The Unintentional Nonconformist: Habits Promote Resistance to Social influence
Abstract
This research tests a novel source of resistance to social influence—the automatic repetition of habit. In three experiments,
participants with strong habits failed to align their behavior with others. Specifically, participants with strong habits to drink
water in a dining hall or snack while working did not mimic others’ drinking or eating, whereas those with weak habits
conformed. Similarly, participants with strong habits did not shift expectations that they would act in line with descriptive
norms, whereas those with weak habits reported more normative behavioral expectations. This habit resistance was not
due to a failure to perceive influence: Both strong and weak habit participants’ recalled others’ behavior accurately, and it
was readily accessible. Furthermore, strong habit participants shifted their normative beliefs but not behavior in line with
descriptive norms. Thus, habits create behavioral resistance despite people’s recognition and acceptance of social influence.
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
A Meta‑analytic Systematic Review and Theory of the Efects of Perceived Listening on Work Outcomes
Avraham N. Kluger · Michal Lehmann · Herman Aguinis · Guy Itzchakov · Galit Gordoni · Jetmir Zyberaj · Cafer Bakaç
Listening
The quality of listening in interpersonal contexts was hypothesized to improve a variety of work outcomes. However, research
of this general hypothesis is dispersed across multiple disciplines and mostly atheoretical. We propose that perceived listening improves job performance through its efects on afect, cognition, and relationship quality. To test our theory, we
conducted a registered systematic review and multiple meta-analyses, using three-level meta-analysis models, based on 664
efect sizes and 400,020 observations. Our results suggest a strong positive correlation between perceived listening and work
outcomes, r = .39, 95%CI=[.36, .43], 휌 = .44, with the efect on relationship quality, r =.51, being stronger than the efect
on performance, r =.36. These fndings partially support our theory, indicating that perceived listening may enhance job
performance by improving relationship quality. However, 75% of the literature relied on self-reports raising concerns about
discriminant validity. Despite this limitation, removing data solely based on self-reports still produced substantial estimates
of the association between listening and work outcomes (e.g., listening and job performance, r = .21, 95%CI=[.13, .29], 휌
= .23). Our meta-analyses suggest further research into (a) the relationship between listening and job knowledge, (b) measures assessing poor listening behaviors, (c) the incremental validity of listening in predicting listeners’ and speakers’ job
performance, and (d) listening as a means to improve relationships at work.
Keep reading