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).
Feeling torn and fearing rue: Attitude ambivalence and anticipated regret as antecedents of biased information seeking
Guy Itzchakova, Frenk Van Harreveld
Attitudes
Theoretical work on attitudinal ambivalence suggests that anticipated regret may play a role in causing
awareness of contradictions that subsequently induce a feeling of an evaluative conflict. In the present paper we empirically examined how the anticipation of regret relates to the association between the simultaneous pre-
sence of contradictory cognitions and emotions (objective ambivalence), and the evaluative conflict associated with it (subjective ambivalence), in the context of decision-making. Across three studies (Ns = 204,127,244), manipulating both objective ambivalence and regret, we consistently found that when a dichotomous ambiva-
lent choice had to be made, (objectively) ambivalent attitude holders for whom feelings of anticipated regret were made salient reported higher levels of subjective-attitude ambivalence than participants in the other
conditions. Moreover, in Studies 2 and 3 we found that the effect of anticipated regret on subjective ambivalence
had consequences on information processing. Specifically, anticipating regret made ambivalent participants
search for attitude-congruent information. This effect was mediated by the increase in subjective ambivalence. This work provides the first empirical evidence for the role of regret in the association between objective-and-
subjective attitude ambivalence, and its consequences.
Keep reading
Don't let the facts ruin a good story: The effect of vivid reviews on attitude ambivalence and its coping mechanisms
Guy Itzchakov, Moty Amar, Frenk Van Harreveld
Attitudes
Purchasing decisions are increasingly based on reviews by fellow consumers which often consist of positive and negative evaluations about the product (i.e. valence-
inconsistency). We tested how the vividness of these reviews affects individuals' attitude ambivalence towards the product and their strategies to cope with this ambivalence. We hypothesized that reading vivid and valence-inconsistent reviews would lead to increased awareness of opposing features of attitudes towards the
product (i.e. increased simultaneous accessibility) as compared to reading less vivid valence-inconsistent reviews. If this is indeed the case, individuals should feel
more conflicted towards the attitude object (i.e. increased subjective ambivalence) and should be motivated to reduce it by using ambivalence-coping strategies,
specifically (a) processing additional information that is congruent with their initial attitude and (b) delaying their decision. These hypotheses were mostly supported across five experiments. The experiments included manipulations of valence-inconsistent information between reviews and within a review including three pre-
registered studies (Ns = 247, 396, 701, 433, 313, respectively).
Keep reading