Copyright 2008 by the RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS Mid-South Educational Research Association 2008, Vol. 15, No. 2, 80-90 Fall 2008 RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS 80 An Investigation of Placement and Type of Seductive Details: The Primacy Effect of Seductive Details on Text Recall Emily Rowland, Christopher H. Skinner, Kai Davis-Richards, Richard Saudargas The University of Tennessee Daniel H. Robinson The University of Texas One of the biggest challenges for educators is to keep the attention of learners (Evertson, Emmer, & Worsham, 2003). One solution is to include interesting, but not always relevant, details in lectures and texts. Certain topics, such as danger, power, and sex are almost universally interesting (Hidi & Baird, 1988). Such details are sometimes referred to as seductive details (Garner, Brown, Sanders, & Menke, 1992; Garner, Gillingham, & White, 1989; Harp & Maslich, 2005; Harp & Mayer, 1997, 1998; Schraw, 1998; Wade, Schraw, Buxton, & Hayes, 1993). Because higher levels of interest may help learners (a) focus, (b) tap into prior knowledge, and (c) stay motivated, educators began to include seductive details to keep students engaged in their lessons (Schraw, 1998). Wade et al. (1993) found that skilled readers recalled details that they had rated as interesting better than uninteresting details. Though adding seductive details may enhance interest and capture students attention, these details may not make the material that students are expected to learn (i.e., target material) more interesting (Dewey, 1913; Harp & Maslich, 2005; Harp & Mayer, 1998; Mayer, Heiser, & Lonn, 2001; Mayer & Jackson, 2005). In fact, adding seductive details may hinder learning because learners' cognitive energies are diverted from the important details to the relatively unimportant seductive details (Garner et al., 1992). Garner et al. (1989) had students read narrative and expository passages with and without seductive details and then identify target material in text. Seductive details decreased student learning of target material, even with skilled readers. Garner et al. (1992) replicated these results and suggested that including seductive details in text almost always interferes with learning of target material. Researchers have also investigated the placement of seductive details within lectures. Harp and Maslich (2005) showed recorded lectures to students and afterwards tested the students on the target material. Students who watched the lecture without seductive details performed better than did students who watched the lecture with the seductive details. Researchers have examined the interaction of seductive details with other factors. Harp and Mayer (1998) showed that placing seductive details prior to the main text interfered with learning, but not when they were placed at the end of the main text. These researchers support other findings that suggest that placement of seductive details prior to the main text or lecture is most harmful to learning (Garner et al., 1989; Harp & Mayer 1998; Mayer et al., 2001; Mayer & Jackson, 2005). The cognitive diversion hypothesis has been used to explain why the placement of seductive details prior to the important Seductive details are interesting, but sometimes irrelevant to the target material present in texts and lectures. In the current study, 388 undergraduate students read six paragraphs describing Sigmund Freud’s psychosexual stages (i.e., target material). Participants in four groups also read one of two biographical paragraphs. The biographical paragraphs contained seductive details about Freud that were either related (i.e., context- dependent) or unrelated (i.e., context-independent) to the main ideas (i.e., target material) and presented before (primacy) or after (recency) the target-material paragraphs or not at all (control). After reading, students took a quiz. Quiz performance on items addressing target material was not influenced by the type of seductive details but rather its placement relative to the main text. Students in the recency conditions performed better than did students in the primacy and control conditions. Thus, both types of seductive details reduced learning when they were presented at the beginning of the text. Correspondence for this article should be addressed to Christopher H. Skinner, The University of Tennessee, BEC 525, Knoxville, TN 37996-3452. Email: cskinne1@utk.edu