This study investigated whether, and under what conditions, self‐control demands (SCD) are associated with less interpersonal justice (politeness or respect) and more interpersonal injustice (degrading or inappropriate remarks) behavior. Drawing from extended self‐control theory and integrating the motivation literature, we posit that (1) SCD have a stronger effect on actors' attempts not to be unfair than on their attempts to be fair because avoidance behavior is more demanding than approach behavior. Further, extended self‐control theory posits that people control themselves more effectively when they are personally motivated and external standards are present. Accordingly, we further posit that (2) emphasizing self‐transcendence values (i.e., the stable motivational goal to consider others' welfare) and (3) acting in strong situations (i.e., the presence of external normative standards on appropriate behavior) buffer the SCD effect. Results from two realistic simulation studies show that SCD were related to actors' interpersonal justice and injustice behavior. Across both studies, different results patterns, and relationships with the other variables for justice and injustice emerged. Thus, although the stronger effect of SCD on injustice (vs. justice) was not generally supported, the finding suggests that adhering to and not violating interpersonal justice rules are indeed different from one another. In addition, SCD were less detrimental among actors with higher self‐transcendence values and when actors operated in strong (vs. weak) contexts. A three‐way interaction showed that especially among actors with low self‐transcendence values, who act in weak contexts, SCD provoked injustice. We discuss theoretical and practical implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]