Deterrent-related research on criminal sanctions has identified that sanctions perceived as fair by citizens increases compliance with legal authority, while sanctions perceived as unfair reduce the legitimacy of, and thus compliance with, legal authority. This knowledge base has not yet included an analysis of individual differences in the origins of sanction perceptions. Indirect evidence suggests that individual differences, especially in personality factors, may affect how sanctions are interpreted. The current study borrows Gottfredson and Hirschi’s concept of self-control and analyzes how levels of self-control influence perceptions of sanction fairness. Also examined is the way in which sanction perceptions and low self-control condition the perceived anger over sanctions. The authors hypothesized that those with low self-control would be more likely to perceive sanctions as unfair and that anger is more likely to result from those with low self-control. Participants were 211 undergraduate students who completed questionnaires regarding 2 scenarios in which 1 character was singled out for punishment while other characters received no sanctions. Results of ordinary least squares regression analyses indicated that, consistent with the hypothesis, individuals with low-self control were more likely to perceive sanctions as unfair. Moreover, the perception of unfair sanctions coupled with low self-control led to perceived anger for the unfair sanction. These findings support the theoretical assertion that individual characteristics can condition key causal relationships, such as the relationship between perceived sanction unfairness and perceived anger. Future research should continue to probe for more information on sanctions and their unintended consequences. Tables, references