Listening

Can high quality listening predict lower speakers' prejudiced attitudes?

Abstract

Theorizing from humanistic and motivational literature suggests attitude change may occur because high-quality listening facilitates the insight needed to explore and integrate potentially threatening information relevant to the self. By extension, self-insight may enable attitude change as a result of conversations about prejudice. We tested whether high-quality listening would predict attitudes related to speakers' prejudices and whether self-insight would mediate this effect. Study 1 (preregistered) examined scripted conversations characterized by high, regular, and poor listening quality. In Study 2, we manipulated high versus regular listening quality in the laboratory as speakers talked about their prejudiced attitudes. Finally, Study 3 (preregistered) used a more robust measure of prejudiced attitudes to testing whether perceived social acceptance could be an alternative explanation to Study 2 findings. Across these studies, the exploratory (pilot study and Study 2) and confirmatory (Studies 1 & 3) findings were in line with expectations that high, versus regular and poor, quality listening facilitated lower prejudiced attitudes because it increased self-insight. A meta-analysis of the studies (N = 952) showed that the average effect sizes for high-quality listening (vs. comparison conditions) on self-insight, openness to change and prejudiced attitudes were, ds = 1.19, 0.46, 0.32 95%CIs [0.73, 1.51], [0.29, 0.63] [0.12, 0.53], respectively. These results suggest that when having conversations about prejudice, high-quality listening modestly shapes prejudice following conversations about it, and underscores the importance of self-insight and openness to change in this process.
Tia Moin, Netta Weinstein, Guy Itzchakov, Amanda Branson, Beth Law, Lydia Yee, Emma Pape, Rebecca Y. M. Cheung, Anthony Haffey, Bhismadev Chakrabarti and Philip Beaman
|
Listening
Listening is understood to be a foundational element in practices that rely on effective conversations, but there is a gap in our understanding of what the effects of highquality listening are on both the speaker and listener. This registered report addressed this gap by training one group of participants to listen well as speakers discuss their character strengths, allowing us to isolate the role relational listening plays in strengths-based conversations. Participants were paired and randomly assigned to a highquality listening (experimental) or moderate-quality listening (comparison) condition manipulated through a validated video-based training. High-quality listening predicted a more constructive relational experience; specifically, positivity resonance. Intrapersonal experiences (perceived authenticity and state anxiety) were not affected. Those who engaged in high-quality listening expressed a behavioural intention to continue listening, but condition did not predict a behavioural intention for speakers to continue applying character strengths. This is the first evidence of positivity resonance as a shared outcome between both a speaker and listener when the listener conveys high-quality (as opposed to ‘everyday’) listening. These early findings merit further study with stronger listening manipulations to explore the potential role of listening within interpersonal communication, and inform the applied psychological sciences (counselling, psychotherapy, coaching, organizational, education).
Keep reading
Gary P. Latham, Xiao Chen, Ronald F. Piccolo and Guy Itzchakov
|
Goal Setting
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).
Keep reading