A Meta‑analytic Systematic Review and Theory of the Efects of Perceived Listening on Work Outcomes
Abstract
The quality of listening in interpersonal contexts was hypothesized to improve a variety of work outcomes. However, research
of this general hypothesis is dispersed across multiple disciplines and mostly atheoretical. We propose that perceived listening improves job performance through its efects on afect, cognition, and relationship quality. To test our theory, we
conducted a registered systematic review and multiple meta-analyses, using three-level meta-analysis models, based on 664
efect sizes and 400,020 observations. Our results suggest a strong positive correlation between perceived listening and work
outcomes, r = .39, 95%CI=[.36, .43], 휌 = .44, with the efect on relationship quality, r =.51, being stronger than the efect
on performance, r =.36. These fndings partially support our theory, indicating that perceived listening may enhance job
performance by improving relationship quality. However, 75% of the literature relied on self-reports raising concerns about
discriminant validity. Despite this limitation, removing data solely based on self-reports still produced substantial estimates
of the association between listening and work outcomes (e.g., listening and job performance, r = .21, 95%CI=[.13, .29], 휌
= .23). Our meta-analyses suggest further research into (a) the relationship between listening and job knowledge, (b) measures assessing poor listening behaviors, (c) the incremental validity of listening in predicting listeners’ and speakers’ job
performance, and (d) listening as a means to improve relationships at work.
Listen to this: Why consumer behavior researchers should care about listening
Guy Itzchakov & S. Christian Wheeler
Listening
Consumers’ decisions are intricately interwoven with their conversations. Whether it
is an animated discussion with a trusted friend extolling the virtues of a newly
acquired car (i.e., Word-of-Mouth), an engaging dialogue with a salesperson, or a clarifying call to a help center seeking guidance on a just-purchased smartwatch, every
exchange hinges on a pivotal factor: the quality of listening. Listening quality shapes
perceptions, affects social influence, drives behavioral intentions, and, ultimately,
determines purchase and post-purchase outcomes. Yet, despite its importance to
these consumer behavior outcomes, listening has received scant attention in consumer psychology. In this paper, we review the effects of listening on consumer
behavior-relevant outcomes and unpack the components of quality listening to
reveal their independent mechanisms. We also point to new frontiers in listening
research beyond the in-person, dyadic interactions that have been the primary focus
of listening research to date. By doing this, we elucidate how listening and consumer
behavior are connected and encourage more research on listening in consumer
psychology.
Keep reading
An updated meta-analysis of the primed goal-organizational behaviour relationship
Gary P. Latham, Xiao Chen, Ronald F. Piccolo and Guy Itzchakov
Goal Setting
Environmental cues (e.g. achievement-related words and pictures) can prime/activate, in the absence of awareness, a mental representation of importance stored in memory. Chen et al.'s 2021 Applied Psychology: An International Review70, 216–253. (doi:10.1111/apps.12239) meta-analysis revealed a moderate, significant overall effect for the goal priming-organizational behaviour relationship, with three moderators identified: context-specific versus a general prime, prime modality (i.e. visual versus linguistic) and experimental setting (field versus laboratory). An independent researcher found that their finding was negligibly affected by a publication bias. Shanks & Vadillo (2021), Royal Society Open Science8, 210544. (doi:10.1098/rsos.210544) (field: k = 13, N = 683, d = 0.64), questioned Chen et al.'s conclusion regarding the effect size found in field studies (field: k = 8, N = 357, d = 0.68). In this paper, we discussed Shanks & Vadillo's selection of additional field experiments that led to their conclusion of a publication bias. We updated Chen et al.'s meta-analysis to include relevant studies conducted since that study's publication. The present meta-analysis reproduced the original findings in Chen et al. (field: k = 11, N = 534, d = 0.67). The updated findings are consistent with: (i) laboratory findings, (ii) the findings obtained in field experiments on consciously set goals and (iii) goal setting theory (Latham & Locke, 2018 In Handbook of industrial, work & organizational Psychology, vol. 1 (eds D Ones, N Anderson, C Viswesvaran, H Sinangil), pp. 103–124).
Keep reading