How Attitudes Can Be Changed

Attitude and Attitude Change Attitudes and Attitude Change: A Comparison of Two Studies The introduction written by Albarracin and Handley (2011) began with a historical foundation for the study of psychological change and then proceeded with a detailed description and logical arguments for the factors that they believe play a role in change. After presenting this logical foundation to the readers the authors presented their argument for the current study, which examined the causal relationship between broad action or inaction goals and changes in attitude.

By comparison, the introduction to the study by Frye et al. (2012) was a more straightforward literature review of the causal relationship between memory and attitude. The most notable difference between the two studies was an obvious effort by Frye and colleagues (2012) to minimize difficult language, thereby making their manuscript more readable to researchers interested in, but not actively working in the field.

Study Purposes The purpose of the study by Albarracin and Handley (2011) is to understand whether broad action or inaction goals (intentions) can influence the strength of attitudes recalled from the past, in response to a future persuasive message. The overall goal of the study was therefore to understand how people adopt attitudes to an expected message and what influence their current state of action or inaction has on this process. Frye et al. (2012) examined a different aspect of psychological change in their study, the influence of memory errors on attitudes.

These researchers were also interested in understanding the direction of causality between attitudes and memories. Research Questions Albarracin and Handley (2011) carried out seven experiments to test the assumption that goal (action or inaction) effects on attitude change can be undermined if the goals are previously satisfied by an intervening task. The authors also asked whether goals influenced the speed of attitude recall, resistance to attitude change, and impacted argument scrutiny when presented with a counter-attitude.

By comparison, Frye and colleagues (2012) carried out two experiments to address the direction of causality between memories and attitudes and whether memory errors could have an impact on attitudes. The three relationships tested were: (1) memory impact on attitudes, (2) attitude impact on memories, and (3) the impact of memory errors on attitudes. Another variable tested in the study by Frye et al. (2012) was the impact of time on attitude change since the imagined action.

Literature Reviews Albarracin and Handley (2011) discussed prior research in the introduction to their study, including the findings of Albarracin et al. (2008), Albarracin, Helper, and Tannenbaum (in press), Albarracin, Wang, and Leeper (2009), Gendolla and Silvestrini (2010), Glasman and Albarracin (2006), and Noguchi, Handley, and Albarracin (2010). The finding of these studies were used to describe the relationships between action and inaction goals, the impact of goals on retrieval of past attitudes, and the motor and cognitive definitions of action and inaction.

As an introduction to their research aims Frye and colleagues (2012) presented the findings of Bem (1967), Festinger (1957), Lord and Lepper (1999), Zanna and Rempel (1988), McIntyre et al. (2004), and Frye and Lord (2009). The findings from these studies supported the argument that memories of past actions can have an impact on attitudes, as can errors in retrieving these memories. Sampled Populations Albarracin and Handley (2011) sampled undergraduates enrolled in an introductory psychology course, while Frye et al. (2012) sampled undergraduates generally.

The gender of the psychology students was relatively balanced between men and women, while the undergraduates enrolled in the study by Frye and colleagues (2012) were heavily skewed toward females. Depending on which experiment the students were enrolled in, Albarracin and Handley (2011) selected for certain predilections, including favoring gun control, euthanasia, and vegetarianism. By contrast, the study subjects used by Frye et al. (2012) were required to describe their past actions and attitudes towards gay men.

It is interesting that the study examining attitudes towards gay men enrolled over four times more women than men. Study Limitations Albarracin and Handley (2011) recognized the limitations inherent yo several of their experiments, which explains in part the need for so many in a single study. The main limitation is the generalizability of the findings given the narrowly-defined sample population: college students attending an introductory psychology course. The sample population for several of the experiments was also selected based on attitudes towards specific social issues.

Generalizability issues also plagued the study by Frye et al. (2012), especially given the overrepresentation of women in a study examining attitudes towards sexual orientation. In addition, the authors of this study admitted that their findings are not immune to alternative explanations. Results and Conclusions Albarracin and Handley (2011) discovered that action- or inaction-priming words had differential effects on attitude change. When subjects were presented with action-priming words attitudes were recalled faster, were less likely to change, and were resistant to counter-attitude arguments.

The final experiment revealed that the impact of action goals on attitude change was reduced when the goal was satisfied by an.