**Ego-depletion replication results** **Angela R. Birt & Megan Muise** **Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada** ---------- **Participants** Participants (N = 110, males = 17, females = 93, M age = 21.65 years, SD = 5.02) were recruited from an undergraduate participant pool at Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. The participants were enrolled in an undergraduate degree program across a variety of disciplines and participated in the study for course credit. Although no participants were excluded from the final analysis because they did not follow the instructions (n = 0), participants were excluded because they did not meet the specified inclusion criteria for first-spoken language (n = 6), did not meet the specified age criteria (18-30 years) (n = 5), and/or their performance (n = 46) 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. (Note that the criteria for exclusion were not mutually exclusive; i.e., some participants were excluded because they did not meet more than one criterion). The final sample (N = 59, males = 7, females = 52, M age = 20.81 years, SD = 2.67) comprised 31 participants in the hard letter ‘e’ (ego-depletion) condition and 28 participants in the easy letter ‘e’ (control) condition. Megan Muise, Dayna Bell, T-Jay Anderson, and Kayla Douglas served as the experimenters, and all were naïve to the purpose of the experiment with the exception of M. Muise, who played a significant role in carrying out the replication. None of the experimenters were blinded to condition assignment because they read out instructions to the participants. To check whether they remained naïve to the purpose of the experiment, those who were initially naïve were asked two questions at the end of data collection: (1) “What do you think the overall purpose of this study was?” and (2) “Do you have any idea of what the results might be?” Their answers indicated that they were unaware until the end. We deviated from our preregistered plan in that we did not collect data on 50 participants per condition. We administered the experiment with E-Prime 2.0 Run Time software, which does not include the data extraction function. By the time the data were received and data analyses were conducted, there was no opportunity to run additional participants. **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 across the ego-depletion and control conditions. Ego-depletion: n = 31; M RTV= 0.31; SD = 0.07; SE = 0.01 Control: n = 28; M RTV = 0.29; SD = 0.06; SE = 0.01 t(57) = 1.25, p = .216, d = 0.31 **2)** Independent samples t-test comparing the mean overall response time (RT) for the incongruent items on the MSIT across the ego-depletion and control conditions. Ego-depletion: n = 31; M RT= 0.98; SD = 0.14; SE = 0.02 Control: n = 28; M RT = 0.94; SD = 0.11; SE = 0.02 t(57) = 1.33, p = .189, d = 0.32 **3)** A series of independent samples t-tests comparing participants’ mean ratings of effort, fatigue, and difficulty across the ego-depletion and control conditions (with positive t’s indicating larger rating in the ego-depletion group). Ego-depletion: Effort, M = 5.45; SD = 1.26; SE = 0.23; Fatigue, M = 3.42; SD = 1.89; SE = 0.34; Difficulty, M = 4.35; SD = 1.40; SE = 0.25; Frustration, M = 3.42; SD = 1.71; SE = 0.31 Control: Effort, M = 5.00; SD = 1.33; SE = 0.25; Fatigue, M = 3.04; SD = 1.55; SE = 0.29; Difficulty, M = 1.82; SD = 0.91; SE = 0.17; Frustration, M = 2.07; SD = 1.22; SE = 0.23 t-tests: Effort (t(57) = 1.34, M difference = 0.45, p = .187, d = 0.42), Fatigue (t(57) = 0.85, M difference = 0.38, p = .401, d = 0.22), Difficulty (t(57) = 8.14, M difference = 2.53, p = .000, d = 2.12), and Frustration (t(57) = 3.46, M difference = 1.35, p = .001, d =0 .90). **4)** A one-way ANOVA comparing the mean overall accuracy on the letter “e” task across the ego-depletion and control conditions. Ego-depletion: n = 31; M ACC= 0.94; SD = 0.04; SE = 0.01 Control: n = 28; M ACC = 0.99; SD = 0.01; SE = 0.00 F(1,57) = 55.56, p = .000, d = 1.68 **Supplemental analyses** No supplemental analyses were preregistered by this lab, so none were conducted. No supplemental post-hoc analyses were conducted.