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: 1. The study protocol remained the same, except for the critical change of the filler task and the experimental/control task. As far as protocol changes go, these are the only changes we made to the data collection aspect. 2. We reduced the target sample size to 60 participants (30 in each condition). We will gather data from 80 participants in case we have to exclude participants. Exclusion criteria remain unchanged from study 1. In case we end up with less than 30 usable participants in each condition after recruiting 80 we will continue to recruit participants and randomly assign participants to conditions. Of note, we did not have trouble reaching our target numbers in study 1, therefore we do not anticipate major recruitment or completion issues for study 2. 3. The study hypotheses, analyses, participant population, and recruitment procedures remained the same.