When confronted with unfair contributions in an argumentative discourse, participants evaluate these contributions negatively and show emotional and verbal reactions. These reactions may be crucial for further discourse and may depend on cognitive evaluation. In order to investigate the relationship between cognitive, emotional and verbal responses to unfair contributions, such contributions were embedded in argumentational episodes and presented to participants in written, auditory or role play modality. The application of a path model relating indicators of cognitive, emotional and verbal reactions, demonstrated that the intensity of emotional reactions depends on evaluative cognitions (severity of the rule violation and the offender’s perceived awareness), whereas verbal confrontativeness merely depends on the offender’s perceived awareness. The results are discussed with respect to methodological and theoretical issues.