**Results and Analyses** -------------------- **Participants** We recruited participants (N = 100, males = 24, females = 76, M age = 19.76 years, SD = 1.65) from an undergraduate participant pool at Loyola University Maryland. The participants were enrolled in undergraduate psychology courses and participated in the study for course credit. Participants (n = 1) were excluded from the final analysis because they did not follow the instructions (n = 1), did not meet the meet the specified inclusion criteria for first-spoken language (n = 0), and age (18-30 years). 31 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. The final sample comprised 32 participants in the hard letter ‘e’ (ego-depletion) condition and 36 participants in the easy letter ‘e’ (control) condition. Theresa Tokar, Caitlin Romano, Kaitlin Cassidy, Miriam McKiney, and Emily Devaney served as the experimenters, and were blind to condition assignment. For these experimenters, blinding was checked at the end of their running by having them fill out a form that asked them if they “knew what this experiment is studying,” and if so I they were asked to describe what they believed the experiment was studying, as well as the hypothesis for the outcome of the study. Three of the experimenters indicated that they did not know what the experiment was studying, and one experimenter indicated that she did know what the experiment was studying, but her explanation was incorrect. Our procedures followed the approved protocol and did not deviate from our preregistered plan, however, we were unable to meet our initial goal of recruiting an equal amount of participants from each gender. After the exclusion of all participants that did not meet criteria, only the data from 15 male participants was used and the remaining 53 participants were female. **Critical analyses** 1) Independent samples t-test comparing the ex-Gaussian fitted mean overall response time variability (RTV) for the incongruent items on the MSIT [note this is the ExGauss.I.RTVar.MSIT column in the output file] across the ego-depletion and control conditions. Ego-depletion: n = 32; M RTV= 0.33; SD = 0.06; SE = 0.01 Control: n = 36; M RTV = 0.30; SD = 0.06; SE = 0.01 t(66) = 2.09, p = .04, d = .50 2) Independent samples t-test comparing the mean overall response time (RT) for the incongruent items on the MSIT [note this is the I_1_MeanRT.MSIT column in the output file] across the ego-depletion and control conditions. Ego-depletion: n = 32; M RT= 0.99; SD = 0.16; SE = 0.03 Control: n = 36; M RT = 0.93; SD = 0.14; SE = 0.02 t(66) = 1.76, p = .083, d = .43 3) A series of independent samples t-tests comparing participants’ mean ratings of effort, fatigue, difficulty, and frustration across the ego-depletion and control conditions (with positive t’s indicating larger rating in the ego-depletion group). Ego-depletion: Effort, M = 5.50; SD = 1.24; SE = 0.22; Fatigue, M = 4.22; SD = 1.68; SE = 0.30; Difficulty, M = 4.72; SD = 1.33; SE = 0.23; Frustration, M = 4.00; SD = 1.72 SE = 0.31 Control: Effort, M = 3.83; SD = 1.63; SE = 0.27; Fatigue, M = 3.83; SD = 1.30; SE = 0.22; Difficulty, M = 1.86; SD = 0.68; SE = 0.11; Frustration, M = 2.06; SD = 1.37; SE = 0.23 t-tests: Effort (t(66) = 4.69, M difference = 1.67, p = .000,), Fatigue (t(66) = 1.07, M difference = 0.39, p = .291,), Difficulty (t(66) = 11.36, M difference = 2.86, p = .000,), and Frustration (t(1) = 5.17, M difference = 1.94, p = .000,). **Supplemental analyses** An independent samples t-test for differences in overall accuracy on the letter ‘e’ task [note this is the ‘Acc.Overall.LetE’ column in the output file] across the hard (ego-depletion) and easy (control) conditions: Ego-depletion: n = 32; M accuracy = 1.00; SD = 0.01; SE = 0.00 Control: n = 36; M accuracy = 0.93; SD = 0.01; SE = 0.01 F(1, 66) = 52.96, p = .000, d = 7.00