The effects of six components relevant in the evaluation of integrity violations were tested within a completely crossed six-factor design. The following components were included in the analysis: severity of an argumentative rule violation (high vs. low), degree of subjective awareness in committing a rule violation (intentional, by negligence, unknowingly), presence versus absence of excuses and corrections, frequent versus infrequent rule violations, far-reaching positive versus far-reaching negative intentions, and high versus low subject matter and argumentative competence of the speaker. The data were analyzed by using a logistic regression approach and by the configuration-frequency analysis. All hypotheses were largely confirmed (N = 317): Severe rule violations, negative far-reaching intentions of the speaker, high argumentative competence and subject matter knowledge of the speaker, no corrections and excuses by the speaker, and frequent rule violations lead with significant frequency to an unfairness verdict. Among all variables included in the analysis, severity of a rule violation proved to be the most powerful. In addition, specific predictor combinations, which lead to an unfairness verdict or a neutral evaluation with significant frequency, were identified.