Trial reportPloS one2019
Testing the ego-depletion effect in optimized conditions.
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing the ego-depletion effect in optimized conditions.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Oculomotor response inhibition and distractor suppression following prior self-control exertion in athletes.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Validation of a battery of inhibitory control tasks reveals a multifaceted structure in non-human primates.PeerJ · 2022Article
- A Multilab Replication of the Ego Depletion Effect.Social psychological and personality science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The observation that exerting self-control in an initial task impairs subsequent self-control performance in a following task has been used to explain a wide range of phenomena. If evidence for this "ego-depletion" effect was initially believed to be strong, it is now questioned. Recent meta-analyses indicated that this effect was sensitive to publication bias and that it was greatly reduced after control for this bias. In a pre-registered replication attempt where an ego-depletion protocol was conducted in multiple independent laboratories, the effect was not distinguishable from zero. Here, a different approach is adopted to examine the validity of this effect by improving the experimental protocol with the addition of important methodological precautions: 1) a pre-test measurement, 2) a learning period, 3) a prolonged depleting task, 4) a similar control condition, and 5) valid indexes of self-control. Accordingly, a well-learned Simon task was done before and after 1h of continuous practice of a Stroop task in a high inhibition demands condition (75% of incongruent trials) or in a control condition (0% of incongruent trials). Datasets from between-subjects (Study 1, N = 82) and within-subjects (Study 2, N = 52) experiments were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models. A significant ego-depletion effect was found in Study 1 (greater interference effect and accuracy decline in high inhibition demands than in control condition) but not in Study 2. Because it is difficult to explain this difference in results, the findings suggest that, even in a context chosen to optimize the observation of an ego-depletion effect, it seems difficult to be conclusive about the existence of this effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.