Attitudes in an interpersonal context: Psychological safety as a route to attitude change

A live discussion experiment was designed to test the effects of highly empathic (vs. moderately empathic) listening on solitude experiences. Participants were assigned to three conditions in which they: 1) Discussed a negative personal experience with a confederate (ostensibly another participant) exhibiting highly empathic listening; 2) Discussed an experience with a confederate exhibiting moderately empathic listening; or, 3) Engaged in a positive reframing exercise. Building on previous listening theory (Weinstein et al., 2022) and research (Itzchakov & Weinstein, 2021; Itzchakov, Weinstein, et al., 2022). We then assessed the two posited mechanisms of autonomy and relatedness and tested the expectations to be in solitude. All participants were instructed to spend ten minutes alone, phones off, and distractions stored away. While highly empathic listening enhanced participants’ (i.e. speakers) autonomy and relatedness need satisfaction compared to the other two conditions and predicted initial increases in self- and social-connection, it did not subsequently improve solitude experiences, with no direct effects found predicting self-connection, peaceful affect, loneliness, or self-insight. Indirect effects linked empathic listening to self-connection and self-insight through autonomy satisfaction. While empathic listening fosters immediate psychological need satisfaction in social contexts, deeper listening interventions may be necessary to improve subsequent solitude periods.

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).