Avoiding harm, benefits of interpersonal listening, and social equilibrium adjustment: An applied psychology approach to side effects of organizational interventions
Abstract
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.
An Examination of the Moderating Effect of Core Self-Evaluations and the Mediating Effect of Self-Set Goals on the Primed Goal-Task Performance Relationship
Guy Itzchakov, Gary P. Latham
Goal Setting
An understudied issue in the goal priming literature is why the same prime can provoke different responses in different people. The current research sheds light on this issue by investigating whether an individual difference variable, core self-evaluations (CSE), accounts for different responses from the same prime. Based on the findings of experiments showing that individuals with high CSE have higher performance after consciously setting a task-related goal than individuals with lower CSE, two hypotheses were tested: (1) Individuals who score high on CSE perform better following a subconsciously primed goal for achievement than do individuals who score low on CSE, and (2) this effect is mediated by a self-set goal. Two laboratory experiments (n = 207, 191) and one field experiment (n = 62) provided support for the hypotheses. These findings suggest that personality variables such as the CSE can provide an explanation for the “many effects of the one prime problem”.
Keep reading
Listening to Understand: The Role of High-Quality Listening on Speakers’ Attitude Depolarization During Disagreements
Guy Itzchakov , Netta Weinstein , Mark Leary , Dvori Saluk, and Moty Amar
Listening
Disagreements can polarize attitudes when they evoke defensiveness from the conversation partners. When
a speaker talks, listeners often think about ways to counterargue. This process often fails to depolarize
attitudes and might even backfire (i.e., the Boomerang effect). However, what happens in disagreements if
one conversation partner genuinely listens to the other’s perspective? We hypothesized that when
conversation partners convey high-quality listening—characterized by attention, understanding, and
positive intentions—speakers will feel more socially comfortable and connected to them (i.e., positivity
resonance) and reflect on their attitudes in a less defensive manner (i.e., have self-insight). We further
hypothesized that this process reduces perceived polarization (perceived attitude change, perceived attitude
similarity with the listener) and actual polarization (reduced attitude extremity). Four experiments
manipulated poor, moderate, and high-quality listening using a video vignette (Study 1) and live interactions
(Studies 2–4). The results consistently supported the research hypotheses and a serial mediation model in
which listening influences depolarization through positivity resonance and nondefensive self-reflection.
Most of the effects of the listening manipulation on perceived and actual depolarization generalized across
indicators of attitude strength, specifically attitude certainty and attitude morality. These findings suggest
that high-quality listening can be a valuable tool for bridging attitudinal and ideological divides.
Keep reading