Social-based learning and leadership in school: conflict management training for holistic, relational conflict resolution

Listening is essential in shaping social interactions, relationships and communication. While listening research has generated significant insights on how speakers benefit from good listening, one fundamental question has been largely overlooked: how do people perceive listeners? This gap is crucial for understanding how perceptions of listeners impact relational dynamics. In three studies (two preregistered; total N = 1509), we assessed the attributes and behaviours associated with good and bad listeners, and whether the favourability of these attributes and behaviours impact downstream consequences. In Study 1, participants identified an acquaintance they judged as a good or bad listener. Good listeners were rated higher in positive listening attributes and behaviours, which mediated their perceived warmth, competence and values. Study 2 replicated this using a reverse correlation technique: one sample generated faces of a good or bad listener, which were then evaluated by a second, naïve sample. Consistent with Study 1, good listener faces were rated higher in positive listening attributes and behaviours, mediating perceptions of warmth, competence, humility and values. Study 3 extended Study 2 by showing that the effects were not due to a general positivity bias, demonstrating the significant interpersonal consequences of being perceived as a good or bad listener.

The effect of feedback and a self-set goal on the relationship between a goal primed in the subconscious and performance were examined in three laboratory experiments and one field experiment (n = 241, 465, 201, 74 respectively), using normative (bogus) and absolute feedback manipulations, and different performance tasks that were coded for both performance quality (i.e. creativity) and quantity. The hypothesis that providing feedback, a moderator in goal-setting theory, amplifies the causal effect of a primed goal on performance was supported. Specifically, in experiment 1, participants were randomly assigned to a 2 (prime of effective vs. ineffective performance) × 3 (positive, negative, no feedback) factorial design. The primed goal for effective performance led to higher performance than the negative primed goal. In addition, feedback, regardless of its sign, increased both task and creative performance when a primed goal for effective performance was presented but did not do so when the goal primed ineffective performance. This effect was replicated in two subsequent laboratory experiments which employed three primed goal conditions (effective/neutral/ineffective). In experiments 2 and 3, a consciously set goal, with no prompting by an experimenter, mediated the relationship between a primed goal and performance when feedback was provided. Experiment 4 provided a conceptual replication in a work setting, involving employees in a customer service department of a large communication company. Finally, a meta-analysis of these four experiments indicated an average effect size of d = 0.36, 95 percent CI [0.23, 0.49] with no evidence of heterogeneity across the four experiments. These findings suggest that not only are subconscious goals a foundation for the difficulty level of consciously set goals but in addition, subconscious goals and conscious goals work together in affecting performance.