The effects of listening on speaker and listener while talking about character strengths: an open science school-wide collaboration
Abstract
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).
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
Exploring the connecting potential of AI: Integrating human interpersonal listening and parasocial support into human-computer interactions
Netta Weinstein, Guy Itzchakov, Michael R. Maniaci
Attitudes
Conversational artificial intelligence (AI) can be harnessed to provide supportive parasocial interactions that rival or even exceed social support from human interactions. High-quality listening in human conversations fosters social connection that heals interpersonal wounds and lessens loneliness. While AI can furnish advice, listening involves the speakers’ perceptions of positive intention, a quality that AI can only simulate. Can such deep-seated support be provided by AI? This research examined two previously siloed areas of knowledge: the healing capabilities of human interpersonal listening, and the potential for AI to produce parasocial experiences of connection. Three experiments (N = 668) addressed this question through manipulating conversational AI listening to test effects on perceived listening, psychological needs, and state loneliness. We show that when prompted, AI could provide high-quality listening, characterized by careful attention and a positive environment for self-expression. More so, AI’s high-quality listening was perceived as better than participants’ average human interaction (Studies 1–3). Receiving high-quality listening predicted greater relatedness (Study 3) and autonomy (Studies 2 and 3) need satisfaction after participants discussed rejection (Study 2–3), loneliness (Study 3), and isolating attitudes (Study 3). Despite this, we did not observe downstream lessening of loneliness typically observed in human interactions, even for those who were high in trait loneliness (Study 3). These findings clearly contrast with research on human interactions and hint at the potential power, but also the limits, of AI in replicating supportive human interactions.
Keep reading