Study 2 ------- The protocol for the first study in this Registered Replication Report on the Verbal Overshadowing Effect included a potentially important discrepancy from the original procedure of Study 1 in Schooler & Engstler-Schooler (1990). Specifically, the order of the description task and the crossword puzzle filler task were reversed, meaning that there was a delay between the description phase and the recognition phase in the replication study but not in the original. That ordering mimicked Study 4 of the original paper, which showed a roughly comparable overshadowing effect to the original Study 1. But, some verbal overshadowing studies that included a delay between the description phase and the test phase showed a reduced overshadowing effect. This followup study is designed to verify the size of the verbal overshadowing effect using the original task ordering from Study 1 of Schooler & Engstler-Schooler (1990). It will allow an assessment of the verbal overshadowing effect with the original ordering of Study 1 and will also allow a comparison between studies to determine whether ordering affects the size of the verbal overshadowing effect. The protocol is identical to that of the first RRR study except that the order of the description task and crossword puzzle filler task are reversed. Participants first view the bank robbery video. They then compete the 20-minute crossword puzzle filler task. Next they either describe the bank robber (experimental condition) or name countries and capitals (control condition). Finally, they complete the recognition task. Other than this change in ordering, the protocol for the followup study is identical to that of the first study. **Results** Figures and Tables can be seen and uploaded in files. **Final Sample** The participants were 137 first and second year psychology undergraduates (43 men, 94 women, M age = 20.43, SD = 3.992) at the University of Otago, who volunteered for a study on “memory and perception.” One hundred and thirty-one of these students took part during the school term, in exchange for course credit; the remainder were remunerated NZ$15 as reimbursement for travel expenses. All participants reported normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Thirty-seven participants were excluded due to race. One hundred reported their race as “European” (i.e., Caucasian). Per our registered experimental protocol, the analyses below are based only on these participants, though all data are available online. Of the 100 Europeans, 70 were female and 30 were male. All of the Europeans were native English speakers. **Results: Verbalization versus Control** A chi-square test, comparing the proportion of correct identifications from the lineup between the experimental and control conditions was not significant, X2 (1, *N* = 100) = 1.46, p = 0.23. Participants in the control group correctly identified the robber from the lineup more frequently than participants in the verbalization group, consistent in direction with Schooler & Engstler-Schooler’s (1990) findings. A chi-square test comparing the proportion of misidentifications (i.e., selection of an innocent person from the lineup) relative to misses (deciding that the perpetrator was not in the lineup) was significant, X2 (1, *N* = 44) = 11.21, p = 0.001. Verbalizers’ errors were primarily misses (72%), whereas controls’ errors were primarily misidentifications (78.9%), in contrast to Schooler and Engstler-Schooler (1990), who found no significant difference in error type. A 2 (condition) X 2 (answer type: correct vs. incorrect) ANOVA on confidence ratings revealed a significant main effect of answer type, F (3, 100) = 6.23, p = .001. Participants who correctly identified the robber from the lineup reported being more confident in their selection than those who erred (Control M = 5.29;Verbalization M = 5.09). There was no main effect of condition, nor an interaction (both Fs<1), consistent with Schooler and Engstler-Schooler’s (1990) findings.