Listening to Understand: The Role of High-Quality Listening on Speakers’ Attitude Depolarization During Disagreements

Listening is understood to be a foundational element in practices that rely on effective conversations, but there is a gap in our understanding of what the effects of highquality listening are on both the speaker and listener. This registered report addressed this gap by training one group of participants to listen well as speakers discuss their character strengths, allowing us to isolate the role relational listening plays in strengths-based conversations. Participants were paired and randomly assigned to a highquality listening (experimental) or moderate-quality listening (comparison) condition manipulated through a validated video-based training. High-quality listening predicted a more constructive relational experience; specifically, positivity resonance. Intrapersonal experiences (perceived authenticity and state anxiety) were not affected. Those who engaged in high-quality listening expressed a behavioural intention to continue listening, but condition did not predict a behavioural intention for speakers to continue applying character strengths. This is the first evidence of positivity resonance as a shared outcome between both a speaker and listener when the listener conveys high-quality (as opposed to ‘everyday’) listening. These early findings merit further study with stronger listening manipulations to explore the potential role of listening within interpersonal communication, and inform the applied psychological sciences (counselling, psychotherapy, coaching, organizational, education).

Can perceived responsiveness, the extent to which an individual feels understood, validated, and cared for by close others, reduce prejudiced attitudes? We hypothesized that perceived responsiveness by meaningful other people would increase recipients’ intellectual humility and attitude ambivalence and that these changes would reduce prejudice. Five studies (total N = 3362), four of which were preregistered, manipulated perceived responsiveness by a specific person (Studies 1–3, 5) or measured the effects of perceived responsiveness by the closest social network of the recipient (Study 4). All studies supported the hypotheses. Specifically, Studies 1 and 2 found that perceived responsiveness increased intellectual humility and attitude ambivalence and reduced prejudice toward a group from a pre-determined list. Study 3 replicated these findings when participants freely chose the social group. In Study 4, perceived responsiveness from individuals’ closest social networks predicted the dependent variables a few days afterward, controlling for positive and negative affect and social desirability. Finally, in Study 5, we added a condition of positive social interaction to rule out the possibility that the prior findings were due to recalling an affectively positive experience. The effect of perceived responsiveness on prejudice reduction (i.e., increased attitude favorability toward the social group) was not moderated by attitude certainty (Study 2), anxious or avoidant attachment style (Study 2), or attitude morality (Study 3). This work suggests that fostering perceived responsiveness can serve as a strategy for mitigating prejudice and promoting more open-minded attitudes.