Harmony in Political Discourse? The Impact of High-Quality Listening on Speakers' Perceptions Following Political Conversations
Abstract
Conversations with people who hold opposite partisan attitudes can elicit defensiveness, reinforce extreme attitudes, and undermine relationships with those with opposing views. However, this might not be the case when speakers experience high-quality (attentive, 2 understanding, and non-judgmental) listening from their conversation partners. We hypothesized that high-quality listening will increase speakers’ positive views toward, and their willingness to further interact with, others who hold politically opposed attitudes, and that these effects will be mediated by greater state openness. We conducted three experiments using different modalities to manipulate listening. In Study 1 (N = 379), participants recalled a conversation with an opposing political party member, with listening quality described as high-quality, low-quality, or control. Study 2 (N = 269) used imagined interactions, with participants reading vignettes describing either high-quality listening or a control condition. In Study 3 (preregistered; N = 741), participants watched a video of a listener modeling high-quality or moderate-quality listening and imagined themselves engaging in a similar interaction. Across studies, we found that high-quality listening consistently increased speakers’ state openness to politically opposed others, but did not change political attitudes. We found inconsistent evidence for speakers’ increased willingness to engage in future interactions (meta-analytic effect: 𝑑 = 0.20, p = .015). However, the indirect effect of listening on positive attitudes and willingness for future interactions through increased openness was consistently significant.
Perceiving others as responsive lessens prejudice: The mediating roles of intellectual humility and attitude ambivalence
Guy Itzchakov , Harry T. Reis , Kimberly Rios
Responsiveness
Can perceived responsiveness, the extent to which an individual feels understood, validated, and cared for by
close others, reduce prejudiced attitudes? We hypothesized that perceived responsiveness by meaningful other
people would increase recipients’ intellectual humility and attitude ambivalence and that these changes would
reduce prejudice. Five studies (total N = 3362), four of which were preregistered, manipulated perceived
responsiveness by a specific person (Studies 1–3, 5) or measured the effects of perceived responsiveness by the
closest social network of the recipient (Study 4). All studies supported the hypotheses. Specifically, Studies 1 and
2 found that perceived responsiveness increased intellectual humility and attitude ambivalence and reduced
prejudice toward a group from a pre-determined list. Study 3 replicated these findings when participants freely
chose the social group. In Study 4, perceived responsiveness from individuals’ closest social networks predicted
the dependent variables a few days afterward, controlling for positive and negative affect and social desirability.
Finally, in Study 5, we added a condition of positive social interaction to rule out the possibility that the prior
findings were due to recalling an affectively positive experience. The effect of perceived responsiveness on
prejudice reduction (i.e., increased attitude favorability toward the social group) was not moderated by attitude
certainty (Study 2), anxious or avoidant attachment style (Study 2), or attitude morality (Study 3). This work
suggests that fostering perceived responsiveness can serve as a strategy for mitigating prejudice and promoting
more open-minded attitudes.
Keep reading
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