Perceiving others as responsive lessens prejudice: The mediating roles of intellectual humility and attitude ambivalence
Abstract
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.
A Meta‑analytic Systematic Review and Theory of the Efects of Perceived Listening on Work Outcomes
Avraham N. Kluger · Michal Lehmann · Herman Aguinis · Guy Itzchakov · Galit Gordoni · Jetmir Zyberaj · Cafer Bakaç
Listening
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.
Keep reading
Avoiding harm, benefits of interpersonal listening, and social equilibrium adjustment: An applied psychology approach to side effects of organizational interventions
Guy Itzchakov, Justin B. Keeler, Walter J. Sowden, Walter Slipetz, and Kent S. Faught
Listening
Creating positive change in the direction intended is the goal of organizational interventions.
Watts et al. (2021) raise this issue of “side effects,” which include changes that are unintended and often in the opposite direction of the organizational intervention. With our expertise in applied psychology, military psychiatry/neuroscience, organizational behavior, and corporate safety, we argue for three additional factors for consideration: avoiding harm, the benefits of high-quality interpersonal listening, and a discussion of side effects as a natural part of the change process. We offer these as a means of extending the conversation begun by Watts et al.
Keep reading