Listening

How do people perceive listeners?

Abstract

Listening is essential in shaping social interactions, relationships and communication. While listening research has generated significant insights on how speakers benefit from good listening, one fundamental question has been largely overlooked: how do people perceive listeners? This gap is crucial for understanding how perceptions of listeners impact relational dynamics. In three studies (two preregistered; total N = 1509), we assessed the attributes and behaviours associated with good and bad listeners, and whether the favourability of these attributes and behaviours impact downstream consequences. In Study 1, participants identified an acquaintance they judged as a good or bad listener. Good listeners were rated higher in positive listening attributes and behaviours, which mediated their perceived warmth, competence and values. Study 2 replicated this using a reverse correlation technique: one sample generated faces of a good or bad listener, which were then evaluated by a second, naïve sample. Consistent with Study 1, good listener faces were rated higher in positive listening attributes and behaviours, mediating perceptions of warmth, competence, humility and values. Study 3 extended Study 2 by showing that the effects were not due to a general positivity bias, demonstrating the significant interpersonal consequences of being perceived as a good or bad listener.
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
Guy Itzchakova, Frenk Van Harreveld
|
Attitudes
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.
Keep reading