Attitude and Attitude Change: Comparing Two Psychology Studies
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.
- Introduction and Framing of the Two Studies: Contrasting introductory approaches of both studies
- Study Purposes and Research Questions: Goals, intentions, memory errors, and causality tested
- Literature Reviews and Theoretical Foundations: Prior research cited by each study's authors
- Sampled Populations and Study Design: Undergraduate samples, gender distribution, topic selection
- Study Limitations: Generalizability concerns and alternative explanations
- Results and Conclusions: Key findings on goals, memory errors, and attitude change
- Future Research Directions: Proposed follow-up studies suggested by each research team
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper is logically organized into parallel sections that compare the two studies across consistent dimensions, making the similarities and differences easy to follow.
- The author maintains an objective, analytical tone throughout, summarizing each study fairly before highlighting meaningful contrasts.
- Specific details — such as gender distribution in samples and the number of experiments conducted — are used to substantiate claims rather than offering vague generalizations.
Key academic technique demonstrated
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.
Structure breakdown
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.
Introduction and Framing of the Two Studies
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.
References
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.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.