An updated meta-analysis of the primed goal-organizational behaviour relationship
Abstract
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).
Avoiding harm, benefits of interpersonal listening, and social equilibrium adjustment: An applied psychology approach to side effects of organizational interventions
Guy Itzchakov, Justin B. Keeler, Walter J. Sowden, Walter Slipetz, and Kent S. Faught
Listening
Creating positive change in the direction intended is the goal of organizational interventions. Watts et al. (2021) raise this issue of “side effects,” which include changes that are unintended and often in the opposite direction of the organizational intervention. With our expertise in applied psychology, military psychiatry/neuroscience, organizational behavior, and corporate safety, we argue for three additional factors for consideration: avoiding harm, the benefits of high-quality interpersonal listening, and a discussion of side effects as a natural part of the change process. We offer these as a means of extending the conversation begun by Watts et al.
Keep reading
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