I share your sentiment, but to make it more concrete, here are a few quickly glanced things that give good/bad indications: + >500 participants + Report not o

I share your sentiment, but to make it more concrete, here are a few quickly glanced things that give good/bad indications: + >500 participants + Report not only aggregated values, but also bar charts with confidence interval (you can compare for yourself) - Charts don't start at zero (gives reader wrong impression about effect size) Need to read it more carefully though, because I would like to agree with the paper, since I notice this effect myself a lot. Also very related to ego depletion, which doesn't seem to be even mentioned in the paper, weirdly enough. Maybe they wanted to coin their own term.