Can high quality listening predict lower speakers' prejudiced attitudes?

Consider the following scenario. You are preparing for a team discussion about an important project. The meeting was scheduled for 15:00 p.m., but due to technical problems, it starts at 15:15. Your next meeting begins at 16:00. You notice two team members have joined by smartphones rather than computers. This is because their kids use the family’s laptops for virtual school. Three other employees are working from their bedrooms, the only private place in their apartments. You also see a side conversation in the chat room that has nothing to do with the meeting topic. During the meeting, several people turn the cameras off. You forge ahead. After introducing the project’s goals, you realize you were muted and need to start over. This situation would have seemed completely unrealistic just a few months ago. However, since COVID-19, these kinds of challenges are now commonplace. While listening was never easy in the best of times, it is even more challenging today. In part because we are all learning to do old things in new ways. Ann Richards famously contrasted challenges facing men and women, noting,“ ... Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backward and in high heels.” A similar comparison of the pre and post-pandemic workplace listening is apt. For many, virtual listening feels like dancing backwards in high heels, a bit off balance. We are all seeking to regain equilibrium in our communication. This article is intended to facilitate better virtual listening in the post-pandemic era. First, we introduce and define listening. Second, we present empirical evidence on the dyadic and organizational benefits of listening and listening training. Third, we discuss the challenges of virtual listening by providing specific examples from managers. Finally, we offer detailed recommendations for what managers and employees can do to improve their virtual listening skills and practices to support virtual listening.

Changing attitudes does not necessarily involve the same psychological processes as changing behavior, yet social psychology is only just beginning to identify the different mechanisms involved. We contribute to this understanding by showing that the moderators of attitude change are not necessarily the moderators of behavior change. The results of three studies (Ns = 98, 104, 137) employing an ego depletion manipulation indicate that although people are more likely to agree with a persuasive message when executive control is reduced they are not more likely to change their behavior. Rather, under conditions of ego depletion, attitudes became less correlated with behaviors after persuasion. Moreover, in Study 3, we provide an explanation for this phenom- enon: People are more likely to agree with a persuasive message when depleted but are also more likely to fall back on habits that may conflict with their new evaluations. A mini meta-analysis of the data indicated that ego- depletion had a medium effect size on the difference between attitude change and behavior change, N = 339, d = −0.51, 95% CI [−0.72, −0.29]. Jointly, these studies suggest an integrative, resource-based explanation to attitude-behavior discrepancies subsequent to persuasion.