Feeling torn and fearing rue: Attitude ambivalence and anticipated regret as antecedents of biased information seeking

We examined how listeners characterized by empathy and a non-judgmental approach affect speakers’ attitude structure. We hypothesized that high-quality listening decreases speakers’ social anxiety, which in turn reduces defensive processing. This reduction in defensive processing was hypothesized to result in an awareness of contradictions (increased objective-attitude ambivalence) and decreased attitude extremity. Moreover, we hypothesized that experiencing high-quality listening would enable speakers to tolerate contradictory responses, such that listening would attenuate the association between objective and subjective-attitude ambivalence. We obtained consistent support for our hypotheses across four laboratory experiments that manipulated listening experience in different ways on a range of attitude topics. The effects of listening on objective-attitude ambivalence were stronger for higher dispositional social anxiety and initial objective-attitude ambivalence (Study 4). Overall, the results suggest that speakers’ attitude structure can be changed by a heretofore unexplored interpersonal variable: merely providing high-quality listening.

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.