Listening and perceived responsiveness: Unveiling the significance and exploring crucial research endeavors
Abstract
Abstract
Listening and perceived responsiveness evoke a sense of
interpersonal connection that benefits individuals and groups
and is relevant to almost every field in Psychology, Management, Education, Communication, and Health, to name a few.
In this paper, we, researchers who have devoted their careers
to studying listening (first author) and perceived responsiveness (second author), address the necessity of integrating the
two constructs. Moreover, we offer several questions for future
research that we believe are crucial to produce a more profound and comprehensive understanding of this important
process. These research questions include empirical issues,
cross-cultural and inter-racial interactions, age differences, the
emergence of new technologies, and opportunities to bridge
political, ethnic, and social divides. By highlighting the undeniable impact of listening and perceived responsiveness on
interpersonal connection across diverse domains, we emphasize the need to integrate these constructs in future research.
Our proposed set of eight pivotal research questions is intended as a starting point for gaining a deeper and more holistic
understanding of this critical study area while building a strong
empirical foundation for interventions. By addressing these
questions, we can foster meaningful advances that have the
potential to bridge gaps, improve relationships, and enhance
the well-being of individuals and communities alike.
An updated meta-analysis of the primed goal-organizational behaviour relationship
Gary P. Latham, Xiao Chen, Ronald F. Piccolo and Guy Itzchakov
Goal Setting
Environmental cues (e.g. achievement-related words and pictures) can prime/activate, in the absence of awareness, a mental representation of importance stored in memory. Chen et al.'s 2021 Applied Psychology: An International Review70, 216–253. (doi:10.1111/apps.12239) meta-analysis revealed a moderate, significant overall effect for the goal priming-organizational behaviour relationship, with three moderators identified: context-specific versus a general prime, prime modality (i.e. visual versus linguistic) and experimental setting (field versus laboratory). An independent researcher found that their finding was negligibly affected by a publication bias. Shanks & Vadillo (2021), Royal Society Open Science8, 210544. (doi:10.1098/rsos.210544) (field: k = 13, N = 683, d = 0.64), questioned Chen et al.'s conclusion regarding the effect size found in field studies (field: k = 8, N = 357, d = 0.68). In this paper, we discussed Shanks & Vadillo's selection of additional field experiments that led to their conclusion of a publication bias. We updated Chen et al.'s meta-analysis to include relevant studies conducted since that study's publication. The present meta-analysis reproduced the original findings in Chen et al. (field: k = 11, N = 534, d = 0.67). The updated findings are consistent with: (i) laboratory findings, (ii) the findings obtained in field experiments on consciously set goals and (iii) goal setting theory (Latham & Locke, 2018 In Handbook of industrial, work & organizational Psychology, vol. 1 (eds D Ones, N Anderson, C Viswesvaran, H Sinangil), pp. 103–124).
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