| |
A
primacy effect is defined as when “the message
presented first exerts a disproportionate impact on an individual’s
opinion” (Crano 87-96).
A recency
effect is defined as “when the later message predominates”
(Crano 87-96).
These
definitions, although misleadingly simple, seem to open the door to numerous
studies in the field. The empirical results produced are rather divergent,
with many opposing results due to other, more specific factors.
History
The initial research on this subject began in 1925 with F.H. Lund. Lund
first studied the law of primacy, albeit without any
statistical research. His before-after design was the first to prove
that when two opposed messages on a controversial topic were presented,
the initial message was more influential (Lund 183-191). This research
was generally accepted by the field until 1950, when Cromwell published
findings of a recency effect in persuasive arguments that were considered
statistically reliable (Cromwell 105-122).
Once this discrepancy in communication order was discovered, Hovland and
his associates at Yale University took it upon themselves to uncover the
underlying disparities in persuasive communication (1957). There had to
be other factors involved. In The Order of Presentation in Persuasion,
a series of studies was conducted on the primacy-recency question. Hovland
and company concluded that lack of agreement in Lund and Cromwell’s
studies was due to specific factors “influencing one or another
of these processes” and that “neither primacy nor recency
could be viewed as a generally expected phenomenon” (Hovland, et.al).
This has been the relative consensus since 1957. The field of communication
research is still divided today as to whether primacy or recency imparts
a definitive opinion on an individual’s opinion.
A Case Study
In 1977,
Crano decided to outline a study to further the previous conclusions on
the nature of order effects, which were said to be unambiguous and opposed
in their predictions. Order effects, in particular those of primacy v.
recency, deal with the order in which a specific presentation of materials
can influence or change the receiver’s opinion. This is separate
from the actual material presented, whether in form or in content.
A break-down of the specifics that were to be tested by Crano:
1. Serial-position effect in
impression formation, which is conceptually similar to primacy position
in persuasion;
a. Change of meaning hypothesis…”adjectives
presented first on a stimulus list established a set, or expectation,
through which the meanings of the later descriptors were modified in an
attempt to maintain consistency in the mind of the receiver.”
b. Inconsistency discounting…”later
descriptions on the stimulus list were discounted if inconsistent with
earlier trait adjectives.
c. Attention decrement hypothesis…”earlier
adjectives would wield considerably more influence than later ones, and
a primacy effect in the typical impression formation task would be expected
to occur…even when the stimulus list contains traits of a high degree
of consistency.”
Crano’s research attempts answer the question of whether “attention
decrement hypothesis can provide a reasonably successful model in the
prediction of primacy-recency effects.”
The critical topic of study was student’s opinions toward Medicare.
It was an important issue, but not one that the students had adopted a
fixed viewpoint towards. The students were required to read two factual
600-word passages on Medicare; one was pro, the other con. Both order
of presentation and order of measures were distributed in varying order.
The exact factorial combination was 2 x 2 x 2 by nature of attention instructions,
message order, and measure order.
The
Results
Crano discovered that an almost opposite effect of the expected effect
occurred; with the change of meaning hypothesis and inconsistency discounting
a supposed primacy effect would have occurred. Instead, a recency effect
occurred. Attention
decrement hypothesis was able to account for its proposed implications,
however.
The total pattern of results led to the conclusion that “Attitude
change differences induced as a function of attention and message order
variations were not mediated by differences in retention of factual material
presented in the communications.”
So, in defense of his research, Crano ends with the idea that “hierarchical
memory structure approach fosters a set of clear and testable propositions
which under appropriate experimental conditions are clearly at variance
with those developed through a consideration of the more popular dual
memory system theory.”
<
>
|
|