Listening to Understand: The Role of High-Quality Listening on Speakers’ Attitude Depolarization During Disagreements
Abstract
Disagreements can polarize attitudes when they evoke defensiveness from the conversation partners. When
a speaker talks, listeners often think about ways to counterargue. This process often fails to depolarize
attitudes and might even backfire (i.e., the Boomerang effect). However, what happens in disagreements if
one conversation partner genuinely listens to the other’s perspective? We hypothesized that when
conversation partners convey high-quality listening—characterized by attention, understanding, and
positive intentions—speakers will feel more socially comfortable and connected to them (i.e., positivity
resonance) and reflect on their attitudes in a less defensive manner (i.e., have self-insight). We further
hypothesized that this process reduces perceived polarization (perceived attitude change, perceived attitude
similarity with the listener) and actual polarization (reduced attitude extremity). Four experiments
manipulated poor, moderate, and high-quality listening using a video vignette (Study 1) and live interactions
(Studies 2–4). The results consistently supported the research hypotheses and a serial mediation model in
which listening influences depolarization through positivity resonance and nondefensive self-reflection.
Most of the effects of the listening manipulation on perceived and actual depolarization generalized across
indicators of attitude strength, specifically attitude certainty and attitude morality. These findings suggest
that high-quality listening can be a valuable tool for bridging attitudinal and ideological divides.
Puzzles of Interpersonal Listening: Conflicting Findings, Theories, and Future Research
Guy Itzchakov, Graham D. Bodie
Listening
Listening is widely recognized as essential to human interaction, yet research on it remains conceptually fragmented and
theoretically inconsistent. Although extensive evidence shows that good listening benefits emotional, cognitive, motivational,
and relational outcomes, the field lacks consensus about what listening is, how it should be defined, and under what conditions it helps or hinders interaction. This article synthesizes these tensions by identifying 10 core “listening puzzles” that
reveal contradictions in existing theories and findings: (1) what constitutes good listening and its dimensions such as empathy
and non‐judgment; (2) the paradox of distraction and invisible inattention; (3) the relationship between listening and
agreement; (4) when listening requires follow‐up action; (5) the benefits and risks of silence; (6) asymmetries between
speakers' and listeners' perceptions; (7) the dual role of question‐asking; (8) the role of paraphrasing in demonstrating active
engagement and non‐judgmentalness; (9) the balance between speaking and listening; and (10) the link between listening and
personality. Together, these puzzles demonstrate that listening is neither a fixed skill nor a uniformly positive behavior, but a
context‐dependent, relational process shaped by perception, goals, and situational norms. By mapping these puzzles, the
article provides a foundation for a more integrated and nuanced understanding of how listening operates across interpersonal
and social contexts.
Keep reading
An Examination of the Moderating Effect of Core Self-Evaluations and the Mediating Effect of Self-Set Goals on the Primed Goal-Task Performance Relationship
Guy Itzchakov, Gary P. Latham
Goal Setting
An understudied issue in the goal priming literature is why the same prime can provoke different responses in different people. The current research sheds light on this issue by investigating whether an individual difference variable, core self-evaluations (CSE), accounts for different responses from the same prime. Based on the findings of experiments showing that individuals with high CSE have higher performance after consciously setting a task-related goal than individuals with lower CSE, two hypotheses were tested: (1) Individuals who score high on CSE perform better following a subconsciously primed goal for achievement than do individuals who score low on CSE, and (2) this effect is mediated by a self-set goal. Two laboratory experiments (n = 207, 191) and one field experiment (n = 62) provided support for the hypotheses. These findings suggest that personality variables such as the CSE can provide an explanation for the “many effects of the one prime problem”.
Keep reading