Empathic listening satisfies speakers’ psychological needs and well-being, but doesn’t directly deepen solitude experiences: A registered report
Abstract
A live discussion experiment was designed to test the effects of highly empathic (vs. moderately empathic) listening on solitude experiences. Participants were assigned to three conditions in which they: 1) Discussed a negative personal experience with a confederate (ostensibly another participant) exhibiting highly empathic listening; 2) Discussed an experience with a confederate exhibiting moderately empathic listening; or, 3) Engaged in a positive reframing exercise. Building on previous listening theory (Weinstein et al., 2022) and research (Itzchakov & Weinstein, 2021; Itzchakov, Weinstein, et al., 2022). We then assessed the two posited mechanisms of autonomy and relatedness and tested the expectations to be in solitude. All participants were instructed to spend ten minutes alone, phones off, and distractions stored away. While highly empathic listening enhanced participants’ (i.e. speakers) autonomy and relatedness need satisfaction compared to the other two conditions and predicted initial increases in self- and social-connection, it did not subsequently improve solitude experiences, with no direct effects found predicting self-connection, peaceful affect, loneliness, or self-insight. Indirect effects linked empathic listening to self-connection and self-insight through autonomy satisfaction. While empathic listening fosters immediate psychological need satisfaction in social contexts, deeper listening interventions may be necessary to improve subsequent solitude periods.
Avoiding harm, benefits of interpersonal listening, and social equilibrium adjustment: An applied psychology approach to side effects of organizational interventions
Guy Itzchakov, Justin B. Keeler, Walter J. Sowden, Walter Slipetz, and Kent S. Faught
Listening
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.
Keep reading
Advancing Primed Goal Research in Organizational Behavior
Xiao Chen, Gary P. Latham, Ronald F. Piccolo, Guy Itzchakov
Goal Setting
In this rejoinder, we address three issues discussed in the commentaries on our lead article: possible ethical issues in goal priming in organizational settings, whether goal priming is restricted to routine behaviors, and the relationship of goal priming with self-fulling prophecies and an organization’s climate. Finally, our data were examined by an independent researcher who tested for publication bias.
Keep reading