There are many different theoretical models proposed to explain the occurrence of primacy and recency effects.
Shultz developed four postulates from this general hypothesis: Anderson (1981) theorized that order effects occur due to "attention decrement".
According to Hogarth and Einhorn, early information forms an initial impression, which is called an anchor.
This model predicts order effects based on the type of mental processing that is used for the new information.
Beliefs are being adjusted with the processing of each new anchor, which leads to more weight being placed to the information most recently received.
[7] Kassin, Reddy, and Tulloch (1990) believed that the reason for this effect was due to the nature of processing that the jurors engaged in.
The group that had high need for cognition were not persuaded by the weak counter-message, and their opinions were still in line with the initial message.
Participants read arguments for and against an exam policy, and this information was presented as being either chunked or unchunked.
The results show that prior familiarization with a topic increased the likelihood of a primacy effect.
Therefore, those in the long familiarization group had an opinion on the topic that coincided with which argument they heard first, regardless of the actual stance.
However, for high school students, no order effects were exhibited for either the controversial or noncontroversial topics.
Therefore, the controversy of a topic appears to affect the role order effects play for some age groups in persuasion.
[11] Smith, Greenlees, and Manley (2009) found that order effects can occur in assessment of sports ability.
The researchers had participants watch a video composed of an ultimate Frisbee player performing certain skills.
However, the group that made assessments in an extended step-by-step manner were not influenced by the order the abilities were shown.
Therefore, a primacy effect can occur in ability assessment, unless extended step-by-step processing is employed.
[12] In a study conducted by Garnefeld and Steinhoff (2013), order effects were demonstrated for opinions regarding service encounters.
Garnefeld and Steinhoff found that the timing of positive or negative occurrences is what affected satisfaction.
One study, conducted by Bansback, Li, Lynd, and Bryan (2014), demonstrates that a primacy effect will influence the decision for treatment.
The order in which patients receive information appears to influence which treatment option they choose.
[14] In a study conducted by Panagopoulos (2010), order effects were found in terms of voter mobilization.