Listening

Deep Listening Training to Bridge Divides: Fostering Attitudinal Change through Intimacy and Self‐Insight

Abstract

Deep, high‐quality listening that offers a nonjudgmental approach, understanding, and careful attention when speakers share disparate views can have the power to bridge divides and change speakers' attitudes. However, can people be trained to provide such listening while disagreeing with what they hear, and if so, are the effects of the listening training sufficient for creating perceptible change during disagreements? This study, conducted with delegates (N=320) representing 86 countries experimentally tested a “deep” (otherwise termed “high quality“) listening training against a randomly assigned subgroup of attendees who served as a “waitlist” control. During a conversation with another participant on a subject about which they strongly disagreed, participants who had completed a 6‐h training over 3 weeks in high‐quality listening demonstrated improvements in their observed listening behaviors, reported higher levels of interactional intimacy with conversation partners, appeared to increase their self‐insight and subsequently, showed evidence of attitude change. Among the first studies to test semi‐causal outcomes of high‐quality listening training between attendees with diverse and contrary attitudes in a real‐world, cross‐national setting; we discuss the potential and limitations for listening training to support positive relations and an open mind in the context of discourse, disagreement and polarization.
Guy Itzchakov, Geoffrey Haddock and Sarah Smith
|
Listening
Listening is essential in shaping social interactions, relationships and communication. While listening research has generated significant insights on how speakers benefit from good listening, one fundamental question has been largely overlooked: how do people perceive listeners? This gap is crucial for understanding how perceptions of listeners impact relational dynamics. In three studies (two preregistered; total N = 1509), we assessed the attributes and behaviours associated with good and bad listeners, and whether the favourability of these attributes and behaviours impact downstream consequences. In Study 1, participants identified an acquaintance they judged as a good or bad listener. Good listeners were rated higher in positive listening attributes and behaviours, which mediated their perceived warmth, competence and values. Study 2 replicated this using a reverse correlation technique: one sample generated faces of a good or bad listener, which were then evaluated by a second, naïve sample. Consistent with Study 1, good listener faces were rated higher in positive listening attributes and behaviours, mediating perceptions of warmth, competence, humility and values. Study 3 extended Study 2 by showing that the effects were not due to a general positivity bias, demonstrating the significant interpersonal consequences of being perceived as a good or bad listener.
Keep reading
Guy Itzchakov, Harry T. Reis, Netta Weinstein
|
Listening
Social psychologists have a longstanding interest in the mechanisms responsible for the beneficial effects of positive social connections. This article reviews and integrates two emerging but to this point disparate lines of work that focus on these mechanisms: high-quality listening and perceived partner responsiveness. We also review research investigating the downstream consequences of high-quality listening and perceived partner responsiveness: the how and why of understanding the process by which these downstream benefits are obtained. High-quality listening and perceived partner responsiveness, though not isomorphic, are related constructs in that they both incorporate several key interpersonal processes, such as understanding, positive regard, and expressions of caring for another person. We develop a theoretical model for representing how listening embodies one form of interactive behavior that can promote (or hinder) perceived partner responsiveness and its downstream affective, cognitive, and behavioral effects. Finally, we discuss our model’s implications for various social-psychological domains, such as social cognition, self-evaluation, constructive disagreements, and interpersonal relationships.
Keep reading