We will collect 1500 participants drawn in a stratified way with unequal probabilities of selection, so that the people who complete each survey will resemble the nation's adult population (according to the most recently available Current Population Survey, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau) in terms of gender, age, education, ethnicity (Hispanic vs. not), race (allowing each respondent to select more than one race), region, and income. Participants will be randomly assigned to answer the social desirability scale in either a or slow or no time restiction condition. All participants will first be told: We are going to ask you 10 true or false questions on one page at a time. These statements are about your personal attitudes and characteristics. Please read each statement carefully and indicate whether it is true or false, that is, whether it applies to you or not. In the slow condition, participants will be told: Please continue reading **now**. The next screen will appear **very soon**. On the next 10 screens, you will need to **read and think for more than 11 seconds for each question before submitting your answer** in order to be eligible for payment. If you submit your decision in less than 11 seconds, **you may not get paid**. This screen will automatically move on after 15 seconds (again, following Isler et al., 2018). Participants in the no time restrictions condition will not be given any additional information. **Measure** Participants are then given the short 10-item social desirability scale (Vésteinsdóttir et al., 2017). These questions will be presented in complete random order with one question per page (see Table 1). Table 1: Items administered from the Short Social Desirability Scale. All questions answered either False/True. False was coded as 0 and True coded as 1 unless reversed scored (R). I have never intensely disliked anyone I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way (R) No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone (R) I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake I sometimes try to get even, rather than forgive and forget (R) There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things (R) There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others (R) I have never felt that I was punished without cause I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings The total score on the social desirability scale was the dependent variable. In a pilot study we tested and showed that whether the response options were False-True (False on the left side of the screen) or True-False (True on the left side of the screen) showed no main effect or interaction with the speeded effect. Thus, we will keep the response options as False-True. We thus test whether asking participants to answer slowly or with no instructions cause no change in socially desirable responding. Our analysis will be a 1-way ANOVA with 10,000 bootstrap resamples to take into account any possible non-normalities in the data. Finally, there has been discussion about compliance in speeded judgment literature (see for example Rand, 2017). The most conservative and unbiased approach to compliance in experimental trials is the Intention-To-Treat analysis (ITT) which simply ignores compliance and analyzes the data as participants were randomized. The benefit of this approach is that it preserves randomization across conditions; dropping participants based on non-compliance breaks randomization and negates the strong ability to infer causality from random assignment (see Gelman & Hill, 2006). Thus, we only pursue an ITT analysis. We predict that there will be no changes between slow versus no time restriction conditions. **References** Gelman, A. & Hill, J. (2006). Data Analysis Using Regression and Hierarchical/Multilevel Models. New York: Cambridge University Press. Isler, O., Maule, J., & Starmer, C. (2018). Is intuition really cooperative? Improved tests support the social heuristics hypothesis. PloS one, 13(1), e0190560. Rand, D. G. (2017). Reflections on the time-pressure cooperation registered replication report. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(3), 543-547. Vésteinsdóttir, V., Reips, U. D., Joinson, A., & Thorsdottir, F. (2017). An item level evaluation of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale using item response theory on Icelandic Internet panel data and cognitive interviews. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 164-173.