Results and Analyses -------------------- Participants (N = 200, males = 100, females = 100, *M* age = 20.62 years, SD = 1.09) were undergraduate students at Gadjah Mada University participating for payment of US$5. Two participants were excluded from the final analysis due to noncompliance with instructions. A further 42 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 (N = 156, males = 63, females = 73, *M* age = 20.63 years, SD = 1.094) comprised 82 participants in the hard letter ‘e’ (ego-depletion) condition and 74 participants in the easy letter ‘e’ (control) condition. Four research assistants (Anggra Nur Cahyo, Hanif Isnanto, Nur Afifah, Poppy Nenta Benitha, and Wulan Jatmika) served as the experimenters, and were blinded to condition assignment. Blinding was checked at the end of their running by asking them about the research hypotheses. Our procedures followed the approved protocol and did not deviate from our preregistered plan. Critical analyses 1) Independent samples t-test comparing the ex-Gaussian fitted mean overall response time variability (RTV)for the incongruent items on the MSITacross the ego-depletion and control conditions. Ego-depletion: n = 82; *M* RTV= 0.286; SD = 0.076; SE = 0.008 Control: n = 74; *M* RTV = 0.272; SD = 0.059; SE = 0.006 *t*(150.346) = 1.326, *p* = 0.187, *d* = 0.205 2) Independent samples t-test comparing the mean overall response time (RT) for the incongruent items on the MSITacross the ego-depletion and control conditions. Ego-depletion: n = 82; M RT= 0.908; SD = 0.132; SE = 0.014 Control: n = 74; *M* RT = 0.889; SD = 0.133; SE = 0.015 *t*(154) = 0.887, *p* = .377,*d* = 0.143 3) A series of independent samples t-tests comparing participants’ meanratings 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* = 4.841; SD = 1.535; SE = 0.169; Fatigue, *M* = 2.890; SD = 1.369; SE = 0.151; Difficulty, M = 3.390; SD = 1.173; SE = 0.129; Frustration, *M* = 2.158; SD = 1.251; SE = 0.138 Control: Effort, *M* = 3.662; SD = 1.581; SE = 0.183; Fatigue, *M* = 2.824; SD = 1.296; SE = 0.150; Difficulty, *M* = 2.364; SD = 1.141; SE = 0.132; Frustration, *M* = 2.027; SD = 1.216; SE = 0.141 *t*-tests: Effort (t(1) = 4.723, *M* difference = 1.179,p = .0001, *d* = 0.756), Fatigue (*t*(1) = 0.308, *M* difference = 0.065, *p* = .759, d = 0.049), Difficulty (t(1) = 5.52, M difference = 1.025, *p* = .0001,*d* = .886), and Frustration (*t*(1) = 0.664, *M* difference = 0.131, *p* = .508, *d* = 0.106). 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 = 82; *M* accuracy = 0.958; SD = 0.034; SE = 0.003 Control: n = 74; *M* accuracy = 0.995; SD = 0.007; SE = 0.0008 *t*(89.329) = -9.63, *p* = .0.0001,*d* = -1.507