Can listening training empower service employees? The mediating roles of anxiety and perspective-taking

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.

Listening is widely recognized as essential to human interaction, yet research on it remains conceptually fragmented and theoretically inconsistent. Although extensive evidence shows that good listening benefits emotional, cognitive, motivational, and relational outcomes, the field lacks consensus about what listening is, how it should be defined, and under what conditions it helps or hinders interaction. This article synthesizes these tensions by identifying 10 core “listening puzzles” that reveal contradictions in existing theories and findings: (1) what constitutes good listening and its dimensions such as empathy and non‐judgment; (2) the paradox of distraction and invisible inattention; (3) the relationship between listening and agreement; (4) when listening requires follow‐up action; (5) the benefits and risks of silence; (6) asymmetries between speakers' and listeners' perceptions; (7) the dual role of question‐asking; (8) the role of paraphrasing in demonstrating active engagement and non‐judgmentalness; (9) the balance between speaking and listening; and (10) the link between listening and personality. Together, these puzzles demonstrate that listening is neither a fixed skill nor a uniformly positive behavior, but a context‐dependent, relational process shaped by perception, goals, and situational norms. By mapping these puzzles, the article provides a foundation for a more integrated and nuanced understanding of how listening operates across interpersonal and social contexts.