Justice theories distinguish between fair procedures and fair or favorable outcomes. However, it is not clear whether people can separate judgments about procedures from knowledge of the outcomes of those procedures. In two experiments which address that question, respondents evaluate the fairness of decision-making procedures. In one case those evaluations occur prior to knowing the outcome of the procedure, while in the other the outcome is known before the procedural evaluation. Two hypotheses about outcome influence are tested: that knowing the outcome changes the meaning of procedural fairness and that knowing the outcome changes the weight given to procedural fairness. Findings of both studies suggest that prior knowledge about the outcome does not change the way people define the meaning of the fairness of a procedure. However, people place less weight on their judgments about procedural fairness when evaluating the decision maker if they make those judgments already knowing the outcome of the procedure. Tables, references