A Possible Dark Side of Listening? Teachers Listening to Pupils Can Increase Burnout

What does it mean to listen, and what enables people to do it well? This study examines the cultural foundations, conditions, expressions, and outcomes of listening through a qualitative analysis of 20 semi-structured interviews with Israeli participants. Using reflexive thematic analysis, we identified five interrelated themes showing how listening is shaped by relational closeness, emotional safety, internal motivation, behavioral expression, and emotional impact. Participants described listening as an intentional and emotionally effortful process, grounded in trust, cultural norms, and personal willingness to remain present. It was experienced not only through visible behaviors but through authentic emotional presence and attunement. Crucially, listening was described as the most vulnerable and most revealing in contexts of conflict, emotional strain, or power asymmetries, where relational and ethical demands intensify. These findings highlight listening as a culturally situated, interpretive practice shaped by collective norms, emotional intensity, and social hierarchy. This study contributes to context-sensitive models of listening with implications for interpersonal relationships, organizational leadership, and intercultural communication, particularly in high-conflict or culturally diverse environments where listening serves as a key relational and managerial resource.

Can perceived responsiveness, the extent to which an individual feels understood, validated, and cared for by close others, reduce prejudiced attitudes? We hypothesized that perceived responsiveness by meaningful other people would increase recipients’ intellectual humility and attitude ambivalence and that these changes would reduce prejudice. Five studies (total N = 3362), four of which were preregistered, manipulated perceived responsiveness by a specific person (Studies 1–3, 5) or measured the effects of perceived responsiveness by the closest social network of the recipient (Study 4). All studies supported the hypotheses. Specifically, Studies 1 and 2 found that perceived responsiveness increased intellectual humility and attitude ambivalence and reduced prejudice toward a group from a pre-determined list. Study 3 replicated these findings when participants freely chose the social group. In Study 4, perceived responsiveness from individuals’ closest social networks predicted the dependent variables a few days afterward, controlling for positive and negative affect and social desirability. Finally, in Study 5, we added a condition of positive social interaction to rule out the possibility that the prior findings were due to recalling an affectively positive experience. The effect of perceived responsiveness on prejudice reduction (i.e., increased attitude favorability toward the social group) was not moderated by attitude certainty (Study 2), anxious or avoidant attachment style (Study 2), or attitude morality (Study 3). This work suggests that fostering perceived responsiveness can serve as a strategy for mitigating prejudice and promoting more open-minded attitudes.