We are undergraduate students at Brigham Young University-Idaho in Rexburg, Idaho. We conducted a replication study of "The Empirical Case for Acquiescing to Intuition" (2017) by Walco & Risen under the direction of Dr. Bradford Wiggins. We replicated a Monty Hall version of study 1. Walco and Risen's study 1 was conducted to empirically measure acquiescence. While it would seem that people would pick the rational choice when presented with it, there is more to the decision. Walco and Risen argue that even when presented with the rational choice, people will often still choose intuition. Previous theories on System 1 and System 2 suggest that people will correct their intuitive nature, but Walco and Risen believed otherwise. According to Kahneman and Frederick's corrective dual-process model, System 1 is a person's first intuitive judgment, and System 2 checks the judgment of system 1 to see if it is correct. If System 1 is correct, then System 2 will do nothing. If System 1 is *incorrect*, system 2 will try to correct it. Prior to conducting the experiments, Walco and Risen defined three criterion they would look for as evidence that someone had acquiesced, meaning if they had rationally known what decision would be better, but went with their intuition instead. - Criterion 1: The individual has a faulty intuition that something is more likely to happen given a certain behavior or state of the world. - Criterion 2: The individual is aware that the intuition is irrational. - Criterion 3: The individual is guided by his or her intuition, knowing it as irrational. Walco and Risen selected participants through Amazon Mechanical Turk. There were two different conditions and each participant was randomly assigned to one of them. For the experimental condition the participants were shown a standard ratio-bias paradigm. They could either choose a lottery that had a smaller chance of winning and a higher absolute number of winners; or a lottery that had a higher chance of winning, but a smaller absolute number of winners. They were shown a picture of their choices and the percentages they had of winning for each problem. The participants in the experimental group were also shown the percentage of winning for each of the choices, but the options in this condition were made to attenuate the appeal of tray A. Before making a decision, they were presented with a description about making decisions and intuitions. They were then asked two questions. To test the first criterion, participants in the experimental condition group were asked which tray they would be more likely to choose based on their intuition. To test the second criterion, the participants were asked which tray they would choose based on just reasoning. The participants were then asked to pick a tray to play in the lottery. After completing the questions, the participants answered three questions that asked about the tendency people have to think with their intuition, as well as rationality. At the survey conclusion participants provided their basic demographic information and were asked if they thought the lottery was fair or not. We conducted a replication of study 1 using the Monty Hall problem, instead of using trays of differently colored marbles. Participants were shown the Monty Hall problem and asked to select the door with a car behind it, while two other doors each had a goat behind them instead of a car. All 201 participants came from introductory psychology classes at Brigham Young University-Idaho. Students received class credit for participating in the survey at the discretion of their professor. Participants completed an online survey through Qualtrics that included the Monty Hall problem, as well as questions regarding their thinking and reasoning. Once the participants finished the survey, they had the chance to enter in a drawing to receive a \$25 Amazon gift card. The interested participants entered their first and last name and email address to be included in the drawing, though their survey results were still kept anonymous. This option of choosing to enter the drawing is not part of the original study 1 by Walco & Risen.