UC Berkeley

Scholars and practitioners widely posit that listening to other people enhances efforts to persuade them. Listening may enhance persuasion by promoting cognitive processing, reducing defensiveness, and improving perceptions of the persuader. However, empirical tests of this widely theorized hypothesis are surprisingly scarce. We review the case for and against this hypothesis, arguing previous research has not sufficiently attended to reasons why listening may not enhance persuasion. We test this hypothesis using a preregistered, well-powered field experiment in which trained professional canvassers, acting as confederates, had ∼10 min video conversations with U.S. participants (N = 1,485) about unauthorized immigration, a salient topic of disagreement. We independently randomized whether confederates shared a persuasive narrative about an undocumented immigrant and whether they practiced high-quality nonjudgmental listening to participants' opinions. We measured outcomes immediately after the conversation and again five weeks later. Sharing a persuasive narrative meaningfully and durably reduced prejudice and changed policy attitudes. The listening manipulation also successfully improved perceptions of the persuader and increased processing. Surprisingly, however, the listening manipulation did not enhance persuasion: Sharing a persuasive narrative was just as effective in the absence of high-quality listening. We discuss theoretical and practical implications.