Journal of Consumer Behaviour

/, Consumer Behav. 9: 32-44 (2010)

Published online 26 October 2009 in Wiley InterScience
(www,interscience,wüey,com) DOI: 10,1002/cb,291

Primacy effect or recency effect?

A long-term memory test of Super
Bowl commercials
Cong Li*
School of Communication, University of Miami, USA

The serial position effects for television commercials were tested within a naturalistic
setting in this study, at both the micro level and the macro level. Television viewers' brand
memory (recall and recognition) for the 2006 Super Bowl commercials were analyzed. At
the micro level, the serial position of each commercial in a same commercial pod was
measured. When the length of a commercialpod was controlledfor, an earlierposition for
a commercial generated better brand recall When the number of preceding ads was held
constant, a commercial in apod with fewer ads generated better brand recognition. At the
macro level, the serialposition of each commercialpod within the whole Super Bowl game
broadcast was measured. The commercial pods at earlier positions generated better
brand memory. Both findings confirmed a strongprimacy effect Managerial implications
of the findings were also discussed.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction
Serial position effects have been studied
extensively in cognitive psychology research
(Cowan et al, 2002), When people are
presented with a Ust of items, it is a weU-
estabUshed finding that the items at the
beginning or at the end of the Ust are more
likely to be recalled than the items in the
middle ofthat Ust. Such phenomena are termed
the primacy and recency effects (Stewart et al.,
2004). Psychological researchers have also
argued that serial position effects occur not
•Correspondence to: Cong Ii, Assistant Professor of
communication, School of communication, university
of Miami, USA,
E-maU: congu@miami,edu
only in the list learning, but also in any task for
which people are required to give responses to
jtems that are arranged in a numerical order. In
^^j^^^. ^ ^ ^ . ^ ^^^ ^ ^^^^ g^^^p ^f ^^^^ stimuU,
the ones that correspond to extreme values on
^j^^ relevant continuum are more easUy
identified than are those closer to the average
^ ^ j ^ ^ ^^ ^^^ stimulus set Qohnson, 1991).
Although serial position effects could be
^ppHed to a number of different research domains,
^ ^ ^ relatively less explored within marketing
communication contexts such as advertising. Only
^ ^^^ researchers have attempted to investigate
the primacy and recency effects for television
commercials, either in a naturalistic or a labo-
j.atory setting (e.g., Pieters and Bijmolt, 1997;
^^^^^ ^ ^ Henderson, 1998;
Newell and Wu, 2003; Terry, 2005). The

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Joumal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.-Feb. 2010
DOI: 10,1002/cb
Long-term memory test of Super Bowl commercials
current study follows this research direction by
examining 109 commercials aired within the
2006 Super Bowl broadcast.
Most prior studies examined the serial posi-
tion effects at the micro level. The researchers
treated a commercial pod as a "list" (analogous
to a word list applied in cognitive psychology
research), and each commercial aired within
that pod as a "word" (analogous to a word in a
word list). However, an undeniable fact is that
most television commercials are aired within
certain shows. They are not isolated, but strongly
or loosely related to each other. In other words,
not only are commercials within a same com-
mercial pod competing ^ t h each other for
vie^vers' attention, but commercial pods within
the same show are as well. The current study
takes this issue into consideration and tests the
serial position eflects at both the micro level and
the macro level. Specifically, besides treating a
commercial pod as a "list" and each commercial
as a "word" (the micro-level test), the whole
2006 Super Bowl broadcast is considered to be a
"Üst," and commercial pods within that game
broadcast to be "words" (the macro-level test).
It is important to make such distinctions
between the micro-level test and the macro-
level test, especially for managerial implications.
Such distinctions will be further elaborated in
the follow^ing sections.
Literature review
Researchers have created and developed
several theoretical models to explain primacy
and recency effects, such as Atkinson and
Shiffrin's (1968) modal model and Murdock's
(I960) distinctiveness model. The purpose of
the current study is not to provide an overall
review of all such models. However, it is
necessary to review briefly how cognitive
psychology researchers approached the mech-
anism vinderlying serial position effects.
Multiple memory systems
Atkinson and Shiffrin's (1968) modal model is
one of the most significant frameworks for
understanding primacy and recency effects.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
33
Although the model has been challenged and
criticized by other researchers, it is still one of
the most influential works in the literature of
verbal learning and memory (Healy and
McNamara, 1996). In their study, Atkinson
and Shiffrin proposed three distinct memory
stores: sensory registers, short-term store
(primary memory), and long-term store (sec-
ondary memory). According to their model,
the primacy effect was more related to the
long-term store, and the recency effect could
be attributed to the short-term store.
Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) argued that
each item in a list entered into a fixed-capacity
rehearsal buffer and displaced a randomly
selected item already there when the capacity
(about four items) had been exceeded. When
an item was in the short-term buffer, its
information may be transferred to the long-
term store. Aktinson and Shiffrin made the
assumption that information could be retained
in both the short-term store and the long-term
store. When people were asked to free recall
the items, they recalled those items still
remaining in the short-term buffer and then
made a fixed number of searches in the long-
term memory store.
Based on this rationale, items at the begin-
ning of a list receive more rehearsals than items
in the middle or the end of the list. Therefore,
these items are more likely to be transferred to
and retained in the long-term store, which is
observed as the primacy effect. Regarding the
recency effect, Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)
argued that in a short-term memory test, there
was little delay between the item presentation
and the recall task. When people are required
to free recall what they have viewed, the items
in the end of the list are still available in the
short-term store and then are ready to be
recalled immediately.
Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) also noticed
that some factors might affect primacy and
recency effects, such as the presence of a
distracter task, the rate of item presentation,
and list length. When a distracter task is put
between the item presentation and the recall
task, the recency effect tends to disappear
because the information in the short-term store
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.-Feb. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb

is wiped out by the time delay. However, the
primacy effect stays intact since those items at
the beginning of the list are recalled from the
long-term store rather than the short-term
store. In contrast, presentation rate and list
length will affect the primacy effect, but not
the recency effect. With a faster presentation
rate, items at the beginning of the list will
remain in the short-term buffer for a shorter
time and, thus, less information about them
will be transferred to the long-term store.
When people are presented with a longer list
of items, the primacy effect will also be
affected. Since people are assumed to make
a fixed number of searches for the items in
the long-term store, the probability of retriev-
ing a particular item is lower when there are
more items. The recency effect will not be
affected by the presentation rate or the list
length because the items at the end of the list
are primarily recalled from the short-term
buffer rather than from the long-term memory
store.
Other alternatives
Atkinson and Shriffin's (1968) modal model
explained primacy and recency effects from a
multiple memory systems' perspective. How-
ever, other researchers proposed a unitary
memory system and generated alternative
frameworks to understand the serial position
effects. For example, another explanation for
the primacy and recency effects was proposed
by Murdock (I960), and it was named the
distinctiveness model. Later, the model was
further developed by other researchers (e.g.,
Johnson, 1991; Neath, 1993).
Murdock (I960) was the first to apply a
quantitative index of distinctiveness to examine
serial position effects. He transferred the
physical value of the items in a list into log
values. The distinctiveness of an item was
defined as the sum of log differences for it.
Based on this measurement, the items at the
beginning and at the end of a list stand out due
to their distinctiveness. Therefore, such items
are easier to be recalled than the items in the
middle of that list.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Cong Li
Other researchers argued that serial position
effects could be due to different levels of
attention (Lewandowsky and Murdock, 1989),
known as the attentional primacy gradient
model. According to this model, during the
encoding of a Ust, people will pay less and less
attention to each additional item, thus gen-
erating the primacy effect. The authors also
suggested that people's memories for listed
items were based on a chaining mechanism.
Each item was associated with its predeces-
sors, and items later in the chain depended on
the accurate recall of the earlier items.
The order of recall was also argued to affect
both the primacy and recency effects (Ober-
auer, 2003). Forward serial recall usually
generates a large primacy effect and a small
recency effect. In contrast, backward recall
wiU usually result in an extended recency
effect and a relatively small primacy effect.
Advertising research on the serial
position effects
As stated earlier, serial position effects have not
attracted full attention from advertising
researchers. There are a limited number of
studies that have explicitly tested the primacy
and recency effects for television commercials.
Most of these studies have discovered signifi-
cant serial position effects (e.g., Pieters and
Bijmolt, 1997; Zhao, 1997; NeweU and Wu,
2003; Terry, 2005) although some have not
(e.g., Newell and Henderson, 1998).
Two early studies were conducted by Zhao
(1997) and Pieters and Bijmolt (1997). In
Zhao's quasi experiment, trained college
students interviewed Super Bowl game view-
ers and asked them to recall and recognize
brands advertised within the game broadcast.
The study results suggested a primacy effect
and the author drew a conclusion that a
commercial in a pod with fewer ads and/or in
an earlier position within the pod would
generate better brand memory. In a similar
vein, Pieters and Bijmolt analyzed data col-
lected in the Netherlands. Television viewers
were interviewed and required to free recall
brand names advertised within specific pro-
Joumal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.-Feb. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
long-term memory test of Super Bowl commercials
grams. Again, the free recall of product names
revealed a primacy effect. There were some
suggestions of a recency effect as well, in that
the final item alone was better recalled than
were the immediately preceding ones.
However, Newell and Henderson's (1998)
study did not produce significant serial position
effects. By conducting a survey for Super Bowl
commercials, the authors found that the
commercials placed in the first position of a
pod were not remembered significantly more
than those placed in the middle or the last.
However, using a similar research technique,
Newell and Wu (2003) found significant serial
position effects. The ads placed first in a com-
mercial pod were recalled significantly more than
those in the middle and at the end, confirming a
primacy effect. The authors also found that the
recall rate of ads and brands declined signifi-
cantly as the Super Bowl game progressed.
All of the abovementioned studies applied
naturalistic settings to test the serial position
effects for television commercials; these set-
tings lack control over confounding variables
to some degree. To solve this problem, Terry
(2005) conducted some experiments to pro-
vide more convergent validity to the natur-
alistic studies. In his experiments, college
students viewed lists of 15 commercials and
recalled the brand names. In a short-term recall
task, both primacy and recency effects were
found. In a long-term recall task, the primacy effect
persisted, but the recency effect disappeared.
The current study retests the serial position
effects in a naturalistic setting (the 2006 Super
Bowl broadcast). The unique contribution of
this study is to test the primacy and recency
effects at both the micro level and the macro
level, which will be further discussed in the
Method section. A long-term memory test for
the Super Bowl commercials is adopted in this
study. In accordance with most prior study
findings, primacy effects are hypothesized to
occur. Two hypotheses are generated, and data
analyses are conducted at the micro level and
the macro level accordingly.
HI: When the serial position of each
commercial within a same commercial
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
35
pod is examined, a primacy effect will be
observed (the micro-level test).
H2: When the serial position of each
commercial pod within the whole 2006
Super Bowl game broadcast is examined, a
primacy effect will be observed (the macro-
level test).
Method
Sample of commercials
A Super Bowl broadcast is a good resource of
advertising research since Super Bowl com-
mercials are always considered to be the best
of that year (Zhao, 1997; Youn et al, 2001).
The commercials analyzed in this study came
from the 2006 Super Bowl broadcast. Counting
from the commercial pod preceding the
kick-off of the game to the pod that followed
the post-^ame interview, the broadcast of the
event carried 109 commercials in total for 67
brands.
Telephone interview
The data were collected via telephone inter-
views during the week following the 2006
Super Bowl game. Undergraduate students
enrolled in research classes at a large, eastem
university used random digit dialing method to
reach local residents in a county of an eastem
state in the United States. The person who had
the next birthday at the designated telephone
number was asked to be interviewed. If a call
resulted in no answer, that number was redialed
later for three times before it was excluded. A
total of 769 interviews were then completed
with a response rate of 56.2 per cent. The mean
age of the interview respondents was 48.0
(SD = 15.0), and there were more females than
males (females: 60.8%; males: 39.2%). Most of
the respondents were working professionals
(66.4%), although there were some house
makers (7.8%), students (5.1%), retired employ-
ees (14.7%), and others (6.0%). Among the 769
respondents, 489 persons (63.6%) claimed that
they had watched the 2006 Super Bowl broad-
Joumal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.-Feb. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
36 Cong Li

cast, either some segments or all. The numbers Measurement of independent variables
of people who had watched thefirsthalf and the at the micro level
second half of the game were very close (first
In the micro-level test, the utiit of analysis was
half: 435; second half: 438).
the 67 brands that aired commercials in the
2006 Super Bowl game broadcast.
Brand memory In traditional serial position effects research
In the telephone interviews, respondents who conducted by cognitive psychologists, exper-
had watched the Super Bowl game were asked iment participants were often presented with a
to recall any brand that aired commercials list of words. In such experiment settings, the
during the game broadcast. The recall score for serial position of each stimulus is easy to
each brand advertised in the broadcast was identify (such as the 1st word, the 2nd word,
aggregated by dividing the number of people and the 3rd word, etc.). However, in a
who recalled the brand name by the total naturalistic setting such as the Super Bowl
number of people who watched the segments broadcast, it is more complex to conceptualize
in which the brand was advertised. the serial position for each commercial ("^^ord")
After the free recall question, each inter- within a same commercial pod ("list").
viewee was given a list of brands which had Specifically, the whole broadcast of the
appeared during the game broadcast and asked Super Bowl game contained several commer-
if they remembered seeing a commercial for cial pods. Each pod carried different numbers
that brand. To ensure the validity of the of commercials, ranging from 1-8 in the year
recognition data, eight false alarm brands 2006. The fact that each commercial pod
which did not appear within the Super Bowl differed in length proposed a challenge to
broadcast were also included in the recog- define the serial position for each commercial.
nition test.^ Although some respondents mis- For example, for a pod with three cotnmer-
takenly recognized one or more false alarm cials, the commercial in the third position
brands, at an overall level, the recogtiition data would be both the third ad and the last ad.
were illustrated to be legitimate (excluding However, in a pod with four commercials, the
those respondents who claimed seeing more ad in the third position would not be the last
than one of the false alarm brands from data but the second to the last. Another challenge
analysis did not change the study findings).^ was that some brands were advertised more
The recognition score for each brand was then than once in the Super Bowl broadcast. In one
calculated by dividing the number of respon- pod, it was the first. In another pod, it may be
dents who had recogtiized the brand by the the second. Therefore, a simple definition of
total number of people who watched the the serial position such as the 1st, the 2nd,
segments in which the brand was advertised. and the 3rd was not suitable for the research
design in the current study.
To solve these problems, two measurements
Data analysis and results were applied to conceptualize the serial
Based on the different characteristics of the position at the micro level: the total number
micro-level test and the macro-level test, the of other ads in a pod and the total number of
independent variables were measured in preceding ads in the same pod. This method
different ways accordingly. was applied successfully in prior research
(Zhao, 1997). If the total number of other ads
'The eight false alarm brands were BMW, Ibuprofen, 7up, in a commercial pod was held constant, the
Hardees, NY Life Insurance, Verizon Wireless, Monster, serial position of a commercial could be
and Professor X.
^Some respondents recognized one or more false alarm determined by the number of its preceding
brands (one brand: 94 respondents; two brands: 23 ads in the same pod. For example, if we know
respondents; three brands: 9 respondents; four brands: the total number of other ads in a pod is four.
6 respondents).

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.-Feb. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Long-term memory test of Super Bowl commercials 37

Table 1. Univadate statistics of the independent and dependent variables at the micro level

Min Max M SD N

Total number of other ads 0 23 4,49 4,49 67

Total number of preceding ads 0 15 2,18 2,17 67
Brand recall (%) 0 55,44 2,95 7,87 67
Brand recognition (%) 10,09 87,56 33,82 16,57 67

and the total number of preceding ads of a Higher advertising frequency was expected to
commercial in the same pod is two, we shall be associated with stronger brand memory
know that this particular commercial is the 3rd (e.g., Berlyne, 1970), Furthermore, brands in
one in that pod. By adopting such measure- certain product categories might be easier to
ments, the confusion of commercials' serial memorize than others (e.g., Zhao, 1997). To
positions in different pods could be avoided. statistically control for these two confounding
Based on the fact that one brand could be variables, the advertising frequency of each
advertised multiple times during the Super brand was content analyzed and coded based
Bowl broadcast, the numbers of other ads and on the video tape of the 2006 Super Bowl
preceding ads for each brand were then broadcast. Regarding the product category, all
aggregated for data analysis. For example, if the brands advertised were categorized into six
a brand ran two commercials within the game, groups: automobiles, food and beverage,
with one (being 3rd) in a pod of five ads, and health and beauty products, services, house-
the other (being 2nd) in a pod of four ads, the hold products, and entertainment-related pro-
total number of other ads for this brand would ducts. Five dummy variables were then created
be seven (four plus three), and the total to represent the first five product categories,
number of preceding ads would be three (two and the sixth product category, entertainment-
plus one).' The univadate statistics of the related products, served as the comparison
independent variable and the dependent group. Both the advertising frequency and five
variable for the micro-level test are presented product category dummy variables were
in Table 1. entered into the multiple regression equations
as the first block (as predictors) for statistical
control. By adopting this analysis strategy, any
Confounding variables significant effects associated with the advertis-
ing frequency and the product category would
Multiple regression analyses instead of ANOVA be controlled,'^
tests were performed in this study due to its
power and flexibility for field studies (Cohen Although the overall quality of the Super
and Cohen, 1983). There are two confounding Bowl commercials may be higher than the
variables that need to be statistically controlled average of other daily commercials, the game
for in the micro-level analysis: advertising broadcast carried a large number and a broad
frequency and product category.
The advertising frequency was defined as Advertising frequency was significantly and positively
the number of commercials for a same brand correlated with the two independent variables (the total
number of other ads and the total number of preceding
aired within the 2006 Super Bowl broadcast. ads) in the micro-level analysis. However, it was entered
into the regression equations in the first block and the
'Another way of defining the numbers of other ads and two independent variables were entered into the
preceding ads for each brand is to calculate the mean regression equations in the second block. The separation
instead ofthe total. However, using the mean numbers of of blocks largely reduced the multicollinearity concerns
other ads and preceding ads for each brand in data in the data analysis because we only focused on the
analysis yielded similar results as using the total numbers incremental R2 change caused by the second block in
of other ads and preceding ads for each brand. this situation.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Joumal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.-Feb. 2010
DOI: 10,1002/cb
38 Cong Li

range of brands and products. There was no pod. Regarding the brand recognition, the
explicit reason to doubt that the commercials significant predictor was the total nvimber of
in some specific pods were better than the other ads (/?<0.01). The regression coeffi-
others. Therefore, the quality of commercials cient revealed that when the number of
was not statistically controlled for. preceding ads was held constant, one more
other ad (it would be a subsequent ad in this
context) lowered the brand recognition by 3 5
Data analysis at the micro level per cent. In the traditional sense of serial
After the control block (advertising frequency positions, no matter how the number of
and product category) was entered into the succeeding ads changes, the position of the
multiple regression equations, the two original ad remains the same. For example, the
measurements of the serial position of each traditional way of counting the serial position
commercial within a same pod (the total for a commercial in the second position within
number of other ads and the total number of a pod of five ads and that for a commercial in
preceding ads) were then entered into the the second position within a pod of seven ads
equations as the second block (as predictors). is the same (the serial position is the 2nd in
The dependent variables in the equations were both cases). However, the regression analysis
brand recall and brand recognition. in this study showed that the total number of
Regarding the effects of the first block, the other ads could generate significant effects on
regression analysis results show^ed that the brand memory even if the traditional sense of
advertising frequency did positively affect the serial position for a commercial remained
brand recall and brand recognition. One more unchanged. Taking the two commercials
ad for a brand promoted the brand recall by 6.5 mentioned above for example again, the 2nd
per cent (p < 0.001) and the brand recognition commercial in a pod offiveads would generate
by 18.7 per cent ( p < 0.001). However, the stronger brand recognition than the 2nd
product category had no significant effect on commercial in a pod of seven ads, even though
brand memory (ps > 0.1). The two confound- both are defined as the 2nd ad in the traditional
ing variables explained 14.5 and 15.7 per cent sense. The results of the multiple regression
of the variance of brand recall and brand analysis at the micro level are presented in
recognition, respectively. Since the effects of Table 2.
these confounding variables are not the focus It should be noted that there is a potential
of this study, they are not further discussed. shortcoming associated with the brand recall
Instead, we want to examine the second block measure adopted in this study for those brands
of the equations and see whether serial that aired multiple commercials during the
position variables are significant predictors Super Bowl game. In the telephone interviews,
of the dependent variables. respondents were only requested to recall
Specifically, when serial position variables brand names, but not related commercial
were entered into the multiple regression details.' Thus, the recall data only revealed
equation as the second block, the increment of what brands interview respondents recalled,
R2 appeared to be significant for both brand but did not suggest from which ads they
recall (p<0.01) and brand recognition recalled the brands. To ensure the validity of
(p<0.01). Regarding the brand recall, the using brand recall in the micro-level analysis,
total number of preceding ads had a significant some additional analysis was performed. The
negative effect, which implied that when the
total number of other ads was held constant,
one more preceding ad decreased the brand
recall by 2.2 per cent (p<0.01). In other Super 'Due to the large number of commercials aired during the
Bowl game and the length limit of the telephone
words, for the best effect of brand recall, a interview, it is not very feasible to request interviewees to
commercial needs to be in thefirstposition of a recall both brand names and related commercial details.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.-Feb. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Long-term memory test of Super Bowl commercials 39

Table 2. Results of multiple regression analysis at the micro level

Brand recall (%) Brand recognition (%)

Control block
Constant -2.611 17.685
Advertising frequency 6.491 (0.950)"* 18.744 (1.302)***
Automobiles -2.486 (-0.118) 4.947 (0.111)
Food and beverage .101 (0.004) 7.838 (0.163)
Health and beauty products 5.468 (0.311) 11.165(0.301)
Services -2.678 (-0.098) -1.836 (-0.032)
Household products 1.154 (0.069) 1.874 (0.053)
Serial position block
Number of other ads -.346 (-0.173) -3.486 (-0.827)**
Number of preceding ads -2.173 (-0.734)** -1.958 (-0.314)
Total R2 of control block (%) 14.5 15.7
Incremental R2 of serial position block (%) 23.7*** 24.1***

Note: Numbers in the parentheses are standard betas.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

brands with multiple commercials during the
game (24 brands) and an extreme outlier (one
brand) were excluded. This exclusion reduced
the sample size from 67 brands to 42 brands.
Since all these 42 brands only aired one
commercial during the game, we can assure
that the recall data were not contaminated.
Using the same regression analysis method as
described earlier (brand recall as the depen-
dent variable, total numbers of other ads and
preceding ads as the predictors, and product
category in the first block for statistical
control),^ the result was similar to what was
discovered earUer. The total number of other
ads (instead of the total number of preceding
ads) was found to be a significant predictor of
the brand recall (p < 0.05). Specifically, when
the number of preceding ads was held
constant, one more other ad lowered the
brand recall by 0.82 per cent.
Moreover, an additional analysis on brand
recognition w^as also performed with an exclu-
sion of the brands that advertised multiple
times. The result was consistent with that
without brand exclusion. Specifically, it was
discovered that the total number of other ads
^In this case, we do not need to statistically control for serial positions w^ere coded as from the 1st to
advertising frequency since aU the brands (42 brands) in
the analysis only advertised once.
was a significant predictor of the brand
recognition (/><0.05). When the number of
preceding ads was held constant, one more
other ad decreased the brand recognition by
5.13 per cent. Both regression analysis results
on brand recall and recognition with an
exclusion of the brands that aired multiple
commercials are presented in Table 3. The
convergence of regression analysis results from
both the full-sized sample (67 brands) and the
reduced-sized sample (42 brands) confirmed
the validity of using brand recall and recog-
nition in the data analysis.
Measurement of independent and
dependent variables at the macro level
Different from the micro-level test, the unit of
analysis in the macro-level test was not the 67
brands. Instead, it was the commercial pods
within the whole 2006 Super Bowl game
broadcast. In this context, the traditional
method to conceptualize the serial position
of each commercial pod (such as the 1st, the
2nd, and the 3rd, etc.) was applied. Based on
the video tape of the broadcast, there were 28
commercial pods from the first quarter to the
fourth quarter of the game. Therefore, their
the 28th.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Joumal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.-Feb. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
40 Cong Ii

Table 3. Results of multiple regression analysis at the micro level (Excluding Brands with Multiple Ads)

Brand recall (%) Brand recognition (

Control block
Constant -0.321 33.431
Automobiles 1.359 (-0.242) 9.350 (0.274)
Food and beverage 2.952 (0.376) 19.029 (0.397)
Health and beauty products 3.314 (0.632) 9.656 (0.303)
Services 3.535 (0.395) 5.725 (0.105)
Household products 0.711 (1.664) 3.901 (O.I3I)
Serial position block
Number of other ads 0.819 (-0.452)* -5.130 (-0.464)*
Number of preceding ads 0.674 (0.285) 1.684(0.117)
Total R2 of control block (%) 15.4 7.6
Incremental R2 of serial position block (%) 14.1* 16.8*

Note\ Numbers in the parentheses are standard betas.

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p< 0.001.

Since each pod contained several commer-
cials, the dependent measurements (brand
recall and brand recognition) within each
commercial pod were averaged. For example,
for a pod with four ads (promoting brand A, B,
C, and D respectively), the recall and recog-
nition scores for brand A, B, C, and D were
averaged to generate the memory measure-
ments for that pod. The univariate statistics of
the dependent variables for the macro-level
test are presented in Table 4.
Confounding variable
There was one confounding variable that
needed to be statistically controlled for in
the macro-level analysis: number of ads in each
commercial pod. A pod with a smaller number
of commercials might be better memorized
due to less information load. Thus, the number
Table 4. Univariate statistics of tbe dependent variables
at the macro level
Min Max M SD
Brand recaU (%) 0 28.54 6.05 7.11 28
Brand recognition (%) 19.35 65.23 42.62 12.04 28
of ads in each commercial pod was entered
into the multiple regression equations as the
first block (as a predictor) for statistical
control.
Data analysis at the macro level
After the first block (control block) was
entered into the multiple regression equations,
the serial position of each commercial pod w^as
then entered into the equations as the second
block (as a predictor). The dependent variables
in the equations were brand recall and brand
recognition for each pod.
Regarding the effects of the first block, the
regression analysis results showed that the
number of ads in each commercial pod nega-
tively affected the brand recognition (p < 0.001)
but not the brand recall (p = 0.89), suggesting
that one more ad in each commercial pod
decreased the brand recognition by 5.9 per cent.
It explained 28.4 per cent variance of the brand
recognition. Similar to what was stated in the
micro-level data analysis, the effect of the
confounding variable is not the focus of this
study. Thus, it is not further discussed. Instead,
N
we want to examine the second block of the
regression equations and see whether the
serial position variable is a significant predictor
of the dependent variables.

Copyrigbt © 2009 Jobn Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Joumal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.-Feb. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Long-term memory test of Super Bowl commercials
When the serial position variable was
entered into the multiple regression equations,
the increment of . ^ appeared to be significant
for the brand recognition (/> < 0.05) and
marginally sigtiificant for the brand recall
(p < 0.10). One unit increase of serial position
lowered the brand recognition by 0.58 per
cent and the brand recall by 0.29 per cent. That
was to say, a commercial pod generated better
brand memories than its succeeding pods. The
results of multiple regression analysis at the
macro level are presented in Table 5.
Discussion and managerial
suggestions
Discussion of the findings
This study examined the serial position effects
for television commercials in a naturalistic
research setting at both the micro level and the
macro level. Potential confotmding variables
(advertising frequency, product category, and
number of ads in a pod) were statistically
controlled for in the data analysis. The study
results suggested strong primacy effects at
both the micro level and the macro level.
At the micro level, a commercial pod is con-
sidered to be a "Ust" and each commercial in
that pod to be a "word." When the length of a
commercial pod was held constant, a com-
mercial in an earlier position generated a better
brand recall (about 2.2%) than the one
following it. In comparison with the effect of
Table 5. Results of multiple regression analysis at the macro level
Control block
Constant
Number of ads in each commercial pod
Serial position block
Serial position of each commercial pod
Total R2 of control block (%)
Incremental R2 of serial position block (%)
Note: Numbers in the parentheses are standard betas.
* 5 ; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
41
advertising frequency, it suggested that the
function of forwarding a commercial by three
positions in a pod was almost equal to running
one more commercial for the same brand
(about 6.5%) in terms of the brand recall.
Considering the high expense of running
commercials within the Super Bowl game
broadcast (CNNMoney, 2006), this finding is
significant. Regarding the brand recognition,
the data analysis restilts illustrated that a
commercial in a less "crowded" pod increased
the brand recognition (about 3-5% by reducing
one ad in a pod) if the number of its preceding
ads was held constant.
Due to the shortcoming associated with the
brand recall measure in the current study
setting, some additional analyses were per-
formed with an exclusion of the brands that
aired multiple commercials. Similar results
were observed as opposed to no brand
exclusion. Specifically, with the number of
preceding ads being constant, one more ad in a
pod decreased brand recall (about 0.82%) and
recognition (about 5.13%) significantly. It
should be noted that these results are in
support of primary effect, too. For example,
the 3rd ad in a commercial pod of three ads is
also the last ad. However, if one more ad is
added to the end of this pod, the 3rd ad is still
the 3rd but it is not the last anymore. Instead, it
becomes the second to the last. Based on the
regression analysis results presented in this
study, this ad will generate stronger brand
memories (0.82% more on brand recall and
Brand recall (%) Brand recognition (%)
10.681 66.936
-0.185 (-0.026) -5.936 (-0.485)***
-0.285 (-0.330) -0.581 (-0.397)*
0.004 28.4*"
0.112 43.9*
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.-Feb. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
42
5.13% more on brand recognition) compared
to the newly added one, thus confirming the
primary effect.
At the macro level, the whole 2006 Super
Bowl game broadcast was treated as a "list"
and each commercial pod in the broadcast as a
"word" in that "list." The regression analysis
results suggested that an earlier position of a
commercial pod generated stronger brand
memories (with one position earlier, there
were about 0.29% increase in brand recall and
0.58% increase in brand recognition).
Suchfindingsare consistent w^ith most prior
research, confirming the primacy effect of
television commercials' serial positions. The
unique contribution of the current study is to
extend the primacy effect from the micro level
to the macro level. This study indeed brings up
a new conceptualization method of serial
positions. Most previous studies in advertising
and marketing (e.g., Pieters and Bijmolt 1997;
Zhao, 1997) have illustrated that an earlier
position in a commercial pod is more effective
than a later position (which is replicated in this
study). However, no known study has adopted
a macro-level method to define serial positions
(e.g., regarding a whole commercial pod as a
"big commercial"). Such a conceptualization
method is important and should not be
neglected. Based on the findings in this study,
the current media planning doctrine of "first
position is more effective than later positions"
still holds true, but how to define "first
position" becomes an intriguing theoretical
question. The "first" ad in the last commercial
pod within a TV show does not seem to be so
"first" if we examine its serial position at a
macro level. It is shown in this study that
positions of commercials in commercial pods
matter, and so do positions of commercial
pods in TV programs. Although the data in
this study do not provide specific answers
to questions like "whether the 2nd ad in
the 1st pod will generate better memory
than the 1st ad in the 2nd pod," the study
results do offer enough reasons for scholars
and practitioners to conceptualize serial pos-
itions from both micro-level and macro-level
perspectives.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd,
Cong Li
The findings in this study are also consistent
with many of the psychological models
explaining serial position effects. In fact, the
modal model (Atkinson and Shiffrin, 1968) and
the attentional primacy gradient model
(Lewandowsky and Murdock, 1989) could be
applied to explain the findings here. First,
since the telephone interviews for this study
were conducted at least 1 day after the Super
Bowl game broadcast, it was a long-term
memory test. Based on the modal model,
information in viewers' short-term stores was
already wiped out in such a context. This
explains why only the primacy effect, but not
the recency effect, was detected. Alternatively,
the results ofthe study could also be explained
from the perspective of the attentional pri-
macy gradient model. At the micro level,
viewers' attention could be gradually decreas-
ing when they were exposed to a commercial
pod. Therefore, the commercials in earlier
positions of a pod were better memorized, and
a pod with fewer commercials also generated
better brand memories. At the macro level,
viewers' attention could also be gradually
decreasing as the Super Bowl game went on
(especially when the competition of the two
teams was not very tight) due to an increase of
tedium, hence resulting in decreased brand
memories.
Managerial implications
Placing commercials on TV programs is one of
major functions of media buyers. The commer-
cial time is generally purchased in three primary
ways: long-term contract, short-term contract,
and last-minute buys (Sissors and Baron, 2002;
Katz, 2007). However, none of the three ways
will guarantee the position of a commercial
within a show unless a premium rate is paid. In
general, TV stations rotate commercials' pos-
itions on a random basis if no advertisers pay
additional cost. There seems to he no standard
or consensus among TV stations and advertisers
for how much extra need to be paid to
guarantee a "better" position.
The current study provides some new
insights on media buying industry. Taking
Joumal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.-Feb. 2010
DOI: 10,1002/cb
Long-term memory test of Super Bowl commercials
the findings of both micro-level and macro-
level tests together, the "best" position for a
commercial w^ithin a TV show^ would be the 1st
one in the 1st pod. An explicit managerial
implication for advertisers and media buyers
(especially for those who intend to advertise
within the Super Bowl games) is to try every
effort to position their commercials in an early
position (as early as possible) in an early
commercial pod (as early as possible), given
that brand memories (recall and recognition)
are the criteria for judging advertising effec-
tiveness.
Limitations and future research
There are some limitations of this study that
need to be addressed. First, as described in the
data analysis section, the telephone interview
respondents in this study were only requested
to recall brand names but not to relate
commercial details due to the length limit of
the interviews. Without respondents providing
ad details, it is hard to tell whether the brand
recall was truly generated by the commercial
messages people viewed in the Super Bowl
broadcast. Given the fact that several brands
aired multiple commercials within the game, it
is also difficult to differentiate which commer-
cial generated brand memory and which did
not. This shortcoming was partly compensated
by additional data analyses with an exclusion of
the brands with multiple ads, but future
research (especially laboratory experiments)
is definitely needed to better control the
confounding effects caused by advertising
repetition on brand recall.
Second, a naturalistic research design such
as the current study has certain advantages on
external validity, but it lacks control on
confounding background factors. Although
some confounding variables were statistically
controlled for in the data analyses, there were
certain alternative explanations that could not
be completely ruled out. For example, a Super
Bowl game is often viewed as a happy event
and a "party." It would not be surprising if
people consumed alcohol while watching the
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
43
game. Alcoholic consumption is expected to
affect people's memory in a negative way,
which might explain why no recency effect
was observed in this study. To rule out this
alternative explanation, some lab experiments
with strict control over the independent
variables need to be conducted.
Finally, the findings of this study are based
on a single sports event broadcast (Super Bowl
game broadcast). To obtain more robust and
generalizable conclusions, more data across
events are needed.
Biographical note
Dr. Cong Li received his Ph.D. from the Univer-
sity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the
United States. He currently is an Assistant Pro-
fessor in the School of Communication at the
University of Miami. He is interested in applying
psychological frameworks to the study of adver-
tising and marketing messages. He has published
in journals such as Cyber Psychology & Beha-
vior, Journal of Relationship Marketing,
Prism, among others.
References
Atkinson RC, Shiffrin RM. 1968. Human memory: A
proposed system and its control processes. In
The Psychology of Learning and Motivation:
Advances in Research and Theory, Spence
KW, Spence JT (eds). Academic Press: New
York; 89-195.
Berlyne DE. 1970. Novelty complexity and hedonic
value. Perception and Psychophysics 8(5): 279-
286.
CNNMoney. 2006. Super Bowl XL's extra-large ad
sales. Available at http://money.cnn.com/2006/
01/03/news/companies/superbowlads/ [accessed
on 11 December 2008].
Cohen J, Cohen P. 1983. Applied Multiple
Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Beha-
vioral Science, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum:
Hillsdale, NJ.
Cowan N, Saults JS, Elliott EM, Moreno MV. 2002.
Deconfounding serial recall. Journal of Memory
and Language A6(iy. 153-177.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.-Feb. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
44
Healy AF, McNamara DS. 1996. Verbal learning and
memory: does the modal model still work.
Annual Review of Psychology 47(1): 143-172.
Johnson GJ. 1991. A distinctiveness model of serial
learning. Psychological Review 98(2): 204-217.
Katz H. 2007. The Media Handbook: A Complete
Guide to Advertising Media Selection, Planning,
Research, and Buying, 3rd edn. Lawrence Erl-
baum: Mahwah, NJ.
Lewandowsky S, Murdock BB Jr. 1989. Memory
for serial order. Psychological Review 96(1): 25-
57.
Murdock BB Jr. I960. The distinctiveness of
stimuU. Psychological Review 67(1): 16-31.
Neath 1. 1993. Distinctiveness and serial position
effects in recognition. Memory and Cognition
21(5): 689-698.
Newell SJ, Henderson KV. 1998. Super Bowl adver-
tising: field testing the importance of advertise-
ment frequency, length and placement on recall.
Joumal of Marketing Communications 4(1):
237-248.
Newell S, Wu B. 2003. Evaluating the significance of
placement on recall of advertisements during the
Super Bowl. Joumal of Current Issues &
Research in Advertising 25(2): 57-67.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Cong Li
Oberauer K. 2003. Understanding serial position
curves in short-term recognition and recall./owr-
nal of Memory and Language 49(4): 469-
483.
Pieters RGM, Bijmolt THA. 1997. Consumer mem-
ory for television advertising: a field study of
duration, serial position, and competition effects.
Joumal of Consumer Research 23(4): 362-
372.
Sissors JZ, Baron RB. 2002. Advertising Media
Planning, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY.
Stewart DD, Stewart CB, Tyson C, Vinci G, Fioti T.
2004. Serial position effects and the picture-
superiority effect in the group recall of unshared
information. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice 8(3): 166-181.
Terry SW. 2005. Serial position effects in recall of
television commercials./owm«/ of General Psy-
chology 132(2): 151-164.
Youn S, Sun T, WeUs WD, Zhao X. 2001. Commer-
cial liking and memory: moderating effects of
product categories. Joumal of Advertising
Research 41(3): 7-13.
Zhao X. 1997. Clutter and serial order redefined and
retested./owrwa/ ofAdvertising Research 37(5):
57-73.
Joumal of Consumer Behaviour, Jan.-Feb. 2010
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Copyright of Journal of Consumer Behaviour is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. / Business and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.