Results and Analyses
--------------------
**Data**
We include two data files here. One is the original data file as downloaded from Qualtrics, the other is the cleaned data file used for the analyses (see data preparation).
--------------------
**Sample**
We collected data from 196 participants (66.33% women, 32.65% men, 1.02% sex not identified, *M*<sub>age</sub> = 20.20, *SD*<sub>age</sub> = 3.54), 99 in the time pressure condition, and 97 in the forced delay condition.
----------
**Data Preparation**
To prepare the data for analyses, we identified and removed empty entries in the data file produced through no-shows and launch failures. We additionally removed entries from 5 participants who did not move the slider in the PGG, resulting in recorded decision.
Due to the exclusion of students who are not native speakers of German (n = 18), students younger than 18 (n = 5) or older than 35 (n = 2) and students of economics and psychology (n = 12) our total sample for the analysis consisted of 154 participants (65.58% women, 33.12% men, 1.30% sex not identified, *M*<sub>age</sub> = 19.86, *SD*<sub>age</sub> = 2.22), 79 in the time pressure condition, and 75 in the forced delay condition. Data from 2 participants in the forced delay condition were not included in the analysis due to a coding error that removed their age from the data file. The missing information was only recovered after the data for the RRR had been finalized. Their data are provided on OSF. In total, 42 participants were excluded from the analyses (note here that 2 participants fulfilled multiple exclusion criteria).
----------
**Main Analysis**
First we compared contribution levels between the time pressure (TP) and forced delay (FD) conditions, where a t-Test revealed no significant difference (*M*<sub>TP</sub> = 74.02, *M*<sub>FD</sub> = 65.08, *t*(154) = 1.54, *p* = 0.13).
----------
**Additional Analyses with Exclusions**
When excluding experienced participants, the difference between contribution levels remains non-significant (*M*<sub>TP</sub> = 75.63, *M*<sub>FD</sub> = 65.72, *t*(102) = 1.43, *p* = 0.15). When excluding non-compliant participants, contributions were significantly higher in the TP condition than in the FD condition (*M*<sub>TP</sub> = 93.30, *M*<sub>FD</sub> = 61.03, *t*(96) = 4.13, *p* < 0.001). When excluding participants who failed to comprehend the task, the difference in contributions remained non-significant (*M*<sub>TP</sub> = 74.16, *M*<sub>FD</sub> = 68.19, *t*(113) = 0.86, *p* = 0.39). When running the analysis while using all three exclusion criteria, contributions were marginally higher in the TP condition (*M*<sub>TP</sub> = 89.13, *M*<sub>FD</sub> = 68.02, *t*(46) = 1.86, *p* = 0.07).
