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

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).

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).