Puzzles of Interpersonal Listening: Conflicting Findings, Theories, and Future Research
Abstract
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.
Deep Listening Training to Bridge Divides: Fostering Attitudinal Change through Intimacy and Self‐Insight
F. K. Tia Moin, Guy Itzchakov, Emily Kasriel, Netta Weinstein
Listening
Deep, high‐quality listening that offers a nonjudgmental approach, understanding, and careful attention when speakers share disparate views can have the power to bridge divides and change speakers' attitudes. However, can people be trained to provide such listening while disagreeing with what they hear, and if so, are the effects of the listening training sufficient for creating perceptible change during disagreements? This study, conducted with delegates (N=320) representing 86 countries experimentally tested a “deep” (otherwise termed “high quality“) listening training against a randomly assigned subgroup of attendees who served as a “waitlist” control. During a conversation with another participant on a subject about which they strongly disagreed, participants who had completed a 6‐h training over 3 weeks in high‐quality listening demonstrated improvements in their observed listening behaviors, reported higher levels of interactional intimacy with conversation partners, appeared to increase their self‐insight and subsequently, showed evidence of attitude change. Among the first studies to test semi‐causal outcomes of high‐quality listening training between attendees with diverse and contrary attitudes in a real‐world, cross‐national setting; we discuss the potential and limitations for listening training to support positive relations and an open mind in the context of discourse, disagreement and polarization.
Keep reading
The Effect of a Dilemma on the Relationship Between Ability to Identify the Criterion (ATIC) and Scores on a Validated Situational Interview
Gary P. Latham, Guy Itzchakov
Goal Setting
Four experiments were conducted to determine whether participants’ awareness of the performance criterion on which they were being evaluated results in higher scores on a criterion-valid situational interview (SI) where each question either contains or does not contain a dilemma. In the first experiment, there was no significant difference between those who were or were not informed of the performance criterion that the SI questions predicted. Experiment 2 replicated this finding. In each instance, the SI questions in these two experiments contained a dilemma. In a third experiment, participants were randomly assigned to a 2 (knowledge/no knowledge provided of the criterion) X 2 (SI dilemma/no dilemma) design. Knowledge of the criterion increased interview scores only when the questions did not contain a dilemma. The fourth experiment revealed that including a dilemma in a SI question attenuates the ATIC-SI relationship when participants must identify rather than be informed of the performance criterion that the SI has been developed to assess.
Keep reading