The Power of Listening in Helping People Change

Consumers’ decisions are intricately interwoven with their conversations. Whether it is an animated discussion with a trusted friend extolling the virtues of a newly acquired car (i.e., Word-of-Mouth), an engaging dialogue with a salesperson, or a clarifying call to a help center seeking guidance on a just-purchased smartwatch, every exchange hinges on a pivotal factor: the quality of listening. Listening quality shapes perceptions, affects social influence, drives behavioral intentions, and, ultimately, determines purchase and post-purchase outcomes. Yet, despite its importance to these consumer behavior outcomes, listening has received scant attention in consumer psychology. In this paper, we review the effects of listening on consumer behavior-relevant outcomes and unpack the components of quality listening to reveal their independent mechanisms. We also point to new frontiers in listening research beyond the in-person, dyadic interactions that have been the primary focus of listening research to date. By doing this, we elucidate how listening and consumer behavior are connected and encourage more research on listening in consumer psychology.

Environmental cues (e.g. achievement-related words and pictures) can prime/activate, in the absence of awareness, a mental representation of importance stored in memory. Chen et al.'s 2021 Applied Psychology: An International Review70, 216–253. (doi:10.1111/apps.12239) meta-analysis revealed a moderate, significant overall effect for the goal priming-organizational behaviour relationship, with three moderators identified: context-specific versus a general prime, prime modality (i.e. visual versus linguistic) and experimental setting (field versus laboratory). An independent researcher found that their finding was negligibly affected by a publication bias. Shanks & Vadillo (2021), Royal Society Open Science8, 210544. (doi:10.1098/rsos.210544) (field: k = 13, N = 683, d = 0.64), questioned Chen et al.'s conclusion regarding the effect size found in field studies (field: k = 8, N = 357, d = 0.68). In this paper, we discussed Shanks & Vadillo's selection of additional field experiments that led to their conclusion of a publication bias. We updated Chen et al.'s meta-analysis to include relevant studies conducted since that study's publication. The present meta-analysis reproduced the original findings in Chen et al. (field: k = 11, N = 534, d = 0.67). The updated findings are consistent with: (i) laboratory findings, (ii) the findings obtained in field experiments on consciously set goals and (iii) goal setting theory (Latham & Locke, 2018 In Handbook of industrial, work & organizational Psychology, vol. 1 (eds D Ones, N Anderson, C Viswesvaran, H Sinangil), pp. 103–124).