Results and Analyses -------------------- **Participants** We recruited participants (N = 167, males = 56, females = 111, M age = 21.14 years, SD = 2.84) from an undergraduate participant pool at Florida International University. The participants were enrolled in undergraduate psychology courses and participated in the study for course credit. Participants (n = 4) were excluded from the final analysis because they did not meet the meet the specified inclusion criteria for first-spoken language (n = 3) and age (18-30 years; n = 1). Seventy four 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 40 participants in the hard letter ‘e’ (ego-depletion) condition and 49 participants in the easy letter ‘e’ (control) condition. Julio Martin, Giuliana Kunzle, Jessica Carvajal, and Orlando Olano served as the experimenter(s), and were blind to nature of the study. For all experimenters, blinding was checked at the beginning and end of their running by asking them to complete an online survey, which inquired about their knowledge of several social psychological phenomena, including ego-depletion. Experimenters were considered blind if they did not indicate knowing what ego-depletion is, and were unable to describe the process of ego-depletion. 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 = 40; M RTV = .33; SD = .08; SE = .01 Control: n = 49; M RTV= .35; SD = .09; SE = .01 t(87) = 1.30, p = .198, d = .28 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 = 40; M RT= .97; SD = .15; SE = .02 Control: n = 49; M RT = 1.03; SD = .15; SE = .02 t(87) = 1.97, p = .053, d = .40 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 = 5.44; SD = 1.31; SE = .21; Fatigue, M = 3.26; SD = 1.76; SE = .28; Difficulty, M = 3.87; SD = 1.59; SE = .25; Frustration, M = 2.72; SD = 1.38; SE = .22 Control: Effort, M = 3.90; SD = 2.18; SE = .31; Fatigue, M = 2.96; SD = 1.85; SE = .26; Difficulty, M = 1.61; SD = .98; SE = .14; Frustration, M = 1.96; SD = 1.46; SE = .21 t-tests: Effort (t(86) = 3.88, M difference = 1.54, p < .001, d = .86), Fatigue (t(86) = .77, M difference = .30, p = .446, d = .17), Difficulty (t(86) = 8.20, M difference = 2.26, p < .001, d = 1.71), and Frustration (t(86) = 2.49, M difference = .76, p = .015, d = .53). **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 = 40; M accuracy = .92; SD = .05; SE = .01 Control: n = 49; M accuracy = .99; SD = .01; SE = .001 t(87) = 10.00, p < .001, d = 2.02 *Please upload your data files to the files section here. You can also include a complete writeup of your results in this section.*