Results and Analyses -------------------- Participants We recruited participants (N = 130, males = 40, females = 90, M age = 18.91 years, SD = 0.83) from an undergraduate participant pool at Texas A&M University. The participants were enrolled in Introduction to Psychology and participated in the study for course credit. Fifty-four participants were excluded because their performance on the letter ‘e’ task and MSIT fell below 80% accuracy or had mean reaction time or mean reaction time variability values that fell outside two standard deviations of the sample mean on the MSIT. Two participants were excluded due to experimenter error and one participant was excluded due to computer error. The final sample comprised 34 participants in the hard letter ‘e’ (ego-depletion) condition and 39 participants in the easy letter ‘e’ (control) condition. Josh Cook, Adrienne Crowell, Anna Finley, Yvette Ibarra, and Laney Rowe served as the experimenters, and were not blind to condition assignment. We deviated from our preregistered plan in the following way: experimenters did not run two participants through the practice trials and were excluded from analyses (see above). Critical analyses 1) Independent samples t-test comparing the ex-Gaussian fitted mean overall response time variability (RTV) for the MSIT across the ego-depletion and control conditions. Ego-depletion: n = 34; M RTV= 0.32; SD = 0.06; SE = 0.01 Control: n = 39; M RTV = 0.29; SD = 0.06; SE = 0.01 t(71) = 1.71, p = .092, d = .50 2) Independent samples t-test comparing the mean overall response time (RT) for the MSIT across the ego-depletion and control conditions. Ego-depletion: n = 34; M RT= 0.96; SD = 0.14; SE = 0.03 Control: n = 39; M RT = 0.96; SD = 0.13; SE = 0.02 t(71) = 0.08, p = .937, d = .02 3) A series of independent samples t-tests comparing participants’ mean ratings of effort, fatigue, and difficulty across the ego-depletion and control conditions (with positive t’s indicating larger rating in the ego-depletion group). Ego-depletion: Effort, M = 5.56; SD = 0.96; SE = 0.16; Fatigue, M = 3.10; SD = 1.52; SE = 0.26; Difficulty, M = 4.15; SD = 1.21; SE = 0.21; Frustration, M = 3.74; SD = 1.60; SE = 0.28 Control: Effort, M = 4.26; SD = 1.71; SE = 0.27; Fatigue, M = 3.36; SD = 1.83; SE = 0.29; Difficulty, M = 1.49; SD = 0.64; SE = 0.10; Frustration, M = 1.92; SD = 1.20; SE = 0.19 t-tests: Effort (t(71) = 3.93, M difference = 1.30, p < .001), Fatigue (t(71) = 0.65, M difference = 0.26, p = .521), Difficulty (t(71) = 11.94, M difference = 2.66, p < .001), and Frustration (t(71) = 5.51, M difference = 1.81, p < .001). Supplemental analyses An independent samples t-test for differences in overall accuracy on the letter ‘e’ task across the hard (ego-depletion) and easy (control) conditions: Ego-depletion: n = 34; M accuracy = 0.94; SD = 0.04; SE = 0.01 Control: n = 39; M accuracy = 1.00; SD = 0.01; SE = 0.00 t(71) = 8.67, p = .000, d = 1.96 Data Raw data files and data files processed by BDEC Analysis Package Developed at Chandra Sripada's (sripada@umich.edu) lab at University of Michigan Dept of Psychiatry and coded by Daniel Kessler (kesslerd@umich.edu) are uploaded to this section. Our SPSS file including questionnaire, letter E and MSIT data are also uploaded here.