# Which persuasion science survived the replication crisis?

Of 12 famous persuasion effects sales playbooks cite, 4 held up in large tests. Those tests found a median 25% of the original effect.

By Cristian Frunze, Founder of Ken · Oct 6, 2026 · [Ken Research](/research) No. 4 · Buyer psychology · Evidence review

## Key findings

- **4 of 12** effects replicated: anchoring, reciprocity, choice overload and name personalization. 6 were mixed, 1 failed and 1 was never tested in a large study.
- **25%** median size of the large-test effect against the classic study, across the 7 effects where both could be compared.
- **6 of 7** comparable effects were smaller in the large test. Anchoring was the only one that came out bigger.
- **d = 0.00** for decoy pricing in its one large real-world test, more than 140,000 flight-booking sessions. The only effect graded Failed.

Sales playbooks lean on a dozen famous psychology experiments: the cookie jar that made scarce cookies taste better, the hotel towels reused because "most guests do", the jam stand where fewer flavors sold more jam. We checked each of them against the largest and most careful tests run since.

Of 12 persuasion effects, **4 held up, 6 gave mixed results, 1 failed and 1 has never been tested in a large study**. Where a famous study and a large test could be compared, the large test found an effect a median **25%** of the original size, and it was smaller for 6 of the 7 effects we could compare.

**Figure 1. Classic studies against the best large tests**

Each row is one effect, with its grade. The open circle is the classic study's effect size; the filled dot and line are the best large-sample estimate and its 95% interval. Cohen's d: 0.2 is small, 0.5 medium, 0.8 large. Four effects have no classic study to compare; the "because" effect has no large test.

|   | Classic study | Best large test | 95% interval of the large test |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Anchoring (Replicated) | 0.93 | 1.17 | 1.11 to 1.23 |
| Reciprocity (Replicated) | 0.408 | 0.244 | -0.012 to 0.5 |
| Choice overload (Replicated) | 1.492 | 0.103 | 0.092 to 0.115 |
| Name personalization (Replicated) | - | 0.144 | 0.081 to 0.206 |
| Social proof (Mixed) | 0.181 | 0.125 | 0.099 to 0.152 |
| Scarcity (Mixed) | 1.107 | 0.278 | 0.224 to 0.321 |
| Foot-in-the-door (Mixed) | - | 0.44 | 0.29 to 0.59 |
| Loss-aversion framing (Mixed) | - | 0.023 | -0.006 to 0.053 |
| Priming (Mixed) | 1.044 | -0.04 | -0.12 to 0.04 |
| Ego depletion (Mixed) | 1.785 | 0.076 | 0.006 to 0.146 |
| Decoy effect (Failed) | - | 0.003 | -0.021 to 0.028 |

*Source: Ken Research review of 132 published studies, analysed by Cristian Frunze.*

## How we graded

We wrote down our predictions and grading rules before any search. We logged 836 queries across three literature databases, followed citations and included 132 sources. A second reviewer checked every number against its source.

Only strong tests could set a grade: replications run across many labs with at least 1,000 people, field experiments with at least 10,000 people or a public pre-registration, meta-analyses pooling at least 10 studies, and pre-registered replications with at least 500 people.

An effect is **Replicated** when every top-level test finds it in the original direction, with a confidence interval that excludes zero. It is **Failed** when they all find nothing, and **Mixed** when they disagree or when only meta-analyses without a publication-bias correction exist. Each effect is graded on the version a sales team would use. Effect sizes are in Cohen's d, a standard unit where 0.2 is small, 0.5 medium and 0.8 large.

## What held up

**Anchoring** is the clear survivor. Across 36 samples in the Many Labs 1 replication, a high or low number planted before an estimate moved people's answers on all four test questions, by at least d = 1.17. That is larger than the classic study's 0.93, though the two used different designs. The useful version for sales is a plausible, relevant number such as a list price or a first offer. Numbers that only appear in passing, like a figure in a restaurant's name, did not move judgments in large tests. Anchoring is also the only effect we rate as transferring well to B2B buying.

**Reciprocity** held up in two strong tests. Swiss survey participants who got an unexpected voucher were 5.3 percentage points more likely to take part in the next survey round, across 17,332 people. A pre-registered rerun of the 1975 door-in-the-face study also worked. The pooled effect is d = 0.24, against 0.41 in the classic study.

**Choice overload** held up in direction but shrank to almost nothing. In the jam study, 30% of tasters at the small display bought jam, against 3% at the large one. In a test with 1.6 million shoppers on an online retail platform, recommending two products rather than four raised purchases from 4.29% to 5.13%. In the same experiment, one product sold worse than four (3.08%). The large-test effect is 7% of the jam study's.

**Name personalization** held up on one large email experiment: using the recipient's name raised sign-ups from about 12.5% to 15.6%. A 2023 replication of the best-known subject-line test found no effect (56.9% vs 58.5% opens). The gain may be fading now that every sender merges in first names.

## Mixed results

**Social proof** is real but small. Of 12 large or pre-registered field tests of "most people do this" messages, 7 found an effect and 5 did not. The best convertible estimate, d = 0.12, is close to the hotel-towel study's 0.18, but both are very small. It is worth a few percent, not a transformation.

For **scarcity** and **foot-in-the-door** we found no large field experiment or multi-lab replication. Their meta-analyses find small effects (d = 0.28 and 0.44), but none corrects for publication bias, the tendency for null results to go unpublished. Scarcity's estimate is 25% of the cookie-jar study's.

**Loss-aversion framing**, telling people what they stand to lose rather than gain, barely moves anyone. Across three large tests the pooled effect is d = 0.02. The largest ran in 84 countries and found nothing reliable; one UK test found a small gain.

**Priming** and **ego depletion**, the replication crisis's best-known casualties, did badly. The two multi-lab priming replications found nothing: the best estimate is d = -0.04, against 1.04 in the classic elderly-walking study. For ego depletion, the idea that willpower runs out with use, the large tests averaged d = 0.08, 4% of the original 1.78. They stay Mixed rather than Failed on narrow grounds. For priming, two meta-analyses still find a small effect after correcting for publication bias; for ego depletion, one of three large replications found a small one.

## What failed, and what was never tested

The **decoy effect**, adding an unattractive option to make another look better, did not survive its one large real-world test. On a flight-booking site with more than 140,000 search sessions, decoys did not shift bookings toward the option they were meant to promote (d = 0.00). It still shows up in hypothetical online choices.

The **"because" effect**, where any reason, even an empty one, is said to raise compliance, has never been tested in a large study as far as our search could find. The 1978 copy-machine study remains the main evidence.

**Figure 2. Large tests found a median 25% of the original effect**

The best large-test effect as a share of the classic study's, for the 7 effects with both. 100% would mean the large test found the full original effect; below zero, the large test pointed the other way. Scarcity, in purple, is the median.

|   | Large-test effect as a share of the classic study's |
| --- | --- |
| Anchoring | 125.8% |
| Social proof | 69.3% |
| Reciprocity | 59.7% |
| Scarcity | 25.1% |
| Choice overload | 6.9% |
| Ego depletion | 4.3% |
| Priming | -3.8% |

*Source: Ken Research review of 132 published studies, analysed by Cristian Frunze.*

## How sure are we?

Four grades turn on a single judgment call. Anchoring would become Mixed if a set of pay-what-you-want field studies, public only as an abstract, counted as a null test. Choice overload would become Mixed if the one-versus-four comparison replaced two-versus-four. Loss framing's grade rests on its one positive test, and name personalization's on one email experiment. With every flagged call set against the effects, the count falls to 1 Replicated, 7 Mixed, 3 Failed and 1 untested.

**Figure 3. The grades, and how far they move on the judgment calls**

Number of the 12 effects in each grade. The gray bars set every flagged judgment call against the effect: the most skeptical reading of the same evidence.

|   | Main grades | Every judgment call set against the effect |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Replicated | 4 | 1 |
| Mixed | 6 | 7 |
| Failed | 1 | 3 |
| Not tested in a large study | 1 | 1 |

*Source: Ken Research review of 132 published studies, analysed by Cristian Frunze.*

The 25% median depends on the comparison studies. Using the 1981 risky-choice study as the classic for loss framing gives 16%, and a cruder formula for the cookie-jar study gives 42%. Either way, the large tests find well under half of the original effects.

Most of the evidence comes from consumers, students and survey respondents, not professional buyers. Some sources could be read only as abstracts, and most meta-analyses do not correct for publication bias, which inflates effects.

## What this means for B2B sales teams

- **Use anchors you can defend.** A list price, a first offer or a reference deal. It is the one effect that held up large and transfers to B2B buying.
- **Give something first, and expect a modest lift.** Reciprocity works, but the effect is small.
- **Use the buyer's name, but don't count on it.** The one large email test found a gain; a newer replication found none.
- **Social proof and fewer, clearer options may help a little.** Think a few percent, not a new motion.
- **Don't build a sales motion on priming, decoy pricing tiers or "decision fatigue".** The strongest tests found little or nothing.

## Data and method

- **Data:** Published research only: 132 sources from 836 logged queries across three literature databases (Crossref, Europe PMC and Semantic Scholar), plus known-item lookups and citation chasing. No Ken internal data was used.
- **Sample:** 12 persuasion effects cited in sales and marketing playbooks, graded on 132 included sources.
- **Date range:** Databases searched on 15 October 2026. Classic studies from 1975 to 2008.
- **Method:** Pre-registered evidence review: predicted grades, grading rules and effect-size conversions were committed before any search. A second reviewer checked every number against its source, and a fresh analysis recomputed every grade.
- **Excluded:** Narrative reviews, single small studies, books, press and vendor reports; Preprints, except multi-site replications; Studies below the strong-test thresholds, which give context but do not set a grade.
- **Privacy:** No personal data. Every number comes from a published source, listed in the methodology PDF.

[Full methodology as Markdown](/research/persuasion-science-replication/methodology.md) · [Download the full methodology (PDF)](/research/persuasion-science-replication.pdf)

## Related studies.

- No. 5: [B2B software didn't hide its prices. It added Contact sales](/research/hidden-pricing.md) - Oct 8, 2026 · Websites and pricing, Founders and startups. 72.1% of pricing pages still showed a price in 2024-2026. Prices stayed on the page: 72.1% of B2B software pricing pages showed one in 2024-2026, against 75.8% in 2014-2016. What spread is Contact sales, offered on 60.3%, up from 44.4%. Full methodology: [Markdown](/research/hidden-pricing/methodology.md) · [PDF](/research/hidden-pricing.pdf).
- No. 11: [How many reps does a sales manager have now?](/research/sales-manager-span-of-control.md) - Oct 20, 2026 · Sales teams, Hiring and org design. 4.99 sales reps per manager title in software and IT, 2026. About five. Software and IT sales teams had 4.99 reps per manager title in early 2026, up from 4.16 at the end of 2016. The 2023 cuts nudged that up 2.8% rather than resetting it. Full methodology: [Markdown](/research/sales-manager-span-of-control/methodology.md) · [PDF](/research/sales-manager-span-of-control.pdf).
- No. 10: [Where does Series A money go? As much to selling as to building](/research/series-a-hiring.md) - Oct 18, 2026 · Founders and startups, Hiring and org design, Sales teams. 26.9% of Series A net adds go to selling, level with building. Into more people, split evenly. In the year after a Series A, software companies put 27.0% of net adds into building and 26.9% into selling, and added 13.4 people each, against 7.5 the year before. Full methodology: [Markdown](/research/series-a-hiring/methodology.md) · [PDF](/research/series-a-hiring.pdf).

## Put the data to work.

No card · Or we run it for you

[Get early access](https://app.ken.so/auth/sign-up)