Method & Procedure SAMPLE SIZE & SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS For RRR Study 1, participants were 236 first and second year psychology undergraduates (86 men, 150 women, M age = 20.2, SD=2.27) at the University of Otago, New Zealand. One hundred and sixty-two took part during the school term, in exchange for course credit. The remainder took part after their classes had ended, and were remunerated NZ$15 as reimbursement for travel expenses. Nine participants were excluded due to computer software failures, and two because they did not complete the experiment. Of the remaining 225 participants, 171 reported their race as "European" (i.e., Caucasian). Fifty-six participants contributed data for the experimental condition and 57 for the control condition. Per our registered experimental protocol, the analyses are based only on these participants. An additional 75 participants (58 Caucasians) contributed data for a third suppression condition. EXPERIMENTERS The team conducting the replication includes Professor Jamin Halberstadt, Dr. Jonathon Jong, Victoria K. Alogna (PhD candidate), Joshua C. Jackson (research assistant), and Cathy Ng (research assistant). Experimenters are trained and have experience collecting experimental psychology data and interacting with subjects. DATA COLLECTION Participants were randomly assigned to conditions using www.random.org, with the constraint that equal numbers of participants were assigned to each condition. Data was collected and saved by Superlab into text files that were merged and imported to SPSS. SurveyMonkey collected all demographic data which was downloaded as an excel file, coded, and imported to SPSS. Participants were blind to other conditions other than their own and were blind to the hypothesis. Following their debriefing, participants were asked not to share any information regarding the experiment with others. DATA EXCLUSION Data from a participant was excluded if: the participant was of mixed or non-European descent; the participant did not follow instructions on the experimental or control task; the participant did not complete all tasks; the experimenter incorrectly administered the task or instructions; the computer failed. Any excluded data and the reason for exclusion were identified and included in the data sets. PROCEDURE Participants were recruited to participate in a study of memory and perception on the departmental experiment participation website and student job search website. Following informed consent, participants completed a short demographics questionnaire and were randomly assigned to one of three conditions (the experimental condition, control condition, or suppression condition), with an equal number of participants being assigned to each of the three conditions. Participants were told by the computer: “This experiment consists of several tasks. First, please pay close attention to the following video.” Participants viewed a 30-second video depicting a bank robbery. Then, participants were instructed by the computer to “please contact the experimenter for information on your next task.” In approximately 30 seconds, the experimenter set up the next part of the experiment. Participants received different instructions on the computer depending on their condition assignment: Experimental Condition: “Please describe the appearance of the bank robber in as much detail as possible. It is important that you attempt to describe all of his different facial features. Please type everything that you can think of regarding the bank robber’s appearance. It is important that you try to describe him for the full 5 minutes” Control Condition: “Please name as many countries and their capitals as you can. It is important that you try to name them for the full 5 minutes.” After 3 minutes, Superlab gave the following reminder: “Please continue with your task. It is important that you continue working for the full 5 minutes to provide as complete an answer as possible.” After 5 minutes of writing, all participants were directed by the computer to an envelope containing a crossword puzzle and spent 20 minutes working on it. After 20 minutes the computer made a bell-like noise and prompted the participant with the following instructions: “Next you will see a lineup with 8 faces. Please identify the individual in the lineup who you believe was the bank robber in the video you watched earlier. If you do not believe the bank robber is present please indicate ‘not present.’” Participants viewed the lineup of 8 faces on a computer screen and identified the one they saw in the robbery video or reported that it wasn’t present. Participants rated their confidence in their selection. They were given the following instructions: “Please indicate your confidence in your selection from the lineup on a scale from 1 (guessing) to 7 (certain).” Participants were debriefed and thanked for participating. THIRD CONDITION Our third condition involved thought suppression. As in the control condition, participants were instructed to list country names and capitals for five minutes. However, they were additionally instructed during the country listing, "Please try not to think about the robber’s face from the video you just watched. Every time the robber’s face comes nevertheless to mind, please ring the bell in front of you.” There was a pop up reminder after 3 minutes that stated, “Please continue to list countries and capitals and try not to think about the robber’s face from the video you just watched. It is important that you continue this task for the full five minutes.” A countertop bell was placed next to the computer keyboard, and a research assistant posted outside the experimental cubicle recording the number of bell rings for each participant. The rest of the procedure was identical to the other two conditions.