Question asking as a dyadic behavior.

Abstract

Brooks, Minson, and Gino (2017) studied the role of question asking in conversations. They claimed to have identified "a robust and consistent relationship between question-asking and liking" (p. 1), where liking is affected largely by follow-up questions, rather than by switch questions. They concluded that their "data support a trait-level model of question-asking behavior" (p. 12), and that "question-asking is a critical component of active listening" (p. 14). Our theoretical, methodological, and empirical reanalyses of their speed-dating study (Study 3), where liking was operationalized as being offered a second date, lead to different conclusions. Their speed-dating data conforms to an asymmetric block design, and should have been analyzed using the social relations model, to unconfound the effects of the actor, partner, dyad, and gender. Social relations modeling showed that about a third of the variance of question asking can be attributed to a trait, but that another third of the variance can be attributed to the specific dyad, and some smaller portion of the variance can be attributed to the partner's tendency to elicit question asking. Bivariate social relations modeling showed that latent scores of follow-up questions and switch questions are largely isomorphic. Finally, asking an opposite sex partner questions tends to be inversely related to being offered a second date, at least for men. Based on theory, our reanalysis, and other empirical findings, we conclude that offering a second-date is not equivalent to liking, and that question asking is different from listening.

What you see is what you want to get: Perceived abilities outperform objective test performance in predicting mate appeal in speed dating

“…Binary outcomes call for a different data analytical strategy than the one recommended by Ackerman and colleagues (2015). Therefore, we conducted generalized MLMs in R (R Core Team, 2020) using lme4 (Bates et al, 2015) following suggestions by Kluger and Malloy (2019). All code can be found on the OSF.…”

Dyadic Listening in Teams: Social Relations Model

“…Not only is Amy’s judgment of Bob’s listening determined by Amy’s perceiver effect and Bob’s target effect, this specific combination of Amy and Bob can uniquely determine listening. The relationship effect is dyadic, meaning that it is concerned with specific dyads that produce uniquely high or low levels of listening quality (Kluger & Malloy, 2019). Because the use of SRM is not common in applied psychology, in Appendix we provide hypothetical examples explaining the meaning of actor, partner, and relationship effects, as well as their covariances that we describe below.…”

I know how I feel but do I know how you feel? Investigating metaperceptions to advance relationship-based leadership approaches.

“…Alternatively, it is possible that multilevel conceptualizations can yield new insights regarding leader-follower relationships. In that regard, recent research highlights that failing to take a multilevel lens risks masking important nuances underlying relational phenomena (e.g., Kluger & Malloy, 2019). For example, the moderate level of LMX convergence may be largely driven by the social exchange at one specific level but not the other.…”