Recent research suggests a relationship between conception risk and racial bias – fertile women showed stronger racial preferences for White people relative to Black people than nonfertile women (McDonald, Asher, Kerr, & Navarrete, 2011; Navarrete, Fessler, Fleischman, & Geyer, 2009). We sought to extend these findings to other social groups and investigate possible mechanisms. However, in four studies (Total N = 2226), we failed to replicate the positive correlation between conception risk and racial bias. We also failed to replicate the finding that implicit stereotypes associating Black men with physical and White men with mental moderate this relationship. These results, along with a meta-analysis, suggest that the relationship between menstrual cycle and intergroup attitudes is weaker than suggested by the initial results. In a commentary responding to [Hawkins, Fitzgerald, and Nosek (2015)][1], [McDonald and Navarrete (2015)][2] raise the possibility that the IAT failed to show a moderation effect because female faces were included in the stimulus set for the IAT. We cannot rule out that possibility, but we find it implausible for two reasons. First, the stimuli for the standard race IAT were designed to minimize information about gender and other cues not directly related to racial categorization. Second, prior research suggests that IAT effects are dominated by the category label ("Black people" and "White people" in Studies 1-3), not the individual exemplars when they are from a mixed set (see e.g., [Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2005][3]; De Houwer, 2001). Nonetheless, it is reasonable to raise the possibility of this influence. Study 4 addressed the concern in Hawkins et al, and other researchers are welcome to use Study 4 materials to conduct their own replication. Please email Carlee Beth Hawkins (carleebethhawkins@gmail.com) with any questions or comments about this project. If you wish to run your own replication, please feel free to use the materials provided here and/or contact me for additional assistance. For additional context these are the stimuli: ![BlackFaces][4] Below is the registration text from Study 4. See the actual pre-registered version of this project [here][5]. **Registration for Study 4** This study is the fourth attempt to replicate the relationship between conception risk and racial prejudice (Navarrete, Fessler, Fleischman, & Geyer, 2009). Specifically, this study will attempt to replicate this basic relationship and the moderator of implicit physicality stereotypes identified by McDonald, Asher, and Navarrete (2011). Three previous studies failed to replicate the basic relationship and one of them failed to replicate the relationship considering the moderator. The purpose of the current study is to register the research hypothesis, materials, and analysis plan prior to data collection and provide one more attempt at replication. **Hypotheses** In line with Navarrete et al. (2009) and McDonald et al. (2011), two hypotheses: 1. Conception risk will be positively correlated with racial prejudice (implicit and explicit) 2. This relationship will be moderated by implicit physicality stereotypes such that the relationship will only emerge (or will emerge more strongly) for women who implicitly associate Black men with physical relatively to mental. **Procedure** As part of the one-time registration process for the Project Implicit website, participants recorded their demographic details, and women aged 18-60 were unobtrusively selected to complete this study. Participants completed the reproductive questionnaire, followed by the race attitude and race stereotype IATs presented in a random order. Participants completed the explicit items next, and finally, were debriefed. People who completed the last study on the research site will be excluded (/user/chawkins/reprod/reproduction.expt.xml). Target N is 1500 participants, which should allow ample statistical power for analyses on the qualifying sample. The last research site study collected 1395 and after restricting the sample based on the criteria outlined below, 175 remained for the main analyses. Click here and then on 'test this study' to run through the entire study: [Study link][6] Based on feedback about study materials from the original author, there were a few minor changes from the last study to the reproductive questionnaire, the introduction text, and the main change was that the category labels Black and White people were changed to Black and White men on the IAT and corresponding explicit questions and only male stimuli were used in the IAT. **Analysis Plan** The following women will be removed from analysis: 1. Women who self-report that they are using contraceptives, are unable to reproduce, are unsure what their reproductive status is, or respond 'prefer not to say' to this question about their reproductive status 2. Women whose menstrual cycles are calculated to be shorter than 20 days or longer than 40 days 3. Women who report that they are pregnant, are unsure whether they are pregnant, or respond 'prefer not to say' to the pregnancy status question 4. Women who report that the length of time between their periods has differed by more than 2 weeks in the last 6 months (new question added to this study) Independent variables will be centered on their means prior to analysis. Confirmatory analyses will test Hypothesis 1 with correlation and Hypothesis 2 with multiple linear regression. **Secondary Analyses** 1. In addition to analyzing each DV separately, Naverrete et al. (2009) created a composite score from all the DVs (implicit and explicit physicality stereotypes, implicit and explicit evaluative bias, and race bias in mate attraction) and demonstrated a strong relationship with conception risk (Study 1: *r* = .45). As such, we will create a composite score from implicit and explicit evaluative bias and physicality stereotypes and correlate this score with conception risk. 2. Previous studies have treated participant race differently. As such, we will code for racial background as White or non-White and include as a covariate, and separately code as White-Black and include as a covariate. We will also restrict the sample to White women only and rerun confirmatory tests. 3. Restrict the sample to only US citizens who report being college students and who are 18-23 years old to mirror the college student samples in prior studies. **Addendum: Data Analysis in Response to Peer Review** During the peer review process, a reviewer alerted us to a flaw in our analysis strategy. The reviewer suggested that in McDonald et al. (2011), implicit race bias and stereotypes had been reverse-scored for Black participants, reflecting ingroup bias rather than racial bias. Upon further examination of the original publication, we came to agree with the reviewer that this was a necessary change to our analysis plan and reran the multiple regression analyses for Studies 3 and 4. The results were not substantively changed with this new analyses strategy, and the slight change in numbers is reflected in the final manuscript. Thus, our analyses differed slightly in the final report from the registration in response to the suggestions of a helpful reviewer. Both the revised analyses and the pre-registered analyses appear in the SAS scripts for Studies 3 and 4 (which can be accessed under the Study 3 Data and Study 4 Data components on this project). The pre-registered analyses appear at the very end of the SAS scripts. **Studies 1-3** Materials for studies 1-3 are available as component pages. A lab study was run but not reported in the manuscript because it was extremely underpowered (N = 25 for correlation analysis, N = 23 for regression analysis, and N = 12 for regression analysis with White participants). The semester ended and data collection did not reach the target N. Study materials and results are available on the component page. Meta-analysis worksheet appears under 'Files'. [1]: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/01/06/0956797614553121.full [2]: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/01/07/0956797614562863.full [3]: http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/NGB2005.PSPB.pdf [4]: https://osf.io/7htai/ [5]: https://osf.io/dr42m/wiki/home/ [6]: https://dw2.psyc.virginia.edu/implicit/showfiles.jsp?user=chawkins&study=reprod4