Study 2 ------- The protocol for the first study in this Registered Replication Report on the Verbal Overshadowing Effect included a potentially important discrepancy from the original procedure of Study 1 in Schooler & Engstler-Schooler (1990). Specifically, the order of the description task and the crossword puzzle filler task were reversed, meaning that there was a delay between the description phase and the recognition phase in the replication study but not in the original. That ordering mimicked Study 4 of the original paper, which showed a roughly comparable overshadowing effect to the original Study 1. But, some verbal overshadowing studies that included a delay between the description phase and the test phase showed a reduced overshadowing effect. This followup study is designed to verify the size of the verbal overshadowing effect using the original task ordering from Study 1 of Schooler & Engstler-Schooler (1990). It will allow an assessment of the verbal overshadowing effect with the original ordering of Study 1 and will also allow a comparison between studies to determine whether ordering affects the size of the verbal overshadowing effect. The protocol is identical to that of the first RRR study except that the order of the description task and crossword puzzle filler task are reversed. Participants first view the bank robbery video. They then compete the 20-minute crossword puzzle filler task. Next they either describe the bank robber (experimental condition) or name countries and capitals (control condition). Finally, they complete the recognition task. Other than this change in ordering, the protocol for the followup study is identical to that of the first study. Our laboratory made the following changes to our implementation of the design: We have been able to recruit 98 participants for this second study within the given time period. Four participants had to be excluded from the analysis due to the following reasons: (1) the timer did not start for the listing task for one participant; (2) one participant took off her headphones during the video; (3) two participants did not meet the inclusion criteria. The remaining 94 participants (76 females; mean age: 20.1) are included in the analyses. There are 48 participants in the control condition (40 females; mean age: 20.2) and 46 participants in the description condition (36 females; mean age: 19.9). Results: Recognition accuracy Describing the appearance of the previously seen face did reduce recognition performance. The target face was correctly identified by 28.3% of participants in the Experimental condition and 54.2% of participants in the Control condition, 2 (1) = 6.50, p = .011 The relative ratio of misidentifications (i.e., when the wrong face was selected) to misses (i.e., when none of the faces was selected) did not significantly differ between the two conditions. Approximately 30.30% of the errors in the Experimental condition were misidentifications compared to 50% of errors in the Control condition, 2 (1) = 2.17, p = .141. Confidence Participants were significantly more confident in correct responses (mean confidence rating: 4.981) compared to incorrect responses (mean confidence rating: 4.5), F(1,90) = 4.565, p = .035. There was no significant difference in the mean confidence ratings between the two conditions, F(1,90) = .322, p = .572. There was no significant interaction between condition and accuracy F(1,90) = 0.943, p = .334.