Page 114 - The Social Animal

96 The Social Animal

amount of time separating the events in the situation: (1) the amount
of time between the first communication and the second communi-
cation, and (2) the amount of time between the end of the second
communication and the moment when the members of the audience
must finally make up their minds. Here are the crucial points: (1) In-
hibition (interference) is greatest if very little time elapses between
the two communications; here, the first communication produces
maximum interference with the learning of the second communica-
tion, and a primacy effect will occur—the first speaker will have the
advantage. (2) Retention is greatest, and recency effects will there-
fore prevail, when the audience must make up its mind immediately
after hearing the second communication.
Okay. Are you still on the phone? Here’s the plan: If you and
your opponent are to present your arguments back to back, and if the
election is still several days away, you should speak first.The primacy
of your speech will interfere with the audience’s ability to learn your
opponent’s arguments; with the election several days away, differen-
tial effects due to memory are negligible. But if the election is going
to be held immediately after the second speech, and there is to be a
prolonged coffee break between the two speeches, you would do well
to speak last. Because of the coffee break between speeches, the in-
terference of the first speech with the learning of the second speech
will be minimal; because the audience must make up its mind right
after the second speech, as the second speaker you would have reten-
tion working for you. Therefore the recency effect would be domi-
nant: All other things being equal, the last speech will be the more
persuasive.
These speculations were confirmed in an experiment by Norman
53
Miller and Donald Campbell. In this experiment, a simulated jury
trial was arranged, in which participants were presented with a con-
densed version of the transcript of an actual jury trial of a suit for
damages brought against the manufacturers of an allegedly defective
vaporizer. The pro side of the argument consisted of the testimony
of witnesses for the plaintiff, cross-examination of defense witnesses
by the plaintiff ’s lawyer, and the opening and closing speeches of the
plaintiff ’s lawyer. The con side of the argument consisted of the tes-
timony of witnesses for the defense, the defense lawyer’s cross-exam-
inations, and his opening and closing speeches. The condensed
version of this transcript was arranged so that all of the pro argu-