We tested whether asking participants to answer quickly vs. slowly caused an increase in social desirability. Our analysis was completed as an ANOVA with 10,000 bootstrap resamples to take into account any possible non-normalities in the data. Effect sizes were calculated using the means and bootstrapped standard errors of the two groups. 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 the participants were randomized. The benefit of this approach is that it preserves randomization across conditions (see Gelman & Hill, 2006). Thus, we pursued an ITT analysis. All procedures, data decisions, and analysis code was pre-registered prior to data collection. Participants were randomly assigned to take the study as part of the 1st 750 participants or the 2nd 50 participants. For the critical DV, the effect of the speeded manipulation was the same for both groups of data collection (not moderated, p > .1). As a manipulation check, on average participants in the fast condition answered questions faster (M = 8.058, SD = 40.421) than in the slow condition (M = 25.723, SD = 219.972, tseparate-varainces (794.731) = 2.158, p = .031) and were the same in both data collection groups (not moderated, p > .31). Thus, the manipulation was successful. We analyzed the 1st 750 first, then the 2nd 750, then combined the two into the complete analysis. Both 750s were opened simultaneously on February 17 at 8:40am. Data analysis of the first 750 began at 9:09 am, analysis of the 2nd 750 began at 2:17 pm that same day. 1st 750 Asking people to answer quickly caused them to give more socially desirable responses (M = 5.117, SEbootstrap = .125, n = 377) than asking them to answer slowly (M = 4.63, SEbootstrap = .126, n = 373; F (1, 748) = 7.479, p = .006, d = .201, 95%CI = .057 to .344). 2nd 750 The results in the 2nd 750 were quite different from the 1st. Despite participants complying on average with the time constraints, asking people to answer quickly did not cause them to give more socially desirable responses (M = 4.655, SEbootstrap = .134, n = 377) than asking them to answer slowly (M = 4.582, SEbootstrap = .131, n = 373; F (1, 748) < 1, p > .69, d = .029). Full 1500 In the full dataset, asking people to answer quickly caused them to give more socially desirable responses (M = 4.866, SEbootstrap = .092, n = 754) than asking them to answer slowly (M = 4.606, SEbootstrap = .09, n = 746; F (1, 1498) = 4.708, p = .03, d = .113, 95%CI = .214 to .011). To answer the question: “What does making people respond quickly do?” we can answer that the evidence here suggests time pressure causes an increase in socially desirable responding.