Listen to this: Why consumer behavior researchers should care about listening

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.

The quality of listening in interpersonal contexts was hypothesized to improve a variety of work outcomes. However, research of this general hypothesis is dispersed across multiple disciplines and mostly atheoretical. We propose that perceived listening improves job performance through its efects on afect, cognition, and relationship quality. To test our theory, we conducted a registered systematic review and multiple meta-analyses, using three-level meta-analysis models, based on 664 efect sizes and 400,020 observations. Our results suggest a strong positive correlation between perceived listening and work outcomes, r = .39, 95%CI=[.36, .43], 휌 = .44, with the efect on relationship quality, r =.51, being stronger than the efect on performance, r =.36. These fndings partially support our theory, indicating that perceived listening may enhance job performance by improving relationship quality. However, 75% of the literature relied on self-reports raising concerns about discriminant validity. Despite this limitation, removing data solely based on self-reports still produced substantial estimates of the association between listening and work outcomes (e.g., listening and job performance, r = .21, 95%CI=[.13, .29], 휌 = .23). Our meta-analyses suggest further research into (a) the relationship between listening and job knowledge, (b) measures assessing poor listening behaviors, (c) the incremental validity of listening in predicting listeners’ and speakers’ job performance, and (d) listening as a means to improve relationships at work.