• Custom Writing Services
  • How to Write a Research Paper
  • Research Paper Topics
  • Research Paper Examples
  • Order

Communication

iResearchNet

Custom Writing Services

Custom Writing Services
Communication » Media » Order of Presentation

Order of Presentation




The effectiveness of a communication depends on a variety of factors. Among those concerning organization and procedure, order of presentation forms one of the major factors that influence the impact of communication on an audience. It is to Carl I. Hovland and team’s credit that appropriate research questions and experimental designs have been developed to test and acknowledge this effect. “Order” refers to two aspects of variation: “(1) the order of presenting a series of communications, and (2) the order of presenting the various elements within a single communication” (Hovland 1957).

Order Effects In Successive Communication

For order effects in successive communication, the issue of the most advantageous position is of pivotal concern. We need to consider on the one hand the effects of being in first position, in terms of presenting our own communication before opposing arguments have an opportunity to reach the audience, and on the other hand the effects of being in last position, i.e., having the “final say.” Lund (1925) enunciated a law of primacy, stating that the side of an issue presented first will have greater effectiveness than the side presented afterwards. In a replication of the Lund experiment by Hovland & Mandell (1952), results indicated that only one of three groups showed a greater effectiveness for the side presented first (primacy), while two groups showed the second side to be more effective (recency).




In another experiment to test this phenomenon, Hovland & Mandell (1957) used topics of interest at the time. The order of presentation was counterbalanced. Half of the subjects received the affirmative arguments first and the other half the negative arguments first. Opinion questions were asked after the first and again after the second side had been presented. Three of four groups showed a recency effect and only one a primacy effect. The authors therefore concluded: “When two sides of an issue are presented successively by different communicators, the side presented first does not necessarily have the advantage.” The results of Hovland & Mandell raised serious questions about the generality of the law of primacy in persuasion for communication situations in which two sides of a controversial issue are successively communicated.

Further research on primacy or recency effects was stimulated by considering mediator variables. Primacy is found to be advantageous, particularly during the first stages in information processing. As attention wanes, however, the second side will increase its relative impact by prolonging attention (Tetlock 1981). Space as another moderating variable showed that shortening the interval between both sides favors primacy, while shortening the interval between the second side and the impact measurements favors recency. The spacing effects are more evident for recency and attitude change (Miller & Campbell 1959). Finally, if the communications are on a very controversial issue, the advantage of primacy is reduced. Summarizing, the primacy/recency effects clearly depend on mediating variables that facilitate either a primacy or a recency effect.

Order Effects In A Single Communication

The order of presentation within a single communication includes a series of possible variations. Only two pivotal aspects are referred to here: (1) the effectiveness of oneand two-sided messages, and (2) the effectiveness of explicit and implicit conclusions in persuasive messages. When communicating a persuasive message the sender has to decide whether to consider opposing viewpoints. A two-sided message is a message that not only presents arguments in favor of a position but also considers opposing arguments. A onesided message, on the other hand, presents only arguments in favor of a particular position.

Hovland et al. (1949) concluded from a series of experiments that two-sided messages show a greater effect for persons who reveal a personal opinion contrary to the one presented. For supporters of the position presented in the communication a one-sided message shows greater effects. The two-sided message is also more effective than the one-sided message when individuals subsequently are exposed to opposing propaganda. Two-sided messages provide an immunizing effect. Finally, intervening variables such as education and intelligence are found to moderate the effect. For an intelligent audience, two-sided messages are proven to be more effective.

Studies on persuasion continued to investigate the effect of oneand two-sided messages. Petty & Cacioppo (1981) find for advertising messages that a one-sided message is superior to a two-sided message if the advertised product is “well-liked, widely consumed, has few competitors, and enjoys loyal customers.” A two-sided message is more persuasive when “the audience is well-informed about a product and its alternatives, the product is not widely preferred, or the audience is likely to be exposed to advertisements for competitive products”.

More recent experimental studies differentiate between two types of two-sided messages: refutational and nonrefutational. Refutational messages mention counterarguments to the position advocated and then refute them. Nonrefutational messages only mention the counterargument, without offering a refutation (Lucas 1989; Allen 1991). These studies show that a two-sided message with refutation generates more favorable attitudes than a one-sided message. However, a one-sided message is more persuasive than a two-sided message with no refutation. The two-sided message with refutation generally appears to be more persuasive and independent of the favorability of the audience.

Studies have also addressed whether communicators may rely on implicit conclusion drawing by the audience rather than explicitly stating their own position. In an experiment on economic questions, Hovland & Mandell (1952) found supporting evidence for the relevance of explicitly stating conclusions: more than twice as many recipients are likely to agree with the opinion of the communicator when the message includes an explicit conclusion, compared with a message with an implicit conclusion. Audience members may require an explicit conclusion to understand a persuasive message. If the recipient of an implicit message reaches no conclusion, less attitude change occurs in the advocated direction. Conclusion comprehension is seen as a critical mediating variable between conclusion drawing and attitude change. Implicit conclusion drawing affords comprehension of the message. Accordingly, for complex issues implicit messages are expected to be less persuasive than explicit ones.

Another mediating variable is found in a recipient’s involvement. Implicit messages can yield a greater effect than explicit ones if recipients are highly involved (Kardes 1988; Sawyer & Howard 1991). The advantage of implicit messages for highly involved persons results from a greater comprehension of the conclusion and a greater persuasiveness of self-generated conclusions compared to conclusions offered by the communicator (“People don’t like to be told what to think”). But if recipients are involved only on a low level, stating explicit conclusions has an advantage. Explicit conclusions also seem to be more persuasive than implicit conclusions for recipients who initially are favorable to the message. For those who initially are unfavorable, no differences between explicit and implicit conclusions are observed (Thistlewaite et al. 1955; Fine 1957).

Concluding, explicit messages are found to be slightly more persuasive than implicit messages. But complexity of the message, and especially involvement, moderates the effects of explicit and implicit messages.

References:

  1. Allen, M. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided message. Western Journal of Communication, 55, 390 – 404.
  2. Fine, B. (1957). Conclusion-drawing, communicator credibility, and anxiety as factors in opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54, 369 –374.
  3. Hovland, C. I. (ed.) (1957). The order of presentation in persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  4. Hovland, C. I., & Mandell, W. (1952). An experimental comparison of conclusion-drawing by the communicator and by the audience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 581–588.
  5. Hovland, C. I., & Mandell, W. (1957). Is there a law of primacy in persuasion? In C. I. Hovland (ed.), The order of presentation in persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 13 –22.
  6. Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Experiments on mass communication. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  7. Kardes, F. (1988). Spontaneous inference processes in advertising: The effects of conclusion omission and involvement on persuasion. In Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 225 –233.
  8. Lucas, S. (1989). The art of public speaking, 3rd edn. New York: Random House.
  9. Lund, F. H. (1925). The psychology of belief: IV. The law of primacy in persuasion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 20, 183 –191.
  10. Miller, N., & Campbell, D. T. (1959). Recency and primacy in persuasion as a function of the timing of speeches and measurements. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 1– 9.
  11. Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
  12. Sawyer, A., & Howard, D. (1991). Effects of omitting conclusions in advertising to involved and uninvolved audiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 467– 474.
  13. Tetlock, P. E. (1981). Preto post-election shifts in presidential rhetoric: Impression management or cognitive adjustment? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 207–212.
  14. Thistlethwaite, D. L., de Haan, H., & Kamenetzky, J. (1955). The effects of “directive” and “nondirective” communication procedures on attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 107–113.




Communication Research

Communication Research

  • Media
    • Media Economics
    • Media Effects
    • Media History
    • Media Production and Content
    • Media Systems
    • Media and Perceptions of Reality
    • Excitation Transfer Theory
    • Effects Of Exemplification And Exemplars
    • Economics of Advertising
    • Antitrust Regulation
    • Audience Commodity
    • Brands
    • Circulation
    • Commercialization of the Media
    • Competition in Media Systems
    • Concentration in Media Systems
    • Consolidation of Media Markets
    • Consumers in Media Markets
    • Cost and Revenue Structures in the Media
    • Cross-Media Marketing
    • Distribution
    • Diversification of Media Markets
    • Economies of Scale in Media Markets
    • Globalization of the Media
    • Labor in the Media
    • Labor Unions in the Media
    • Markets of the Media
    • Media Conglomerates
    • Media Management
    • Media Marketing
    • Mergers
    • Ownership in the Media
    • Piracy
    • Political Economy of the Media
    • Privatization of the Media
    • Forms of Media Corporations
    • Public Goods
    • Agenda-Setting Effects
    • Appraisal Theory
    • Media Effects on Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs
    • Cognitive Availability
    • Albert Bandura
    • Catharsis Theory
    • Steven H. Chaffee
    • Credibility Effects
    • Cumulative Media Effects
    • Desensitization
    • Diffusion of Information and Innovation
    • Emotional Arousal Theory
    • Media Effects on Emotions
    • Effects of Entertainment
    • Fear Induction through Media Content
    • Leon Festinger
    • Framing Effects
    • Frustration Aggression Theory
    • George Gerbner
    • Carl I. Hovland
    • Intercultural Media Effects
    • Elihu Katz
    • Knowledge Gap Effects
    • Latitude of Acceptance
    • Linear and Nonlinear Models of Causal Analysis
    • Mainstreaming
    • Media Effects: Direct and Indirect Effects
    • Media Effects Duration
    • History of Media Effects
    • Media Effects Models: Elaborated Models
    • Strength of Media Effects
    • Media System Dependency Theory
    • Mediating Factors
    • Mediatization of Society
    • Structure of Message Effect
    • Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann
    • Effects of Nonverbal Signals
    • Observational Learning
    • Opinion Leader
    • Order of Presentation
    • Persuasion
    • Physical Effects of Media Content
    • Priming Theory
    • Media Effects on Public Opinion
    • Reciprocal Effects
    • Schemas and Media Effects
    • Effects of Sex and Pornography as Media Content
    • Sleeper Effect
    • Media Effects on Social Behavior
    • Media Effects on Social Capital
    • Social Judgment Theory
    • Trap Effect
    • Two-Step Flow of Communication
    • Secondary Victimization
    • Effects of Violence as Media Content
    • Academy Awards
    • History of Advertising
    • BBC
    • Cable Television
    • History of Censorship
    • History of Cinematography
    • History of Citizen Journalism
    • Civil Rights Movement and the Media
    • Coffee Houses as Public Sphere
    • Effects of Violence as Media Content
    • Academy Awards
    • Collective Memory and the Media
    • History of Digital Media
    • History of Documentary Film
    • History of Elections and Media
    • Electronic Mail
    • Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
    • Fleet Street
    • Fourth Estate
    • Graffiti
    • Historic Key Events and the Media
    • Illustrated Newspapers
    • Literary Journalism
    • History of Magazine
    • Music Videos
    • Nineteenth-Century New Journalism
    • History of News Agencies
    • History of News Magazine
    • Newscast
    • 24-Hour Newscast
    • Antecedents of Newspaper
    • History of Newspaper
    • Paperback Fiction
    • Penny Press
    • History of Postal Service
    • History of Printing
    • Newsreel
    • Freedom of Communication
    • Propaganda in World War II
    • History of Public Broadcasting
    • Radical Media
    • Radio Networks
    • Radio: Social History
    • Radio Technology
    • Satellite Television
    • History of Sports and the Media
    • History of Telegraph
    • Television Networks
    • Television: Social History
    • Television Technology
    • Underground Press
    • History of Violence and the Media
    • Virtual Reality
    • Watergate Scandal
    • Women’s Movement and the Media
    • Accountability of the Media
    • Accountability of the News
    • Accuracy
    • Balance
    • Bias in the News
    • Commentary
    • Commercialization: Impact on Media Content
    • Conflict as Media Content
    • Consonance of Media Content
    • Construction of Reality through the News
    • Credibility of Content
    • Crime Reporting
    • Editorial
    • Endorsement
    • Ethics of Media Content
    • Fairness Doctrine
    • Fictional Media Content
    • Framing of the News
    • Infotainment
    • Instrumental Actualization
    • Internet
    • Internet News
    • Local News
    • Magazine
    • Media Performance
    • Morality and Taste in Media Content
    • Narrative News Story
    • Negativity
    • Neutrality
    • News
    • News Factors
    • News Production and Technology
    • News Values
    • Newspaper
    • Objectivity in Reporting
    • Plurality
    • Quality of the News
    • Quality Press
    • Radio
    • Radio News
    • Reality and Media Reality
    • Scandalization in the News
    • Sensationalism
    • Separation of News and Comments
    • Soap Operas
    • Soft News
    • Sound Bites
    • Stereotypes
    • Synchronization of the News
    • Tabloid Press
    • Tabloidization
    • Television
    • News
    • Truth and Media Content
    • Violence as Media Content
    • Africa: Media Systems
    • Austria: Media System
    • Balkan States: Media Systems
    • Baltic States: Media Systems
    • Argentina: Media System
    • Bolivia: Media System
    • Brazil: Media System
    • Canada: Media System
    • Caribbean States: Media Systems
    • Central America: Media Systems
    • Chile: Media System
    • China: Media System
    • Colombia: Media System
    • Convergence of Media Systems
    • Cuba: Media System
    • Czech Republic: Media System
    • Egypt: Media System
    • France: Media System
    • Germany: Media System
    • Gulf States: Media Systems
    • India: Media System
    • Iran: Media System
    • Israel: Media System
    • Italy: Media System
    • Japan: Media System
    • Malaysia: Media System
    • Mexico: Media System
    • Netherlands: Media System
    • North Africa: Media Systems
    • Poland: Media System
    • Portugal: Media System
    • Public Broadcasting Systems
    • Russia: Media System
    • Scandinavian States: Media Systems
    • Singapore: Media System
    • South Africa: Media System
    • South Korea: Media System
    • Spain: Media System
    • Switzerland: Media System
    • United Kingdom: Media System
    • United States of America: Media System
    • West Asia: Media Systems
    • Behavioral Norms: Perception through the Media
    • Body Images in the Media
    • Computer Games and Reality Perception
    • Cultivation Effects
    • Disowning Projection
    • Entertainment Content and Reality Perception
    • Extra-Media Data
    • False Consensus
    • False Uniqueness
    • Media Campaigns And Perceptions Of Reality
    • Media Content and Social Networks
    • Media Messages and Family Communication
    • Media and Perceptions of Reality
    • Perceived Realism as a Decision Process
    • Perceived Reality as a Communication Process
    • Perceived Reality: Meta-Analyses
    • Perceived Reality as a Social Process
    • Pluralistic Ignorance
    • Pluralistic Ignorance and Ideological Biases
    • Social Perception
    • Social Perception: Impersonal Impact
    • Social Perception: Unrealistic Optimism
    • Socialization by the Media
    • Spiral of Silence
    • Stereotyping and the Media
    • Third-Person Effects
    • Video Malaise

Custom Writing Services

Custom Writing Services