Contributors to this research are Ricardo Aragon, Christian Corah, Ashley Mayer, and Taylor Mills who are all Undergraduate Psychology Majors at Adams State University. Dr. Leslie Alvarez is the professor of Research Methods, the class in which this project is taking place. We are attempting to directly replicate De Neys, et al CREP project (2013) experiment regarding intuitive decision making using the bat and ball problem. Our participants will come from five different classes including math, psychology, chemistry, business, and english. This will make our sample much more diverse. The population size should be around 150. The instructors will have control over whether or not participation will result in course credit or extra credit. All of our data will be collected in these classrooms with paper and pencil. One experimenter will explain the informed consent while one other will hand out the informed consent forms. Two experimenters may hand out the forms for larger classes over fifty students. We also are adding additional questions regarding the decision making process making this a replication plus. The questions will be added after the methods of the original study are already completed. This insures that our questions will not confound our direct replication of the original study. All participants will have the same questions. The questions are focused on what the participant's intuitive response was, if the participants usually trust their gut, and if they had familiarity with problems like the standard. We expect the intuitive response to be 10 cents for biased and unbiased reasoners. Assumptions were made about what the intuitive response would be, but we will add evidence of it. We expect biased reasoners to trust their gut less. If there was familiarity, we will not use their data. We do not expect many participants to have the intuitive response be 5 cents, but we are curious to see if unbiased reasoners thought it. Data will be collected during October, 2018 as with other CREP projects. **Additional comments from the original authors regarding the study follow:** This page contains all the collected study materials and instructions from authors that we have compiled. We also include any comments from other contributors or follow up instructions that we have learned since the beginning of the project. Click "read more" below or choose the "Wiki" option above for further information. For technical problems, please contact OSF help desk (support@osf.io) For questions or information about the studies contact either either Jon Grahe (graheje@plu.edu) or Mark Brandt (m.j.brandt@tilburguniversity.edu) so that the materials can be made available on this website. De neys et al. (2013) **Abstract** Influential work on human thinking suggests that our judgment is often biased because we minimize cognitive effort and intuitively substitute hard questions by easier ones. A key question is whether or not people realize that they are doing this and notice their mistake. Here, we test this claim with one of the most publicized examples of the substitution bias, the bat-and-ball problem. We designed an isomorphic control version in which reasoners experience no intuitive pull to substitute. Results show that people are less confident in their substituted, erroneous bat-and-ball answer than in their answer on the control version that does not give rise to the substitution. Contrary to popular belief, this basic finding indicates that biased reasoners are not completely oblivious to the substitution and sense that their answer is questionable. This calls into question the characterization of the human reasoner as a happy fool who blindly answers erroneous questions without realizing it. **Materials** The original paper is [here][1] (will require a library subscription). Materials are [here] [1]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-013-0384-5