When attitudes and habits don’t correspond: Self-control depletion increases persuasion but not behavior

What does it mean to listen, and what enables people to do it well? This study examines the cultural foundations, conditions, expressions, and outcomes of listening through a qualitative analysis of 20 semi-structured interviews with Israeli participants. Using reflexive thematic analysis, we identified five interrelated themes showing how listening is shaped by relational closeness, emotional safety, internal motivation, behavioral expression, and emotional impact. Participants described listening as an intentional and emotionally effortful process, grounded in trust, cultural norms, and personal willingness to remain present. It was experienced not only through visible behaviors but through authentic emotional presence and attunement. Crucially, listening was described as the most vulnerable and most revealing in contexts of conflict, emotional strain, or power asymmetries, where relational and ethical demands intensify. These findings highlight listening as a culturally situated, interpretive practice shaped by collective norms, emotional intensity, and social hierarchy. This study contributes to context-sensitive models of listening with implications for interpersonal relationships, organizational leadership, and intercultural communication, particularly in high-conflict or culturally diverse environments where listening serves as a key relational and managerial resource.

Conversations with people who hold opposite partisan attitudes can elicit defensiveness, reinforce extreme attitudes, and undermine relationships with those with opposing views. However, this might not be the case when speakers experience high-quality (attentive, 2 understanding, and non-judgmental) listening from their conversation partners. We hypothesized that high-quality listening will increase speakers’ positive views toward, and their willingness to further interact with, others who hold politically opposed attitudes, and that these effects will be mediated by greater state openness. We conducted three experiments using different modalities to manipulate listening. In Study 1 (N = 379), participants recalled a conversation with an opposing political party member, with listening quality described as high-quality, low-quality, or control. Study 2 (N = 269) used imagined interactions, with participants reading vignettes describing either high-quality listening or a control condition. In Study 3 (preregistered; N = 741), participants watched a video of a listener modeling high-quality or moderate-quality listening and imagined themselves engaging in a similar interaction. Across studies, we found that high-quality listening consistently increased speakers’ state openness to politically opposed others, but did not change political attitudes. We found inconsistent evidence for speakers’ increased willingness to engage in future interactions (meta-analytic effect: 𝑑 = 0.20, p = .015). However, the indirect effect of listening on positive attitudes and willingness for future interactions through increased openness was consistently significant.