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.
Can high quality listening predict lower speakers' prejudiced attitudes?
Guy Itzchakov, Netta Weinstein, Nicole Legate, Moty Amar
Listening
Theorizing from humanistic and motivational literature suggests attitude change may occur because high-quality listening facilitates the insight needed to explore and integrate potentially threatening information relevant to the self. By extension, self-insight may enable attitude change as a result of conversations about prejudice. We tested whether high-quality listening would predict attitudes related to speakers' prejudices and whether self-insight would mediate this effect. Study 1 (preregistered) examined scripted conversations characterized by high, regular, and poor listening quality. In Study 2, we manipulated high versus regular listening quality in the laboratory as speakers talked about their prejudiced attitudes. Finally, Study 3 (preregistered) used a more robust measure of prejudiced attitudes to testing whether perceived social acceptance could be an alternative explanation to Study 2 findings. Across these studies, the exploratory (pilot study and Study 2) and confirmatory (Studies 1 & 3) findings were in line with expectations that high, versus regular and poor, quality listening facilitated lower prejudiced attitudes because it increased self-insight. A meta-analysis of the studies (N = 952) showed that the average effect sizes for high-quality listening (vs. comparison conditions) on self-insight, openness to change and prejudiced attitudes were, ds = 1.19, 0.46, 0.32 95%CIs [0.73, 1.51], [0.29, 0.63] [0.12, 0.53], respectively. These results suggest that when having conversations about prejudice, high-quality listening modestly shapes prejudice following conversations about it, and underscores the importance of self-insight and openness to change in this process.
Keep reading
Advancing Primed Goal Research in Organizational Behavior
Xiao Chen, Gary P. Latham, Ronald F. Piccolo, Guy Itzchakov
Goal Setting
In this rejoinder, we address three issues discussed in the commentaries on our lead article: possible ethical issues in goal priming in organizational settings, whether goal priming is restricted to routine behaviors, and the relationship of goal priming with self-fulling prophecies and an organization’s climate. Finally, our data were examined by an independent researcher who tested for publication bias.
Keep reading