods in Critical Discussion. In Proceedings of th…
  47. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach
  48. Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness
  49. Argumentation
  50. Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation
  51. Walton, D. 1996. The straw man fallacy. In Logic and Argumentation, ed. J. van Benthem, F. van Eemeren, R. Gr…
  52. Weber, R., and L. Popova. 2012. Testing equivalence in communication research: Theory and application. Commun…
    Communication Methods and Measures  
  53. Yalch, R.F., and R. Elmore-Yalch. 1984. The effect of numbers on the route to persuasion. Journal of Consumer…
    Journal of Consumer Research  
  54. Younis, R. 2026. Data and materials: (Mis)representing the opposition and rhetorical Success. https://doi.org…