Results and Analyses -------------------- **Participants** We recruited participants (N = 204, males = 93, females = 111, M age = 21.53 years, SD = 2.38) from an undergraduate participant pool at Utrecht University. The participants participated in the study for 0.5 course credit (if they were enrolled in the Psychology undergraduate program)/€6. Participants (n = 0) 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 = 0), and age (18-30 years). 22 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 MSIT performance data for 1 participant also did not save due to a computer error. The final sample comprised 89 participants in the hard letter ‘e’ (ego-depletion) condition and 92 participants in the easy letter ‘e’ (control) condition. Jantine van Soolingen served as the experimenter, and was initially blind to condition assignment. For this experimenter who was initially blind, blinding was checked at the end of their running by asking whether she was aware of the true purpose of the study, and the experimenter revealed that she has learned about the purpose of the experiment when she debriefed participants. 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 incongruent items on the MSIT [note this is the ExGauss.I.RTVar.MSIT column in the output file] across the ego-depletion and control conditions. Ego-depletion: n = 89; M RTV= .31; SD = .07; SE = .01 Control: n = 92; M RTV = .31; SD = .07; SE = .01 t(179) = -.22, p = .83, d = .04 2) Independent samples t-test comparing the mean overall response time (RT) for the incongruent items on the MSIT [note this is the I_1_MeanRT.MSIT column in the output file] across the ego-depletion and control conditions. Ego-depletion: n = 89; M RT= .96; SD = .13; SE = .01 Control: n = 92; M RT = .94; SD = .13; SE = .01 t(179) = -1.05, p = .29, d = .16 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). The same inclusion criteria used for the critical analysis was applied. Ego-depletion: Effort, M = 4.84; SD = 1.60; SE = .17; Fatigue, M = 3.10; SD = 1.32; SE = .14; Difficulty, M = 4.07; SD = 1.45; SE = .15; Frustration, M = 2.66; SD = 1.45; SE = .15 Control: Effort, M = 3.65; SD = 1.79; SE = .19; Fatigue, M = 3.67; SD = 1.43; SE = 0.15; Difficulty, M = 1.79; SD = .73; SE = .08; Frustration, M = 1.82; SD = 1.06; SE = .11 t-tests: Effort (t(177.97) = -4.72, M difference = -1.19, p < .001, Cohen's d = -0.70), Fatigue (t(179) = 2.79, M difference = .57, p = .006, Cohen's d = 0.41), Difficulty (t(129.27) = -13.23, M difference = -2.27, p < .001, Cohen's d = -1.98), and Frustration (t(161.02) = -4.49, M difference = -.85, p < .001, Cohen's d = -0.67). **Supplemental analyses** Recommended supplemental analysis An independent samples t-test for differences in overall accuracy on the letter ‘e’ task [note this is the ‘Acc.Overall.LetE’ column in the output file] across the hard (ego-depletion) and easy (control) conditions: Ego-depletion: n = 89; M accuracy = .96; SD = .03; SE = .003 Control: n = 92; M accuracy = .99; SD = .01; SE = .0008 t(98.67) = 8.78, p < .001, d = 1.29