Understanding and Cultivating Effective Listening: A Dialectical Theory of the Tensions Between Intuition and Behavior

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.

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).