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

Listening is understood to be a foundational element in practices that rely on effective conversations, but there is a gap in our understanding of what the effects of highquality listening are on both the speaker and listener. This registered report addressed this gap by training one group of participants to listen well as speakers discuss their character strengths, allowing us to isolate the role relational listening plays in strengths-based conversations. Participants were paired and randomly assigned to a highquality listening (experimental) or moderate-quality listening (comparison) condition manipulated through a validated video-based training. High-quality listening predicted a more constructive relational experience; specifically, positivity resonance. Intrapersonal experiences (perceived authenticity and state anxiety) were not affected. Those who engaged in high-quality listening expressed a behavioural intention to continue listening, but condition did not predict a behavioural intention for speakers to continue applying character strengths. This is the first evidence of positivity resonance as a shared outcome between both a speaker and listener when the listener conveys high-quality (as opposed to ‘everyday’) listening. These early findings merit further study with stronger listening manipulations to explore the potential role of listening within interpersonal communication, and inform the applied psychological sciences (counselling, psychotherapy, coaching, organizational, education).

Theoretical work on attitudinal ambivalence suggests that anticipated regret may play a role in causing awareness of contradictions that subsequently induce a feeling of an evaluative conflict. In the present paper we empirically examined how the anticipation of regret relates to the association between the simultaneous pre- sence of contradictory cognitions and emotions (objective ambivalence), and the evaluative conflict associated with it (subjective ambivalence), in the context of decision-making. Across three studies (Ns = 204,127,244), manipulating both objective ambivalence and regret, we consistently found that when a dichotomous ambiva- lent choice had to be made, (objectively) ambivalent attitude holders for whom feelings of anticipated regret were made salient reported higher levels of subjective-attitude ambivalence than participants in the other conditions. Moreover, in Studies 2 and 3 we found that the effect of anticipated regret on subjective ambivalence had consequences on information processing. Specifically, anticipating regret made ambivalent participants search for attitude-congruent information. This effect was mediated by the increase in subjective ambivalence. This work provides the first empirical evidence for the role of regret in the association between objective-and- subjective attitude ambivalence, and its consequences.