The third-party intervention is the best representation to the altruistic behavior of the human beings. Fairness perception and emotional experience are two important processes in the third-party punishment. Previous studies have shown that individual fairness perception was modulated by social distance. However, how social distance influences third-party intervention is still unknown. In order to address this issue, two experiments were conducted. In experiemt1, we use two versions of scenario to describe an unfair behavior committed by participant’s friend or a stranger. Then participants were asked to make the intervention to the unfair behavior. In experiemt2, laboratory Dictator Game (DG) was adopted to probe the impact of social distance on the third-party intervention. Participants were told that they will play a social game with two others (his/her friend and a stranger, or two strangers) in the adjacent separate cubicles. All participants were assigned to the observer (“Person C”) by a pseudo-random allocation of computer, and his/her friend (or a stranger) was assigned to the dictator (“Person A”), and the others pretended by experiment assistants were the powerless (“Person B”). In each trial, the dictator will split 100 chips between himself/herself and the powerless. After informed the allocation between dictator and powerless, participants as an observer were asked to evaluate the fairness of the allocation (1=not at all, 9=very much), and make a decision to punish the dictator or compensate the powerless. For each chip used to punish or compensate, dictator would suffer 3 chips losses or “Person B” would get 3 chips gains. Participants were told that the chips they kept eventually were associated with their extra participant payment. Finally, the participants were told to evaluate the feeling of the allocation, such as anger, disappointment, hate and guilty (1=not at all, 9=very much). The results of two experiments indicated that: (1) Social distance influences the third-party punishment. For unfair allocations, the third-party punishment to friend is significantly lighter than the stranger. However, the third-party compensation has no significant difference between friend and stranger situation. (2) Social distance influences the fairness perception process of third-party intervention. Friend’s unfair allocations were perceived more fair than stranger’s. However, social distance has on significant influence on emotional experience by unfair allocations. In conclusion, the third-party is unwilling to punish the dictator who is close to him/her than a stranger. This altering in behavior maybe the result of that their fairness perception process is influenced by social distance. The results of this study have important theoretical significance in revealing how social distance influence third-party intervention.