Contemporary justice theorists assume that a meaningful assessment of fairness in interpersonal encounters requires assessments of the outcome (the end result) as well as the procedure (the means) by which the outcome was accomplished. This study investigated the relative impact of four variables on the subjective importance of the outcome and procedure for total fairness evaluations, using a 2x2x2x2 factorial survey design: Type of offense (physical abuse vs. theft) x Severity of offense (moderate vs. serious) x Social relationship (particularistic vs. universalistic) x Status of the perpetrator relative to the victim (equal vs. superior). Results suggest that the outcome is considered more important than the procedure for fairness judgments of both offenses, regardless of their severity, relative status of the offender, and the social relationship within which the offense was committed. Furthermore, both outcome and procedure were viewed as more important when assessing the fairness of physical abuse as compared to theft. For the physical abuse offense, this was more likely to be the case when the status of the offender was superior to the status of the victim.