Results and Analyses -------------------- Participants We recruited participants (N = 146, males = 42, females = 104, M age = 20.38 years, SD = 3.50) from an undergraduate participant pool at California State University San Marcos. The participants were enrolled in Introduction to Psychology, Introductory Statistics in Psychology, or Research Methods in Psychology, and participated in the study for course credit. Participants (n = 13) were excluded from the final analysis because they did not follow the instructions (n = 0), did not meet the meet the specified inclusion criteria for first-spoken language (n = 12), and age (18-30 years; n = 1). Fifty-eight participants were excluded because their performance 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. The final sample comprised 36 participants in the hard letter ‘e’ (ego-depletion) condition and 39 participants in the easy letter ‘e’ (control) condition. Derrick Ocampo, Rachael Van Gundy, Jessee Marriott, Briana Peralta, and Patrick Alarcon served as the experimenters, and they were not blind to condition assignment. Our procedures followed the approved protocol and did not deviate from our preregistered plan. Critical analyses 1) Independent samples t-test comparing the ex-Gaussian fitted mean overall response time variability (RTV) for the MSIT [ExGauss.I.RTVar.MSIT] across the ego-depletion and control conditions. Ego-depletion: n = 36; M RTV= 0.354; SD = 0.079; SE = 0.013 Control: n = 39; M RTV = 0.324; SD = 0.055; SE = 0.009 t(73) = 1.90, p = .061, d = 0.44 2) Independent samples t-test comparing the mean overall response time (RT) for the MSIT [I_1_MeanRT.MSIT] across the ego-depletion and control conditions. Ego-depletion: n = 36; M RT= 1.015; SD = 0.136; SE = 0.023 Control: n = 39; M RT = 0.962; SD = 0.154; SE = 0.025 t(73) = 1.58, p = .118, d = 0.36 3) A series of independent samples t-tests comparing participants’ mean ratings of effort, fatigue, difficulty, and frustration across the ego-depletion and control conditions (with positive t’s indicating larger rating in the ego-depletion group). Ego-depletion: Effort, M = 5.92; SD = 0.87; SE = 0.15; Fatigue, M = 4.03; SD = 1.72; SE = 0.29; Difficulty, M = 4.31; SD = 1.41; SE = 0.24, Frustration, M = 3.86; SD = 2.00; SE = 0.33 Control: Effort, M = 5.33; SD = 1.75; SE = 0.28; Fatigue, M = 3.74; SD = 1.85; SE = 0.30; Difficulty, M = 1.95; SD = 1.23; SE = 0.20, Frustration, M = 1.82; SD = 1.32; SE = 0.21 t-tests: Effort (t(73) = 1.80, M difference = 0.58, p = .076, d = 0.43), Fatigue (t(73) = 0.69, M difference = 0.28, p = .493, d = 0.16), Difficulty (t(73) = 7.72, M difference = 2.36, p < .001, d = 1.78), and Frustration (t(73) = 5.26, M difference = 2.04, p < .001, d = 1.20). Supplemental analyses Recommended supplemental analysis An independent samples t-test for differences in overall accuracy on the letter ‘e’ task [Acc.Overall.LetE] across the hard (ego-depletion) and easy (control) conditions: Ego-depletion: n = 36; M accuracy = 0.914; SD = 0.050; SE = 0.008 Control: n = 39; M accuracy = 0.996; SD = 0.006; SE = 0.001 t(73) = 10.24, p < .001, d = 1.46 Supplemental analyses preregistered by this lab None Supplemental post-hoc analyses None