High-Quality Listening Supports Speakers’ Autonomy and Self-Esteem when Discussing Prejudice

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.

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.