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.
An Enumerative Review and a Meta-Analysis of Primed Goal Effects on Organizational Behavior
Xiao Chen, Gary P. Latham, Ronald F. Piccolo, Guy Itzchakov
Goal Setting
Drawing on results from 32 published and 20 unpublished laboratory and field experiments, we conducted an enumerative review of the primed goal effects on outcomes of organizational relevance including performance and the need for achievement. The enumerative review suggests that goal-setting theory is as applicable for subconscious goals as it is for consciously set goals. A meta-analysis of 23 studies revealed that priming an achievement goal, relative to a no-prime control condition, significantly improves task/job performance (d = 0.44, k = 34) and the need for achievement (d = 0.69, k = 6). Three moderators of the primed goal effects on the observed outcomes were identified: (1) context-specific vs. a general prime, (2) prime modality (i.e., visual vs. linguistic), and (3) experimental setting (i.e., field vs. laboratory). Significantly stronger primed goal effects were obtained for context-specific primes, visual stimuli, and field experiments. Theoretical and managerial implications of and future directions for goal priming are discussed.
Keep reading
When attitudes and habits don’t correspond: Self-control depletion increases persuasion but not behavior
Guy Itzchakov, Liad Uziel , Wendy Wood
Attitudes
Changing attitudes does not necessarily involve the same psychological processes as changing behavior, yet
social psychology is only just beginning to identify the different mechanisms involved. We contribute to this
understanding by showing that the moderators of attitude change are not necessarily the moderators of behavior
change. The results of three studies (Ns = 98, 104, 137) employing an ego depletion manipulation indicate that
although people are more likely to agree with a persuasive message when executive control is reduced they are
not more likely to change their behavior. Rather, under conditions of ego depletion, attitudes became less correlated with behaviors after persuasion. Moreover, in Study 3, we provide an explanation for this phenom-
enon: People are more likely to agree with a persuasive message when depleted but are also more likely to fall back on habits that may conflict with their new evaluations. A mini meta-analysis of the data indicated that ego-
depletion had a medium effect size on the difference between attitude change and behavior change, N = 339, d = −0.51, 95% CI [−0.72, −0.29]. Jointly, these studies suggest an integrative, resource-based explanation
to attitude-behavior discrepancies subsequent to persuasion.
Keep reading