Does listening really change minds? New study challenges common assumptions

A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) challenges long-held beliefs about the power of listening to facilitate persuasion.

For decades, scholars and practitioners have promoted the idea that high-quality, nonjudgmental listening can reduce defensiveness and increase openness during difficult conversations, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of persuasion. But does listening actually change minds?

To rigorously test this assumption, the research team conducted a large-scale experiment involving nearly 1,500 U.S. participants. Participants engaged in ten-minute video conversations with trained canvassers acting as confederates. The topic: unauthorized immigration—a highly contentious and socially relevant issue.

In a randomized design, some conversations included a persuasive personal narrative about an undocumented immigrant, while others did not. Independently, some canvassers practiced high-quality nonjudgmental listening, while others did not. Researchers measured participants' attitudes both immediately after the conversation and five weeks later.

The results were striking:

• Persuasive narratives alone led to meaningful, lasting changes in attitudes toward undocumented immigrants and related policy positions.

• High-quality listening, while it improved perceptions of the persuader and reduced emotional defensiveness, did not enhance the persuasive effect of the narrative.

These findings suggest that while listening can foster better interpersonal connection, it may not directly amplify persuasion as commonly assumed.

What the researchers say: “This challenges a foundational assumption in how we approach dialogue across divides,” the lead author told us. “While listening has clear interpersonal value, its role in changing minds may be more limited than previously thought.”

The study has important implications for political organizers, conflict mediators, and anyone working to bridge social and ideological divides. It suggests that the content of what is said, particularly personal narratives, may matter more for persuasion than how it is said, at least when it comes to deeply held political attitudes.

My take: I am not sure that anyone seriously suggests that mere listening by itself, no matter how well performed, changes minds except in the sense that it helps to deepen the relationship between the persuader and their target. Attentive listening, together with asking questions and using praise, as well as offering food, opens up the mind to reception of the message.

The researchers are correct when they note that a well-crafted story which is relevant to the listener is a forceful persuader. Especially when combined with other dialogue tools and body language that evoke trust in the listener. These stories appeal not to our rationality but to our curiosity and our emotions, and in this the researchers are right.