When listening is spoken

Collins, Hanne K.

doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101402

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We call for future work to investigate explicit conversational strategies that may disrupt this fallacious listening loop. For example, with minimal intervention, listeners may be nudged to more explicitly admit their lapses in listening, which would allow for more immediate repair of glitches in information exchange, or learn to use more verbal signals of attentive listening that cannot be faked, such as making call-backs to earlier topics, paraphrasing, or asking follow-up questions—behaviors recently described as powerful signals of “conversational uptake” (Collins, 2022; Demszky et al, 2021; Huang et al, 2017; McQuaid et al, 2015). At the same time, speakers, too, may be able to adjust their expectations to anticipate the cognitive demands of attentive listening, to become more forgiving of their partners’ lapses in listening, and to remain open to repair strategies and attuned to high-fidelity signals of attentive listening, like verbal uptake.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Just as liars seek to conceal cues of their deception, listeners are likely to conceal cues of their inattentive listening. Thus, it may be the case that just as with lying, there are few valid cues of good listening that exist-cues that cannot be feigned when one is motivated to do so (Collins, 2022), leading to our second prediction:…”

Section: A Lens Model Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, though, this coordination process is fraught. While the private act of listening may be signaled through responsive verbal cues (e.g., words of affirmation, paraphrasing, follow-up questions), nonverbal cues (e.g., nodding, eye gaze, facial expression), and paralinguistic cues (e.g., back-channels like "uh huh," silence, laughter), those cues may (or may not) represent the underlying cognitive process of listening (Collins, 2022). Furthermore, those cues may (or may not) be accurately perceived.…”

Section: Previous Research On Listening-a Conundrum For Determining A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To capture the cognitive experience of listening, and account for the temporally unfolding nature of conversation, which requires participants to listen and respond dynamically and recursively, we define listening as: attending to and processing another person’s verbal, nonverbal, and paralinguistic cues amidst conversation. This definition reflects the separable cognitive processes of attending to and processing content from a conversation partner (Collins, 2022), including their verbal cues (e.g., words, grammar, syntax), nonverbal cues perceived visually (e.g., facial expressions, body language, hand gesticulation), and paralinguistic (i.e., prosodic) cues perceived auditorily (e.g., pauses, interruptions, back-channel utterances like “mmhm,” “yea,” laughter, tone, accent, and volume of voice; Yeomans et al, 2021).…”

Section: Previous Research On Listening—a Conundrum For Determining A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Conveying and detecting listening during live conversation.

Collins,

Minson,

Kristal

et al. 2024

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Across all domains of human social life, positive perceptions of conversational listening (i.e., feeling heard) predict well-being, professional success, and interpersonal flourishing. However, a fundamental question remains: Are perceptions of listening accurate? Prior research has not empirically tested the extent to which humans can detect others' cognitive engagement (attentiveness) during live conversation. Across five studies (total N = 1,225), using a combination of correlational and experimental methods, we find that perceivers struggle to distinguish between attentive and inattentive conversational listening. Though people's listening fluctuated naturally throughout their conversations (people's minds wandered away from the conversation 24% of the time), they were able to adjust their listening in line with instructions and incentives-by either listening attentively, inattentively, or dividing their attention-and their conversation partners struggled to detect these differences. Specifically, speakers consistently overestimated their conversation partners' attentiveness-often believing their partners were listening when they were not. Our results suggest this overestimation is (at least partly) due to the largely indistinguishable behavior of inattentive and attentive listeners. It appears that people can (and do) divide their attention during conversation and successfully feign attentiveness. Overestimating others' attentiveness extended to third-party observers who were not immersed in the conversation, listeners who looked back on their own listening, and people interacting with partners who could not hear their words (but were incentivized to act like they could). Our work calls for a reexamination of a fundamental social behavior-listening-and underscores the distinction between feeling heard and being heard during live conversation. Public Significance StatementThis research reveals that there is a difference between being and feeling heard. People's listening fluctuated naturally throughout their conversations (with mind wandering reported 24% of the time)-and their conversation partners were often unable to detect the rise and fall of their partner's attentiveness (whether via natural fluctuation or via our experimental interventions). Across a diverse set of studies, we find support for three key results: (a) perceptions of conversational listening often do not align with listeners' cognitive attentiveness; (b) perceptions of listening are often inaccurate due to a lack of diagnostic behavioral cues displayed by listeners-inattentive listeners behave similarly to attentive listeners; and consequently (c) perceivers primarily overestimate the extent to which their conversation partners are listening to them. These results emphasize the importance of recognizing that moments of inattentiveness happen in conversation-encouraging conversants to acknowledge, forgive, and repair these moments to achieve relational and informational success.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Lens Model Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Previous Research On Listening-a Conundrum For Determining A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Previous Research On Listening—a Conundrum For Determining A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Conveying and detecting listening during live conversation.

Collins,

Minson,

Kristal

et al. 2024

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Contrary to a common misperception, listening is not a passive act of merely being silent. Listening includes a variety of verbal behaviors (Collins, 2022). Below, we describe the most frequent verbal behaviors in listening.…”

Section: The Components Of Listening and Their Constituentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Listen to this: Why consumer behavior researchers should care about listening

Itzchakov,

Wheeler

2023

Consumer Psychology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consumers' decisions are intricately interwoven with their conversations. Whether it is an animated discussion with a trusted friend extolling the virtues of a newly acquired car (i.e., Word‐of‐Mouth), an engaging dialogue with a salesperson, or a clarifying call to a help center seeking guidance on a just‐purchased smartwatch, every exchange hinges on a pivotal factor: the quality of listening. Listening quality shapes perceptions, affects social influence, drives behavioral intentions, and, ultimately, determines purchase and post‐purchase outcomes. Yet, despite its importance to these consumer behavior outcomes, listening has received scant attention in consumer psychology. In this paper, we review the effects of listening on consumer behavior‐relevant outcomes and unpack the components of quality listening to reveal their independent mechanisms. We also point to new frontiers in listening research beyond the in‐person, dyadic interactions that have been the primary focus of listening research to date. By doing this, we elucidate how listening and consumer behavior are connected and encourage more research on listening in consumer psychology.

show abstract

“I Feel Like a Real Chemist Right Now”: Epistemic Affect as a Fundamental Driver of Inquiry in the Chemistry Laboratory

Agustian,

Gammelgaard,

Rangkuti

et al. 2024

Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Affect and emotions matter to science learning. They also matter because they are integral to science identity formation and sense of belonging. This study aims to foreground the epistemic and affective character of laboratory work in higher science education by conceptualizing it as epistemic practice, in which students activate their body and mind in discursive processes of proposing, communicating, and evaluating knowledge. On this conceptualization is an emerging construct, “epistemic affect,” which refers to how one feels when engaging with epistemic practices. Several methods were used to provide triangulated evidence for student learning processes and lived experiences in the chemistry laboratory. Students were observed and interviewed using custom protocols based on previously validated works. The empirical materials consist of audio recordings and transcripts of focus group interviews, audio and video recordings of students doing an experiment in analytical chemistry, verbatim transcripts of utterances and non‐verbal cues, as well as instructional artifacts (laboratory manuals, textbooks, and reports). Key findings from the study reveal a range of epistemic emotions experienced by students, including curiosity, frustration, and joy, which are intertwined with their engagement in experimental work and exploration of scientific principles. The study also identifies affective constructs such as confidence, pride, and humility, which contribute to students’ identity development within the context of laboratory‐related epistemic practices. These affective experiences are situated in the embodied nature of laboratory work, where failures and mistakes are common, but also serve as opportunities for learning. The research underscores the importance of recognizing and addressing the affective dimensions of learning in the chemistry laboratory. It suggests that fostering positive epistemic emotions and resolving negative ones can enhance students’ learning experiences and engagement with science. The study calls for a more holistic approach to chemistry education that acknowledges the role of emotion in laboratory‐related epistemic practices.

show abstract

When listening is spoken

Cited by 14 publications

References 39 publications

Conveying and detecting listening during live conversation.

Conveying and detecting listening during live conversation.

Listen to this: Why consumer behavior researchers should care about listening

“I Feel Like a Real Chemist Right Now”: Epistemic Affect as a Fundamental Driver of Inquiry in the Chemistry Laboratory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About