Participants Using G*Power (Faul et al., 2009) we calculated that we would need to include at least 96 participants in our study to achieve 95% power for the effect size that Sachdeva et al. (2009) obtained in their Study 3. In the original study, 46 students (24 males, 22 females, Mage = 19.4) from Northwestern University took part in the experiment as a partial fulfillment of a requirement in an introductory psychology course. In this study, we will include at least 96 students who participate as part of a course credit in the lab at the University of Amsterdam. In this lab, data is typically collected for 2 weeks and this will usually result in 180 participants. We will run for one week and this will result in at least 96 participants. All participants will be randomly assigned to one of three conditions: A positive trait condition, a negative trait condition, and a neutral control condition. Materials We obtained the original study materials of Sachdeva et al. (2009) (Appendix 2) and translated these materials to Dutch (Appendix 3). The materials will be presented as a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Similar to the original study by Sachdeva et al. (2009), as a cover story, participants will be instructed that the study is about their handwriting styles. Depending on assigned condition, participants will be exposed to nine positive trait words, nine negative trait words or nine neutral words and will be asked to copy each word four times and think about each word for 5-10 seconds. Next, they will be instructed to write a short story about themselves including the words they just copied. Subsequently, they will answer some neutral questions about the stories they just wrote and they will complete a short math-based filler-task. The dependent variable is a commons dilemma; participants read in a scenario that they are a manager of a mid-sized industrial manufacturing plant. They are then told that all manufacturers reached an agreement to install filters to eliminate toxic gasses and to run these filters 60% of the time. Running the filters is very expensive for the company. Participants are then asked to indicate the amount of time they would actually run these filters. Participants will also be asked secondary prosocial measures (Percentage of time other managers would run the filters, likelihood of getting caught, and the amount of environmental damage caused by not running filters). Finally, participants will complete a set of demographic measures (Appendix 5) and seven self-presentation items from self-monitoring scale (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) (Appendix 7). Procedure Participants will complete the study as part of a series of experiments in separate cubicles in the lab at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The experimenter who will be present in the lab is blind to condition. Prior to the experiment, participants will be asked to provide their informed consent. The experimenter will instruct the participants to get seated in a separate cubicle and to complete the paper-and-pencil questionnaire. After completing the series of experiments and the demographic measures, the participant will be instructed to leave the cubicle and to approach the experimenter to sign for their course credit. Participants will be debriefed and thanked for their participation. Plan for Confirmatory Analyses Prior to analyzing the data, we will exclude participants who did not complete the IV correctly (i.e., participants who did not write a story about themselves using the 9 words) and participants who did not complete the dependent variable (i.e., participants who did not indicate the amount of time they would be willing to run the filters). Next, we will analyze the demographic variables by requesting the descriptives and frequencies of the mean age, the male/female gender ratio and the nationality ratio of the participants. We will then analyze whether gender, nationality or age have any effect on the amount of time participants are willing to run the filters by means of ANOVAs and a linear regression. If it turns out that one (ore more) of these variables significantly (at the p = .05 level) affect the amount of time participants are willing to run the filters, these variables will be included as covariates in the following analyses. To analyze the amount of time participants are willing to run the filters, we will perform a one-way ANOVA similar to Sachdeva et al. (2009). If this one-way ANOVA is significant, we will perform post-hoc Tukey tests to compare further differences between the three conditions. We will also perform ANOVAs on the secondary prosocial measures (percentage of time other managers would run the filters, likelihood of getting caught, amount of environmental damage caused by not running filters). We will perform a regression to test the effect of self-monitoring on the amount of time participants will run the filters. We will perform spotlight analyses to analyze the licensing effect separately for low self-monitors and high self-monitors (similar to Cornelissen et al., 2013). For syntax of the planned analyses, see Appendix 9. Known differences from original study • Participants in the study of Sachdeva et al. (2009) are from the USA and completed the study in English, whereas our participants will be from the Netherlands and will complete a Dutch translation of the study materials. We do not think that these differences in origin and language are critical for a fair replication of the original study, since Dutch and American cultures have proven to be very similar (Hofstede, Bond, & Luk, 1993). The results of our pilot test will show whether the words that were used to affect moral identity have similar effects for Dutch an American participants. • In our study, participants will complete the self-monitoring scale at the very end of the procedure, after the dependent variable is assessed. We do not expect any of these differences to influence the main results of our studies.