This paper compares two empirical psychology studies on attitude and attitude change: Albarracin and Handley (2011), which examined how broad action or inaction goals influence the strength and malleability of recalled attitudes, and Frye et al. (2012), which investigated the causal relationship between memory errors and attitude change. The comparison is organized across several dimensions, including study introductions, purposes, research questions, literature reviews, sampled populations, limitations, results, and future research directions. Together, the two studies illuminate different mechanisms underlying psychological change and offer complementary empirical insights into how goals, memory, and time shape human attitudes.
The paper demonstrates effective comparative analysis of primary research sources. Rather than summarizing each study in isolation, the author consistently pairs observations about one study with a corresponding observation about the other, using transitional phrases such as "by comparison" and "by contrast" to signal the analytical relationship between them.
The paper is divided into eight clearly labeled sections: an introductory comparison, followed by parallel examinations of study purposes, research questions, literature reviews, sampled populations, limitations, results and conclusions, and future research directions. Each section follows the same two-study structure, giving the paper a consistent and predictable rhythm that aids comprehension. A reference list at the end cites both primary sources in APA format.
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 they believe play a role in change. After presenting this foundation, the authors made their case 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.
The purpose of the study by Albarracin and Handley (2011) was 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 was therefore to understand how people adopt attitudes toward 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: the influence of memory errors on attitudes. These researchers were also interested in understanding the direction of causality between attitudes and memories.
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 the scrutiny applied to counter-attitude arguments. 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 affect attitudes. The three relationships tested were: (1) memory's impact on attitudes, (2) attitudes' 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.
Albarracin and Handley (2011) discussed prior research in their introduction, 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 findings 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 those memories. Cognitive dissonance theory, associated with Festinger (1957), is one of the foundational frameworks referenced in this body of literature.
Albarracin, D., & Handley, I. M. (2011). The time for doing is not the time for change: Effects of general action and inaction goals on attitude retrieval and attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 983–998.
Frye, G. D. J., Lord, C. G., & Brady, S. E. (2012). Attitude change following imagined positive actions towards a social group: Do memories change attitudes, or attitudes change memories? Social Cognition, 30(3), 307–322.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.