That is, only passersby who actually talked to the ex-perimenters could be included in the experiment. Thus, one mightargue that only participants with a certain prosocial orientationtook part in the experiments, which might have influenced theirprosocial response (i.e., acting as a chaperone for a group ofjuvenile delinquents on a 2-hr trip to the zoo). However, as

only students, who were predominantlyfemale. Moreover, similar toCialdini et al. (1975), we did notemphasize diversity or inclusiveness. Hence, our findings leaveopen to which degree they can be generalized to other samples

References

Theoretical Implications

In a final analysis we found that participants in the rejection-moderation condition (51.28%) complied more often with thesmall request than participants in the smaller request only condi-tion (37.88%),24.52,p.034.

Table 1Percentage of Participants Complying With the Smaller Requestin the OriginalCialdini et al. (1975)Study 3 and the PresentReplication StudyTreatment% ComplianceCialdini et al. (1975)% ComplianceReplicationRejection-moderation condition54.151.3Equivalent request control33.329.6Smaller request only control33.337.9

we discarded those participantswho complied with the extreme request in the rejection-moderation condition from the analyses

“The position could require 2 hours of your time per week for aminimum of 2 years. You would be working more in the line of a BigBrother (Sister) to one of the boys (girls) at the detention home.Would you be interested in being considered for one of thesepositions?

Thatis, we told the experimenters that they were allowed to approachonly participants of the same sex as themselves. Moreover, exper-imenters approached only participants who were passing by aloneon the university campus. Experimenters walked alone across thecampus themselves and did not approach participants within 10min before the start of a university class

317 female, 93 male

main finding of Study 3 had an effectsize ofW.20. Based on a power analysis with GPower (Faul,Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007), 395 participants are needed todetect such an effect with a power of 1.90 and an alphaprobability of.05.

The fact that most previous replication efforts in social psychol-ogy have focused on recent publications, coupled with the claimthat social psychological findings are limited to a particular time,place, culture, and population (Gergen, 1973;Van Bavel, et al.,2016), motivated us

nterestingly, this is not whatCialdini et al. (1975)found. Rather opposite to this prediction,participants in thesmaller-request only control conditionandparticipants in theequivalent request control conditionwere bothless likely to agree with the small request as compared to therejection-moderation condition.

p.10

InCialdini et al.’s (1975)seminal article, student researchassistants approached potential participants who were passing byalone on the campus and asked them whether they would bewilling to take a group of young delinquents to the zoo for 2 hr.When the experimenters asked this question directly, the requestwas accepted by fewer participants than when that request waspreceded by the refusal of an extreme request—that is, working asa volunteer in a juvenile detention center for 2 days a week duringa 2-year period.

To date, the article has elicited 860citations on Google Scholar as of August 11, 2020 and is a classicin introductory psychology courses.

The DITF technique increases the likelihoodthat individuals will comply with a small target request afterturning down a larger request.

In contrast to this idea, aprominent view sees social psychological findings and theories aslimited to a particular time and place (Gergen, 1973).

A reason for the underrepresentationof early social psychological studies in recent replication effortsmight be that these early studies were often carried out in a veryeffortful way.

(Doyen, Klein, Pichon, &Cleeremans, 2012;O’Donnell et al., 2018;Rohrer, Pashler, &Harris, 2015)

Social Cognition Center Cologne, University of Cologne,Richard-Strauss Street 2, 50931 Cologne, Germany

Previous Replications in (Social) Psychology

Overall, compliance rates in our replication weresimilarly high as thoseCialdini et al. (1975)found 45 years ago. That is, participants were more likelyto comply with a target request after turning down an extreme request than participants who were exposedto the target request only or to a similarly small request before being exposed to the target request.

Most of thesereplication attempts have focused on findings published from the 1990s on, ignoring a large body of olderliterature.

Oliver Genschow, Mareike Westfal, Jan Crusius, Léon Bartosch, Kyra Isabel Feikes, Nina Pallasch,and Mirella Wozniak

Does Social Psychology Persist Over Half a Century? A Direct ReplicationofCialdini et al.’s (1975)Classic Door-in-the-Face Technique

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology