**REPLICATION INFORMATION** **Overview of Preregistration** An independent study undergraduate psychology student Jordan McEvoy, with the support and supervision of Dr. Zoe Francis, at the University of the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford, British Columbia replicated the Feng, D’Mello, & Graesser (2013) study using a convenience sample of *N* = 70 undergraduate students from the University of the Fraser Valley (preregistered *N* = 80). Participants were recruited through SONA, an online university database for undergraduates which enables them to sign up for student research and gain credit in lower level psychology classes. Unlike the original study, our replication study was programmed so that participants could complete the study online (study was reprogrammed using jsPsych and is hosted on cognition.run). We conducted a direct replication and extension. The study first consisted of the Feng et al., 2013 experiment (reprogrammed using the same presentation of the passages/questions as the original), followed by three exploratory individual difference measures (lay theories of mind-wandering, lay theories of self-control, and chronotype). **Replication Procedure** *Note: More details are available in the Wiki of the Materials Component* We conducted an online direct replication. The study was programmed using jsPsych and was delivered via Cognition.run (all online). After providing informed consent, the participants of the study were presented with a definition of mind wandering to read prior to beginning the study. Participants were aware that they would be asked questions in regard to their comprehension of the sentences they read. Each sentence passage was presented to a participant one sentence at a time. Participants were not able to move backwards once they progressed to the next sentence or question. Throughout reading, participants were interrupted with a thought probe asking if they experienced mind wandering. Comprehension questions were presented following the completion of each series of sentences. The comprehension questions were all available on the screen one at a time, and participants selected the correct answer by clicking on the associated radio button. The data collected was analyzed, including the reading time for each passage. The answer to the prompt “Was your mind wandering on the prior page?” was recorded with a 0 corresponding to an answer of no, and a 1 corresponding to a yes. The accuracy of the response to the comprehension question was also measured, with a 0 corresponding to an incorrect answer, and a 1 corresponding to a correct answer. ***Extension following the Direct Replication*** After the completion of the procedure under replication, participants responded to the 'Lay Theories of Mind-Wandering' (Zedelius et al., 2020) and 'Lay Theories of Willpower' (Job et al., 2010) questionnaires and a 5-item measure of chronotype. Materials on these questionnaires are provided in this studies OSF 'Materials' section. We used these measures to conduct exploratory anaylses to see whether participants' lay theories or beliefs about either willpower or mind-wandering relate to their behaviour in the task. Recent research has shown that participants who believe that mindwandering is uncontrollable tend to mindwander more during in-lab reading tasks (Zedelius et al., 2020). We planned to test whether the belief that mindwandering is uncontrollable tend to mindwandering more during both easy and difficult passages, or whether beliefs in mindwandering as controllable predict rates mindwandering particularly for either difficult or easy passages. In other words, do mindwandering beliefs moderate the effect of passage difficulty on mindwandering rates? We also planned to investigate whether beliefs in willpower as limited (Job et al., 2012) moderate the effect of passage difficulty on rates of mindwandering. Limited willpower theorists tend to report more fatigue, particularly during demanding tasks, so they may be more likely to disengage from the difficult tasks and mindwander compared to non-limited theorists. This may result in limited willpower theorists mindwandering relatively more during the difficult passages, and non-limited willpower theorists mindwandering relatively more during the easy passages. Finally, we included a measure of chronotype. We explored whether participants who complete the study during their "off-time" (e.g., morning-type participants doing the study in the evening, or evening-type participants doing the study in the morning) tended to mindwander more than participants who complete the study during their preferred time (Carciofo et al., 2014). We also explored whether any chronotype effects interact with the passage difficulty (difficult/easy) to predict mindwandering. **SUMMARY NOTES** **Final Sample** We obtained a sample of 70 participants (female, 52; male, 17; and other, 1). The mean age was 20.91 (SD = 5.31). **Results** The main result of the present study was that mind-wandering differed by text difficulty, where people were more likely to mind-wander during difficult passages compared to during easy passages. Furthermore, the occurrence of mind wandering negatively affected participants reading comprehension scores. These two results replicated the findings from Feng et al., 2013. However, we did not replicate other findings reported in Feng et al., 2013. For instance, we did not find that the effect of mind-wandering on passage comprehension was moderated by task difficulty (no significant interaction). We also did not find any significant predictors of reading time. For instance, the mind-wandering did not predict time spent reading of text passages within this study. This may have been because reaction time was more highly varied (with more outliers) due to our replication occurring online instead of in a lab environment. All of the results in this study (both direct replications of the Feng analyses and exploratory analyses of our extension questions) are available in "Data and Results", in "Replication Results.pdf". **Unanticipated Changes to Preregistered Procedure** Due to a programing error, participants assigned to condition one did not receive a mind-wandering thought probe for question 4.2. Instead of Windsorizing outliers that were faster than the 1st percentile or slower than the 99th percentile in our own data, we used the same cut-off values that were used to determine outliers in Feng et al., (2013). Reaction times were considered outliers if they were faster than 395ms or slower than 24,640ms. Our treatment of outliers had not been previously stated in the preregistration. Although we had preregistered a sample size of 80 participants, only 70 participants completed the study over the course of the semester. The CREP Feng replication is finishing in December 2020, so we will not be continuing data collection into the next semester. **REFERENCES** Carciofo, R., Du, F., Song, N., & Zhang, K. (2014). Chronotype and time-of-day correlates of mind wandering and related phenomena. *Biological Rhythm Research, 45*, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/09291016.2013.790651 Feng, S., D'Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2013, June). Mind wandering while reading easy and difficult texts. *Psychonomic Bulletin and Review*, *20*, 586-592. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0367-y Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2010). Ego depletion - Is it all in your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect self-regulation. *Psychological Science*, *21*, 1686–1693. Zedelius, C. M., Protzko, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2020). Lay theories of the wandering mind: Control-related beliefs predict mind wandering rates in- and outside the lab. *Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin*. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220949408