160 undergraduates read excerpts from a jury trial in either a defense-prosecution or a prosecution-defense order. A significant recency effect appeared on both opinion (p < .05) and retention (p < .01) measures. An attempt to manipulate the order effect, by interpolating materials from another jury trial, either between the parts of the first trial or after the first trial and the opinion rating, proved unsuccessful, possibly because the interpolated materials were not of sufficient length to allow for significant forgetting This study agrees with several others in showing mostly recency effects in decisions concerning jury trials.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
InskoC. A.Primacy versus recency in persuasion as a function of the timing of arguments and measures. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 69, 381–391.
2.
LanaR. E.Three theoretical interpretations of order effects in persuasive communications. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 61, 314–320.
3.
LuchinsA. S.Definitiveness of impression and primacy-recency in communications. Journal of Social Psychology, 1958, 48, 275–290.
4.
McGuireW. J.Attitudes and opinions. Annual Review of Psychology, 1966, 17, 475–514.
5.
MillerN.CampbellD. T.Recency and primacy in persuasion as a function of the timing of speeches and measurements. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 59, 1–9.
6.
RosnowR. L.Whatever happened to the “Law of Primacy?”Journal of Communication, 1966, 16, 10–31.
7.
RosnowR. L.HolzR. F.LevinJ.Differential effects of complementary and competing variables in primacy-recency. Journal of Social Psychology, 1966, 69, 135–147.
8.
SchultzD. P.Primacy-recency within a sensory variation framework. Psychological Review, 1963, 13, 129–139.
9.
WilsonW.MillerH.Repetition, order of presentation, and timing of arguments and measures as determinants of opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 9, 184–188.
