The hidden power of sequence in business communication

Imagine a sales executive preparing for a high-stakes pitch. She has a slide deck filled with strong data points, glowing testimonials, and a clear value proposition. She spends hours refining the content of each slide to ensure the arguments are sound. However, she spends almost no time thinking about the order in which those slides appear.

Most professionals operate under the assumption that good arguments add up to a persuasive conclusion regardless of their arrangement. A study published in 2022 in Frontiers in Psychology challenges this static view of influence.

Researchers Roman Linne, Jannis Hildebrandt, Gerd Bohner, and Hans-Peter Erb investigated a concept known as Sequential Information Processing (SIP). Their work suggests that the sequence in which information is presented is not merely a stylistic choice. Instead, the order of arguments fundamentally alters how the human brain processes subsequent information. The team designed an investigation to observe how early pieces of information create a cognitive lens that biases the interpretation of everything that follows. Their findings offer a new perspective on how attitudes are formed and changed over time.

Psychology of Selling

Sign up for our free weekly newsletter for the latest insights.

Name

Email

Moving Beyond Static Persuasion

The field of social psychology has long studied persuasion, but much of the historic research focuses on static elements. Traditional studies ask which arguments are strongest or which sources are most credible. This approach treats a message as a collection of separate parts that a listener creates a sum from. Roman Linne and his colleagues at Helmut Schmidt University and Bielefeld University in Germany argued that this view is incomplete. They proposed that persuasion is a dynamic event where every new piece of information interacts with what came before it.

To explain this, the researchers developed the Sequential Information Processing framework. This theory draws upon two major predecessors in psychology: the Heuristic-Systematic Model and the Parametric Unimodel. The Heuristic-Systematic Model suggests people process information in two ways. They either use mental shortcuts, known as heuristics, or they engage in deep, systematic analysis. The Parametric Unimodel argues that there is no qualitative difference between these two types. It posits that all information serves as evidence, and the depth of processing depends simply on effort and relevance.

Linne and his team combined elements of these theories to propose a unified model. They hypothesized that an audience does not judge an argument in isolation. Instead, the first piece of information a person receives creates an inference or an expectation. When the second piece of information arrives, the person does not view it neutrally. They view it through the filter created by the first piece. This process means that the same argument can have a different impact depending on whether it appears at the start, middle, or end of a presentation.

The Mechanics of Expectation and Bias

The core of the SIP framework relies on a chain of cognitive events. The researchers posited that the first piece of information establishes a rule or a valence expectation. For example, if a speaker opens with a strong positive statement about a product, the audience expects subsequent statements to be positive as well. This expectation triggers a specific processing pathway called assimilation.

Assimilation occurs when new information is interpreted to align with the initial expectation. If a listener expects a positive argument and receives a somewhat ambiguous one, they will likely interpret that ambiguous point as positive to maintain consistency. This mental inertia makes early inferences resistant to change. The brain prefers to fit new data into the existing model rather than build a new model from scratch.

However, the researchers also identified a breaking point. If the discrepancy between the expectation and the new information is too large, assimilation becomes impossible. The researchers hypothesized that when a listener encounters information that sharply contradicts their expectation, a “contrast effect” occurs. Instead of blending the new information into their current view, the listener rejects the initial expectation entirely and evaluates the new information as even more extreme in the opposite direction.

Testing the Theory: The Abolition of Cash

To observe these effects in a controlled environment, the researchers recruited 206 participants. They selected a topic that generated moderate opinions rather than extreme polarization: the potential abolition of cash in favor of digital payments. This topic allowed for the measurement of both positive and negative attitude shifts.

The study employed a complex experimental design to isolate the effect of sequence. Participants were divided into groups and presented with a series of arguments. The researchers varied the “Initial Point of Information” (POI). Some participants read an initial argument in favor of abolishing cash (Pro), while others read an argument against it (Contra).

Following this initial prime, participants received a sequence of three subsequent arguments. The researchers manipulated the stance of these subsequent arguments to be either all Pro or all Contra. The critical variable, however, was the specific order of these three arguments. In one condition, the arguments flowed from the most extreme to the least extreme. In the other condition, the sequence was reversed, moving from neutral to extreme.

Analyzing the Contrast Effect

The researchers collected data on the participants’ attitudes toward the abolition of cash after reading the arguments. They also asked participants to record their thoughts after each argument to track their cognitive responses in real time. The analysis focused on identifying whether the sequence of identical arguments produced different final attitudes.

The results confirmed the existence of the contrast effect. The data showed that the most significant shifts in attitude occurred when there was a stark, immediate difference between the first piece of information and the second. For instance, consider a participant who received an initial argument against abolishing cash. This set a negative expectation. If this participant immediately encountered a strong, extreme argument in favor of abolishing cash, their final attitude was significantly more positive than participants who read the same arguments in a gradual sequence.

When the discrepancy was high and immediate, the participants could not assimilate the new information. The clash forced them to abandon their initial negative lens. As a result, the subsequent positive argument landed with greater impact. Conversely, in groups where the sequence was gradual or the arguments were less contradictory, assimilation occurred. In those cases, the initial bias dampened the impact of the opposing arguments.

The Role of Argument Strength and Positioning

The study highlighted that the objective strength of an argument is not the only factor in its success. The argument’s position relative to the audience’s current expectation determines its weight. The researchers found that a strong argument creates a powerful anchor. If a communicator wants to shift an audience’s perspective, placing a strong opposing argument immediately after a clear initial stance can trigger the contrast effect.

The participants’ written thoughts supported this finding. In conditions where the contrast effect was triggered, participants expressed surprise or immediate re-evaluation. Comments such as “I never thought about it, but that is true” indicated that the jarring sequence broke the cognitive inertia. In conditions where the sequence was smoother, the thoughts reflected a confirmation of the existing bias.

The analysis revealed that the overall effect of a persuasion attempt corresponds to the judgment held at the moment processing stops. Because the brain updates its evaluation continuously, the final impression relies heavily on the interaction between the final piece of information and the inferences drawn from the preceding ones.

Boundaries of the Investigation

While the study provides strong evidence for sequence effects, the researchers outlined specific boundaries to their work. The experiment focused on valence-based expectations, meaning expectations based on whether something was simply “good” or “bad.” It did not fully explore expectations based on logical or syllogistic relations. For example, it did not test how a premise regarding a specific technical feature influences the processing of a logically related benefit.

The study also utilized a specific experimental setting where participants processed information individually. In a real-world business meeting or social negotiation, external context factors might influence the strength of the expectations. The presence of a highly credible speaker or a skeptical audience could amplify or dampen the assimilation and contrast effects.

Additionally, the sample consisted largely of students and younger adults. While cognitive processing mechanisms are generally universal, the researchers noted that individual differences in motivation or cognitive capacity could moderate the effects. A highly motivated expert in a field might be less susceptible to simple sequence effects than a layperson.

Implications for Professional Communication

The findings offer practical insights for anyone involved in negotiation, marketing, or leadership. The results suggest that the standard “sandwich method” of burying bad news or opposing arguments might not always be effective. If the goal is to change a mind, creating a sharp contrast might be more effective than a gradual transition.

For communicators, this means that highlighting a distinct prevailing view and then immediately following it with a strong, contradictory piece of evidence can be a powerful tactic. This sequence creates a psychological gap that the audience fills by moving closer to the new evidence. Conversely, if the goal is to reinforce an existing opinion, communicators should present information that aligns with early expectations to trigger assimilation.

The research also suggests that conversational norms play a role. Audiences often expect the most important arguments to appear at the beginning or end of a message. Violating or leveraging these expectations can change how the message is processed. A speaker who understands SIP can structure their remarks to guide the audience’s cognitive journey, rather than simply dumping data upon them.

Directions for Future Inquiry

The publication of this study opens several new avenues for research in social psychology. The researchers pointed to the need for defining the specific threshold between assimilation and contrast. It remains unclear exactly how different two pieces of information must be to trigger the switch from assimilation to contrast. Future studies could test varying degrees of discrepancy to map this tipping point.

Another area for future investigation is the role of logical relations. The current study looked at positive versus negative arguments. Future research will need to examine whether sequential effects hold true when the connection between information is based on logic rather than emotion or preference. The researchers also called for more real-time assessment methods. Technology that tracks eye movement or physiological responses could provide a more granular view of the moment a person’s processing mode shifts.

Finally, the researchers aim to explore how personality traits intersect with Sequential Information Processing. It is possible that certain individuals have a higher threshold for inconsistency, making them more prone to assimilation and harder to sway via contrast. Understanding these individual differences would refine the theory and provide a more comprehensive map of how humans process the stream of information that confronts them every day.