Climax, Anti-climax and Pyramidal Order
When a message or issue has to be presented, is it more effective to utilize the strongest arguments at the outset, in the middle or at the end? A climax order places the most important materials last; an anticlimax order arranges the most important materials first; and a pyramidal order places the most important materials in the middle of the message. Clearly, most studies show no support for placement of an important piece of information in the middle of a message, thus making the pyramidal order the weakest (Bettinghaus 1980). To measure the relative effectiveness of climax and anticlimax order Sponberg (1946) conducted a study using communications dealing with wartime marriages. His study revealed the law of primacy in the presentation of oral material and favored the anticlimax order of speech composition.
Cromwell (1950) on the other hand came to an opposite conclusion and indicated the superiority of a climax sequence in speech composition. This difference in results could also be due to slightly different methodologies used by the two. (Gulley 1956) used a series of persuasive speeches for their experiments and suggested that either climax or anticlimax orders are preferable to pyramidal orders. Their study showed that in attitude change the climactic order was superior to both anti-climactic and pyramidal; though the differences were not statistically significant. In light of no definitive preference of climax and anticlimax orders, Hovland(1953) analyzed the factors that would make either of these orders more effective under a particular set of conditions. They proposed that climax order would be favored on issues with which the audience is familiar and where deep concern is felt, but that anticlimax order will be favored on unfamiliar topics with uninterested audiences.