From Conversation to Connection: The Pragmatics of Conversational Listening

Abstract

Clicking, vibing, sharing a wavelength, feeling in sync. People have extensive lay beliefs (and phrases) capturing the importance of social connection. For decades, academics and practitioners have advanced the idea that listening is a powerful process for building these connections. But what defines high-quality listening? Using a multi-disciplinary and multi-method approach, my dissertation research identifies several gaps in our understanding of this ubiquitous social process and seeks to develop a deeper understanding of the pragmatics of conversational listening. First, I develop a novel model of conversational listening, which I conceptualize as a dynamic process enacted by two or more people through behavior in conversation (verbal, non-verbal, and paralinguistic cues). Critically, this model involves a three-stage process of (1) attention—directing one’s attention to conversational content, (2) processing—interpreting and evaluating conversation content cognitively, (3) expression—enacting observable behaviors that convey one’s successful execution of the first two stages. In this way, high-quality conversational listening requires that people are both being and feeling heard by their conversation partners. Next, I empirically tested the extent to which being heard and feeling heard align during live conversation. Using a combination of correlational and experimental methods, results revealed that people struggle to decipher attentive from inattentive listening. In fact, people tended to overestimate the extent to which their conversation partners were listening to them—often believing their partners were listening when they were not. Results revealed that this was due (at least in part) to a lack of diagnostic behavioral cues of attentive listening—people can (and do) successfully feign attentiveness through various non-verbal (e.g., nodding, eye-contact) and paralinguistic (e.g., back-channels, laughter) behaviors in conversation. Finally, I explore these processes amid interpersonal conflict—a context riddled with poor listening. Results show that people consistently underestimate the extent to which their disagreeing counterparts are willing to listen to and learn about their views. These beliefs predict derogation of counterparts and negative experiences of conflictual conversations. Overall, this work begins to shed light on the uniquely complex and important social process of conversational listening and reveals that the best listening may be spoken.