This study concerns decisionmaking by men who serve as third parties in disputes between two other individuals. A study was made of hearings at which a government official (O) attempted to judge the merits of a wage claim brought by a worker (C) against his former employer (D). O's attitudes before and after the hearing were assessed, and a content analysis was made of a script of the hearing process. O was the most active participant in the interaction. O developed more attitudinal structure about the case than he had had initially, and showed an increase in the degree of his evaluative differentiation between the contending parties. Unexpectedly, the consistency of O's attitudes about each party decreased somewhat in cases where he announced a decision. A striking pattern of evidence occurred concerning the special relation that usually developed between O and the “loser” of the case (the party less preferred by O at the end.) He reacted more negatively to the loser than he did positively to the winner. It was suggested that a postdecision contention between O and the loser was triggered by O's revelation of his judgment and that the subsequent interchange resulted in O's having a clear and negative view of the loser at the conclusion of the hearing.