In Accord with Norman Miller on Recency
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 13651966 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Warner Wilson (University of Alabama), W Stephen Wilson (University of Alabama, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1968 |
| Volume | 23 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 386-386 |
| Publication date | 1968-10-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Psychological Reports (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0033-2941 • E-ISSN: 1558-691X |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.2466/pr0.1968.23.2.386 |
| OpenAlex | W2312820088 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 5 |
The model proposed by Miller and Campbell (1959) is intuitively appealing; it has been a surprise and a disappointment that recent work has not been more completely confirmatory. It is helpful to have Miller (1968) discuss the bearing of recent dara on the model. He seems correct in suggesting that appropriate editing misht reconcile the model wirh the data. The main point of this comment is that the qualification he suggests-that the model may only apply when speeches are long-should be viewed not as an edltion of the model which is already firmly supported but rather as an hypothesis whlch, if confirmed, would justify faith in the new edition of the model. Research on order effects is fraught wirh inconsistencies which occurred for no apparent reason. Looking to the most pertinent studies, Zdep and Wilson (1968) suggest that rhe Miller-Campbell model implies three predictions. Miller and Campbell (1959) supported only the first two, while lnsko (1964) supported only the third, and Wilson and Miller (1968) only the second. These points can all be confirmed by the simple expedient of measuring the relative size of the curve separations in the illustrative figure (Miller & Campbell, 1959; Zdep & Wilson, 1968) and comparing these to the dara as appropriate. The question is: Could one be sure of greater consisrenq if he simply replicated one of the studies three times? Considering that both Insko (1984) and Wilson and Miller (1968) intended to replicate Miller and Campbell (1959) and considering the general inconsistency in the area, one should not overlook the possibility that clerical error, inappropriate .. statistics, and other flukes may influence results more than one might prefer to belleve. Equally important, even if the three studies are replicable, length of speeches is only one of their innumerable differences. One other possibility that comes readily to mind is a distinction between disputants who seek a differential response to agreed upon facts versus disputants who urge the acceptance of conflicting versions of the same facts. Insko's (1964) materials apparently have more conflicting facts. If one agrees with Zdep and Wilson (1968) that prediction 3 is most critical and then notes that only Insko (1964) has supported this prediction, one may entertain other editing. Although the dara may essenrially confirm the model, as Miller (1959) says, one cannot fully confirm a model, or a new edition of one, until he has (a) presented the relevant data, (b) demonstrated its reliability through replication, and (c) demonstrated its robustness in the face of changes in supposedly irrelevant factors. The last two goals seem to be unfinished business
Disappointment · Epistemology · Miller · Psychoanalysis · Surprise · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Recency Effects in Opinion Formation
Repetition, order of presentation, and timing of arguments and measures as determinants of opinion change
Recency and primacy in persuasion as a function of the timing of speeches and measurements
Primacy versus recency in persuasion as a function of the timing of arguments and measures
| Highly cited | No |
|---|