In this study, the conditions of the evaluation of and reaction to unfair argumentative contributions are investigated. Based on the construct of argumentational integrity, the theoretical conceptualization of the unfairness evaluation differentiates between the severity of a rule violation and the degree of subjective awareness, also taking into account aggravating and mitigating context factors. The impact of these factors is tested by a logistic regression approach (N = 597) applying two different argumentational episodes. The severity of a rule violation shows the greatest influence on the evaluation, followed by the speaker's knowledge of the subject matter and his/her argumentative competence, and the frequency of the rule violation; these results hold for both episodes. The degree of awareness is only relevant if it is subjectively perceived. Apart from these main effects, special predictor patterns are identified, permitting the prediction of an unfairness verdict. With regard to the reactions to unfair contributions, the unfairness verdict was of greater importance than the effect of the argumentational episode and the interaction of unfairness verdict and episode.