Link to Final Manuscript: [https://osf.io/4f78e/][1] Comparison of Stage 1 Manuscript to Final Manuscript: [https://osf.io/cvjn9/][2] Link to Stage 1 Manuscript (Results Blind): [https://osf.io/vha4m/][3] Albarracín et al. (2008), Study 7, tested whether priming action or inaction goals, vs. no goal, and then satisfying those goals (compared to not satisfying them) would be associated with greater responding on a subsequent cognitive task. It was hypothesized that unsatisfied action and inaction goals would result in greater or lesser responding, respectively, compared to no goal. Results (N = 98) showed the predicted 3 (goal: action, inaction, no goal) x 2 (task type: active vs. inactive) interaction, supporting the hypotheses. Sonnleitner and Voracek (2015) attempted to directly replicate Albarracín et al.’s (2008) study in a sample of 105 German university students. They did not find evidence for the 3 x 2 interaction (*F* (2, 99) = 2.532, *p* = .085, ηp2 = .049), nor the expected main effect of task type (*F*(1, 99) = .107, *p* = .745, ηp2 < .001). The authors (D. Albarracín, Personal Communication, April 27, 2014) expressed concerns about the planned replication. Chief among these was the cross-cultural comparability of the action and inaction primes in the German context, because the previous paradigm which was validated in an American context. The current study sought to revise Albarracín et al.’s (2008) method to test whether expert review and revision can improve replicability of results. Multiple replication teams randomly assigned participants to the old protocol compared to the new protocol. [1]: https://osf.io/4f78e/ [2]: https://osf.io/cvjn9/ [3]: https://osf.io/vha4m/