What reflective listening means
Reflective listening is a conversational process in which a listener offers a provisional account of what a speaker means, feels, or considers important and leaves the speaker free to confirm, correct, or elaborate it. Its central move is an interpretive feedback loop: listen, formulate an understanding, return that formulation, and revise it in response to the speaker. Paraphrasing and clarification are the most visible parts of the process. A reflection may concern facts, an emotional experience, the significance of an event, or a tension the speaker is trying to understand.
A useful reflection sounds like a hypothesis about someone else’s meaning rather than a verdict. When a colleague says, “The meeting ended before I could explain the problem,” an accurate content reflection could be, “You had information you wanted the group to hear, and the meeting moved on before you could share it.” The listener can then ask, “Did I get that right?” That final invitation is a substantive part of the skill: the speaker retains authority over their account.
The research literature treats listening as a relational process with multiple definitions and outcome measures. Recent synthesis identifies the benefits of high-quality listening alongside disagreements about what counts as listening, whether paraphrasing demonstrates neutrality, and when questions help or interrupt understanding. The evidence therefore supports studying reflective listening as a context-sensitive conversational practice rather than presuming a universal script. Itzchakov and Bodie, 2026
How reflection differs from hearing, attention, and active listening
Listening as attention and interpretation
Hearing is a sensory process; attending is the allocation of mental resources; understanding involves constructing a representation of another person’s message. Reflective listening adds an observable conversational response that makes this representation available for correction. Someone may attend silently and understand well without paraphrasing. Someone else may produce a polished paraphrase while misunderstanding the speaker’s central concern. Accordingly, verbal technique and actual comprehension must be assessed separately.
Active listening usually names a broader constellation of attentive, responsive behaviors, including attention to the speaker, appropriate questions, acknowledgments, and responses that show understanding. Reflective listening refers more specifically to the response that returns an interpretation of content or experience to the speaker. The closely related research on active listening is informative, but most experiments evaluate bundled behaviors; they rarely isolate one paraphrase from all other conversational signals. Weger et al., 2014
Paraphrasing, mirroring, summarizing, clarification, and validation
Mirroring preserves a few of the speaker’s words: “You felt left out.” Paraphrasing restates a thought in the listener’s own words: “You expected to be included in the decision and discovered it had already been made.” Summarizing integrates several themes over a longer exchange: “Across the last three meetings, the same decision process has left you uncertain about your role.” Clarification asks for missing or ambiguous information: “When you say ‘included,’ do you mean before a decision is proposed or before it is finalized?”
Emotional validation communicates that an experience is intelligible or worthy of acknowledgment; it can accompany a reflection, but the two constructs have different functions. A reflection tests an interpretation. Validation addresses recognition of the speaker’s experience. One may accurately paraphrase a complaint and still dismiss it, or warmly validate distress while misunderstanding its cause. The article on emotional validation in communication examines that neighboring intent in its own right.
The conversational mechanism: a public, revisable understanding
From private inference to an explicit check
Ordinary conversation requires listeners to infer meaning from incomplete information. Statements carry propositions, background assumptions, emotional cues, and implications that differ across speakers. A reflective response externalizes one inference so the speaker can inspect it. If the formulation fits, the speaker can advance the account. If it misses, the speaker can replace it with a better description. Accuracy improves through correction rather than confidence alone.
Research on interpersonal mental-state inference supports asking people about their perspectives instead of relying solely on simulation. Across experimental studies, attempts to imagine another person’s point of view did not reliably improve accuracy, whereas obtaining information from the person could. Reflective listening operationalizes this practical distinction when it invites confirmation after a tentative interpretation. Eyal et al., 2018
Why a paraphrase always selects and reshapes meaning
A paraphrase is necessarily selective. It foregrounds some words, removes others, and rearranges their relationship. Selecting “you felt disrespected” from “I worked all weekend and nobody mentioned it” introduces a possible emotional interpretation that the speaker may endorse, reject, or refine. A highly fluent reflection can still redirect the conversation toward the listener’s preferred explanation. The most recent integrative review places precisely this issue among the central unresolved puzzles of listening. Itzchakov and Bodie, 2026
For that reason, accuracy is best treated as a negotiated achievement. A listener can remain accountable for what was actually said, signal uncertainty where meaning is ambiguous, and avoid supplying motives or emotions as facts. “It sounds as though the timing felt unfair; is that close?” is easier to revise than “You are angry because your manager never respects you.” The first reflects a possible interpretation; the second imports an unverified pattern and motive.
How a good check changes the next conversational turn
An effective check gives the speaker a low-friction way to say yes, no, partly, or something more precise. After hearing “Almost—actually I was worried about what would happen to the project,” the listener can update the reflection: “The deadline itself matters less than the risk it creates for the work.” This repair is often more valuable than a perfect first paraphrase, because the conversation has created a reliable mechanism for reducing misunderstanding.
The three objects of reflection
Reflecting content: events, claims, needs, and distinctions
A content reflection identifies the central factual or conceptual message without adding an assessment. Speaker: “I sent the report Thursday, but the team says they never received it.” Listener: “You completed your part on Thursday, and there is now a discrepancy about whether it reached the team.” The formulation retains the difference between sending and receiving and does not decide whose account is correct.
Content reflections are especially useful in complex instructions, decision making, and discussions involving several related problems. They help distinguish what happened, what is assumed, and what remains open. They can also expose missing referents: if someone says “they rejected it,” the listener may reflect the event and ask who ‘they’ refers to before assigning responsibility.
Reflecting feeling: offering an emotion without assigning one
A feeling reflection tentatively names the emotional quality of the account: “That sounds disappointing,” or “You seem unsettled by the uncertainty.” Feelings are not directly readable from a facial expression, voice, or phrase. Speakers can experience anger, sadness, fear, embarrassment, or multiple feelings simultaneously, and they can prefer not to discuss them. An emotion label is therefore an invitation to elaborate rather than a diagnostic inference.
An emotion reflection becomes intrusive when it insists on an inner state the speaker rejects. If the reply is “I’m not upset; I need to know who owns the next step,” a responsive listener shifts to the practical concern. Meaningful recognition depends on what the speaker is trying to accomplish, not on the listener’s commitment to emotional vocabulary. Reviews of responsiveness during conflict emphasize tailoring responses to specific needs and behavior rather than treating one supportive response as optimal for everyone. Sasaki and Overall, 2023
Reflecting meaning: values, consequences, and ambivalence
A meaning reflection integrates what an event signifies to the speaker. “You keep bringing up the schedule because having a predictable plan lets you care for your family,” moves beyond dates to a stated purpose. This deeper level requires greater interpretive restraint because it is easier to overstate someone’s values or motives. Where several interpretations are possible, asking an open question may be more accurate than choosing one.
A double-sided reflection can capture expressed ambivalence without forcing a decision: “Part of you wants to accept the opportunity, and another part worries about the time it would take from your family.” Such responses appear in motivational interviewing, a clinical communication approach that also uses open questions and affirmation. Evidence from that field suggests that therapist-consistent communication is associated with clients voicing both reasons for and against change; it does not establish that a single reflection causes durable behavior change outside treatment. Magill et al., 2018
Paraphrasing accurately: what to preserve
Preserve the speaker’s claim and its degree of certainty
A precise paraphrase retains the speaker’s level of confidence. “I think the proposal might be delayed” should not become “The proposal has been delayed.” “I sometimes feel excluded” should not become “You are always excluded.” Converting a possibility into a certainty, a limited event into a pattern, or a concern into an accusation changes the proposition. Reflective listening requires care with words such as perhaps, rarely, only, except, might, and because.
The listener should also preserve attribution. If the speaker reports that another person made a claim, reflect it as a report rather than verified reality: “Your colleague told you the deadline changed.” That formulation maintains epistemic responsibility, especially where disagreement, workplace allegations, or safety concerns are involved.
Preserve what matters, not every word
A paraphrase usually performs compression. Repeating a long account word for word can interrupt the speaker’s flow and make the listener sound mechanical. A short, selective response can instead surface the organizing concern: “The uncertainty about the decision is making planning difficult.” The listener can then ask what was missed. Compression is effective when the omitted details are available for correction and do not include qualifications central to the speaker’s meaning.
Choose tentative language in proportion to uncertainty
When meaning is clear, a plain statement can sound natural: “You want the agenda before the meeting.” When it is partly inferred, a tentative lead-in protects accuracy: “I wonder whether the lack of notice made the conversation harder.” Repeatedly saying “What I’m hearing you say is” may become distracting. Adapt the wording to the speaker’s preference, the relationship, and the situation rather than following a compulsory sentence template.
Clarification: how to ask questions that improve understanding
Clarify reference, sequence, meaning, and intended action
Clarification is most useful when it closes a specific information gap. Reference: “Who was in the room when that happened?” Sequence: “Was the decision made before you saw the draft?” Meaning: “What does ‘support’ mean in this context?” Action: “Are you asking me to listen, help think it through, or take a step?” Each question requests a piece of information needed to interpret the speaker’s account, rather than inviting them to defend themselves.
The question should be linked to what the person just said. Research on question asking found that follow-up questions, especially those showing attention to a preceding contribution, were associated with greater liking and perceived responsiveness in acquaintance conversations. Those studies concern social impressions; they should not be converted into a rule that questioning always improves accuracy or that more questions are inherently better. An official 2025 correction reported minor errors in the original study’s results without changing its conclusions. Huang et al., 2017 Correction, 2025
Open and closed questions serve different purposes
An open question makes room for description: “Which part of that conversation stayed with you?” A closed question checks a bounded point: “Was that before the deadline?” A reflective statement can be followed by either. A sequence dominated by broad questions may feel like an interview; rapid closed questions may feel like cross-examination. The speaker’s pace and willingness to elaborate help determine which form is appropriate.
When a clarification becomes a disguised challenge
The grammatical form of a question does not guarantee curiosity. “Why would you react that way?” can signal criticism, especially in a tense relationship. “What about that moment felt most important?” offers a different invitation. In disagreements, the listener should distinguish requests for clarification from requests for justification. The former can support shared understanding; the latter may be warranted for accountability but should be identified as such rather than hidden beneath a listening technique.
Examples of reflective listening in everyday settings
At work: separating an operational problem from personal blame
Speaker: “Every time the plan changes, I’m the last person to know.” A content reflection is, “The updates are reaching you after they affect your work.” A feeling hypothesis might be, “That has left you frustrated.” A meaning reflection could be, “Being included early matters because it lets you do your job well.” A clarification might ask, “Which update would be most useful to receive sooner?” The listener can use the speaker’s correction to determine whether the next step is a process change, an acknowledgment, or a decision.
With a friend: staying close to a vulnerable disclosure
Speaker: “I didn’t go to the gathering. I knew I would have to explain myself again.” Listener: “The prospect of repeating that explanation made going feel exhausting.” The friend can reply, “It’s more that I don’t want people treating me as a problem.” The next reflection becomes, “You want to spend time together without having to defend yourself.” The movement from event to meaning emerged from the speaker’s own correction, not from a confident guess about hidden psychological motives.
In a disagreement: reflecting a position while retaining your own
Speaker: “You made that choice without asking me.” Listener: “You expected to be consulted because the decision affects you.” The listener may then state, “I agree that it affects you. I saw the timing differently, and I want to explain what happened.” Reflective listening and disagreement can coexist. Understanding another person’s claim does not require relinquishing one’s own account, promising a particular outcome, or accepting an inaccurate allegation.
In a text conversation: reducing ambiguity without overinterpreting tone
A short message such as “Fine, do what you want” may be sincere, resigned, irritated, or simply hurried. Rather than assigning an emotion from punctuation, the recipient can write, “I’m unsure whether you’re comfortable with the plan or would prefer another option. Which is closer?” When timing permits, moving to a voice or face-to-face exchange may supply feedback that text omits, but any modality can support accurate clarification when both parties participate.
What experiments and reviews show
Feeling understood is a measurable outcome
In an experiment involving 115 participants who interacted with trained conversational partners, active listening responses produced a stronger sense of being understood than advice or simple acknowledgments. Active listening and advice both yielded better conversation satisfaction than acknowledgments, with relatively small differences; satisfaction did not differ significantly between active listening and advice. This experiment supports a narrower conclusion about perceived understanding in initial interactions, not a general superiority of reflections for all goals. Weger et al., 2014
High-quality listening and speakers’ psychological processes
A series of laboratory experiments linked high-quality listening to changes in speakers’ processing of attitudinal ambivalence and reduced defensive reactions. Other experimental work associated high-quality listening with greater self-insight and modest changes in speakers’ prejudiced attitudes. These manipulations include broader characteristics of the listening encounter, such as attention and nonjudgmental engagement, so the findings should not be attributed exclusively to paraphrasing. Itzchakov et al., 2017 Itzchakov et al., 2020
Large associations do not isolate the causal role of paraphrasing
A systematic review and meta-analysis of perceived listening in workplaces aggregated hundreds of effect sizes and more than 400,000 observations, finding robust associations with outcomes such as relationship quality. Those relationships matter, but most measures concern perceived listening across contexts rather than the independent causal effect of a specified reflection. Self-report ratings, common-method bias, and differences between objective behavior and interpersonal perception complicate causal inference. Kluger et al., 2024
Clinical process evidence has a more limited domain
In motivational interviewing research, a meta-analysis of 36 primary studies found associations between MI-consistent therapist behaviors and both change talk and sustain talk. The results partly supported the technical process model, while several hypothesized pathways remained uncertain. A sequential analysis further suggested that simple and paraphrasing reflections often maintained the current direction of client talk, whereas open questions and complex reflections sometimes elicited change talk after sustain talk. Clinical coding of recorded sessions captures sequences more closely than retrospective ratings, but treatment interactions involve professional roles and goals unlike casual conversation. Magill et al., 2018 Laws et al., 2018
The 2026 listening synthesis identifies genuine conflicts in the literature
An integrative review published in 2026 emphasizes several puzzles relevant to reflection: speakers and listeners can disagree about whether listening occurred, disagreement can lower perceived listening quality even when listening behaviors remain constant, and paraphrases may deepen or derail understanding. The review challenges the assumption that any visible behavior, including paraphrasing, is invariably a good indicator of listening. Its status is a scholarly synthesis of heterogeneous evidence, not a new trial establishing one universally effective technique. Itzchakov and Bodie, 2026
Why reflective listening sometimes fails
Mechanical repetition can signal performance instead of attention
When every statement is reflected in a formulaic way, the exchange can lose momentum. A speaker who needs a practical answer may experience repeated echoes as avoidance. The same behavior may feel supportive during a difficult disclosure and tedious during a routine task. A useful listener monitors the response: does the speaker elaborate, correct, relax, become impatient, or ask for action? Technique should follow the conversational purpose.
Premature emotional interpretation can overwrite the speaker
An interpretation like “You are afraid of being abandoned” exceeds the evidence in an ordinary scheduling complaint. Such labels can import clinical, relational, or biographical explanations that the speaker has never offered. Even a tentative inference should be relevant and easy to decline. The safest route to deeper meaning is frequently to ask what the event represents to the speaker and reflect the explanation they provide.
Reflection can become endorsement when accountability matters
If a speaker describes treating another person unfairly, a reflection can acknowledge the stated feeling without affirming the behavior: “You were angry and felt cornered; you also recognize that shouting frightened them.” Listening retains room for ethical judgment, facts, and repair. The recent literature notes that unqualified nonjudgment and affirmation may be unsuitable in contexts demanding accountability or protection of others. Itzchakov and Bodie, 2026
A good conversational response may be a boundary, an answer, or action
A colleague who says “I need the final approval by three” may need a decision more than a reflection. A person who reports a medical emergency needs urgent assistance more than interpretive dialogue. A friend who says “Please don’t ask me about that” has expressed a boundary. Reflective listening is one available move within a larger exchange; selecting the correct move requires attention to consent, stakes, goals, and urgency.
Culture, neurodiversity, language, and accessibility
The expected form of listening differs across contexts
Some conversations prize explicit acknowledgment and emotional naming; others prioritize quiet attention, indirect signaling, deference, or task-focused responses. Language proficiency, norms about authority, social distance, and conversational timing also shape whether a reflection is welcome. A paraphrase that sounds natural in an American counseling exercise may feel conspicuous in another setting. Researchers increasingly call for measures that do not equate Western or neurotypical display conventions with listening quality. Itzchakov and Bodie, 2026
Communication differences should not be pathologized
Eye contact, facial expression, speech timing, literalness, and the use of silence vary among people and situations. A person may use explicit clarifying questions, written summaries, processing pauses, or assistive communication because these increase accuracy. Reflective listening can be adapted by asking what form of feedback the speaker prefers. Difficulty using a particular script is neither evidence of a psychiatric disorder nor a reliable measure of empathy or moral concern.
Second-language and accessibility considerations
When speakers have different first languages or use interpreters, reflections should be short, semantically faithful, and free of idioms where possible. Listeners can check the meaning of an unfamiliar phrase without equating language differences with deficits. In accessible communication, written reformulations, extra response time, captions, and explicit confirmation can support the same process. The target remains a shared, revisable understanding rather than conformity to one speaking style.
Safety, power, and the limits of mutual clarification
Ordinary disagreement and coercive dynamics require different responses
Reflective listening may reduce ordinary misunderstanding when parties have room to disagree and correct one another. In situations involving intimidation, threats, stalking, violence, retaliation, or coercive control, the weaker party may be unable to reject a paraphrase or speak freely. A demand to listen empathetically to threatening behavior can shift attention away from safety and accountability. Protection, documentation, support, and enforceable boundaries take precedence when interpersonal danger is present.
A supervisor, interviewer, clinician, or institution also holds informational and structural power. Speakers may agree with a paraphrase to end the encounter or avoid consequences. Apparent confirmation does not by itself prove genuine consent, understanding, or absence of pressure. A responsive listener should make correction safe, avoid requiring emotional disclosure, and acknowledge when practical power differences constrain the exchange.
How to practice reflective listening
Step one: identify the speaker’s primary claim
Listen through a complete idea before choosing the most important element. Separate observable events from the speaker’s judgments and possible emotions. Ask internally whether you can restate what happened, what the person thinks it means, and what they want from the conversation. When a key fact is missing, prioritize a clarification rather than a speculative reflection.
Step two: offer one short, faithful formulation
Use ordinary language suited to the relationship: “So the uncertainty is making it hard to plan,” or “You were expecting feedback before the decision.” Preserve scope, uncertainty, and causal claims. Do not layer several guesses into one sentence. Deeper meaning reflections should arise from details the speaker provided, not from the listener’s favorite explanation.
Step three: invite correction and revise
Ask “Is that close?” when the interpretation is consequential or uncertain. Leave room after the reflection rather than immediately delivering advice. If corrected, update the formulation openly: “Thanks, I had that wrong. The main problem is the timing, not the decision itself.” Successful practice includes the capacity to change one’s understanding, not simply the ability to produce an elegant first response.
Step four: determine the appropriate next move
Once the speaker feels understood—or explicitly indicates another need—move appropriately to information sharing, problem solving, joint planning, disagreement, or a boundary. An exchange that remains indefinitely in reflective mode can feel stalled. A useful transition is, “Would you like to keep talking through it, or would it help to think about options?” That question should be genuine; the speaker may prefer either.
Practice with feedback rather than self-rating alone
In paired exercises, one person describes a low-stakes event for two minutes while the other reflects one central point and asks for correction. Afterward, the speaker rates whether the response preserved the intended meaning, whether any interpretation felt imposed, and what the listener missed. Roles then switch. Practicing with multiple partners and contexts can help reveal habits that are invisible to the listener. Observable accuracy and the partner’s account deserve more weight than the listener’s self-assessed empathy.
Measuring listening quality and evidence of improvement
Self-report, partner report, behavioral coding, and outcome are different measures
Listening can be measured as a listener’s self-perceived skill, a speaker’s felt experience, an observer’s rating of behavior, or a downstream outcome such as understanding or decision quality. These operationalizations need not agree. The Active-Empathic Listening Scale was developed to assess interconnected dimensions of interpersonal listening, but a scale score does not reveal whether a particular paraphrase was accurate in a specific conversation. Bodie, 2011
Recorded dialogues allow coders to distinguish simple reflections, complex interpretations, questions, and response sequences; partner feedback reveals whether the speaker accepted or corrected the formulation. Experimental manipulations can test short-term perceptions under defined conditions. Longitudinal follow-up is needed to assess whether training changes everyday behavior outside the classroom or laboratory. These different forms of evidence answer different scientific questions.
Why transfer to real relationships remains uncertain
A person may produce accurate reflections during a guided exercise yet return to interruption, guessing, or defensiveness under time pressure. The social consequences also depend on relationship history, willingness to engage, and power. Evidence that listeners can learn a behavior should be distinguished from evidence that their conversation partners reliably feel understood, that disagreements become safer, or that relationship outcomes improve over months. The work-outcomes meta-analysis and the 2026 synthesis both underline the need for measurement and context specificity. Kluger et al., 2024 Itzchakov and Bodie, 2026
Scientific confidence: what can reasonably be concluded
Established
People frequently construct meaning through responsive conversation, and misunderstanding can be repaired when inferences become explicit and revisable. Research supports distinguishing attentive behavior, perceived responsiveness, and actual understanding. Experimental and correlational studies indicate benefits of high-quality listening for perceived understanding and interpersonal outcomes, though these constructs do not isolate paraphrasing as an independent causal ingredient. Weger et al., 2014 Itzchakov and Reis, 2023
Preliminary
The claim that particular forms of reflective responding reliably promote cognitive flexibility, self-exploration, or reduced defensiveness is supported by some controlled listening studies and psychotherapy process research. A number of designs manipulate broad listening quality or clinical communication packages, making the unique role of paraphrase, timing, or clarification uncertain. Mechanisms may differ between strangers, established relationships, work teams, and clinical encounters.
Limited
Evidence is comparatively limited for universal training recipes, long-term generalization of paraphrasing exercises, and claims that one preferred reflection depth works across cultures, disabilities, relationship roles, or threat conditions. Some popular advice is grounded more in teaching convention than in component-specific trials. These limitations warrant careful design and feedback, not abandonment of the practice.
Contested
Researchers dispute how to define good listening, when a paraphrase conveys neutrality, how disagreement changes perceptions of listening, whether silence can outperform verbal response, and how much listener intention matters when the speaker feels misunderstood. The scientific priority is to compare mechanisms and outcomes under specified conditions. The 2026 review makes these tensions explicit rather than resolving them into a single formula. Itzchakov and Bodie, 2026
Frequently asked questions
Is reflective listening the same as repeating someone’s words?
No. Repetition can be a brief way of highlighting a phrase, but reflective listening generally constructs a concise understanding and offers it for confirmation. A mechanically accurate echo can still miss the speaker’s meaning. The ability to adjust after correction is central.
How do I paraphrase without putting words in someone’s mouth?
Restate the central claim and preserve qualifiers. Use tentative phrasing for inferred feelings or motives. Invite correction and accept it. The more a reflection moves from observable content toward personal meaning, the more carefully it should be grounded in the speaker’s own account.
Should every reflection end with a question?
No. A pause or a responsive acknowledgment can allow the person to continue naturally. Explicit confirmation is especially useful when the interpretation is uncertain, emotionally consequential, or needed for a decision. Too many confirmations can fragment a coherent story.
Can reflective listening work when I disagree?
Yes. You can faithfully express another person’s view and then present your own. Reflecting does not establish agreement or surrender an important boundary. A productive pattern is to show what you understand, clarify unresolved points, and name the substantive disagreement without attributing malicious intent.
Can reflective listening make someone feel worse?
It can when the reflection misattributes emotion, trivializes a concern, repeats traumatic details without permission, postpones needed action, or occurs under coercion. The appropriate response may be to ask what kind of support is wanted, change the approach, establish safety, or stop the conversation. There is no universal requirement to disclose feelings.
How can I tell whether I am improving?
Look for fewer uncorrected misunderstandings, more accurate paraphrases, willingness to revise an interpretation, and feedback from the people you talk with. Track whether those gains persist in real conversations and difficult conditions. A stronger self-image as a listener is not the same as demonstrated skill.
Related Articles
For the broader listening process, see Active Listening: Skills, Examples and Psychological Evidence. For the broader skill-development context, see How to Improve Communication Skills: Practice and Research. For identifying a separate emotional response, see Emotional Validation in Communication: Meaning and Examples. For message construction and interpersonal meaning, see How to Express Feelings and Needs Clearly in a Conversation. The full research territory is examined in Cluster Communication, Conflict and Social Skills.
Asking Open-Ended Questions: How Questions Shape Conversations — Compares question formats, elicitation and listening effects.
References
Bodie, G. D. (2011). The Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS): Conceptualization and evidence of validity within the interpersonal domain. Communication Quarterly, 59(3), 277–295. Source
Correction to “It doesn’t hurt to ask: Question-asking increases liking” by Huang et al. (2017). (2025). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 128(3), 669. Source
Eyal, T., Steffel, M., and Epley, N. (2018). Perspective mistaking: Accurately understanding the mind of another requires getting perspective, not taking perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 547–571. Source
Huang, K., Yeomans, M., Brooks, A. W., Minson, J., and Gino, F. (2017). It doesn’t hurt to ask: Question-asking increases liking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 430–452. See 2025 correction. Source
Itzchakov, G., and Bodie, G. D. (2026). Puzzles of interpersonal listening: Conflicting findings, theories, and future research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 20(5), e70145. Source
Itzchakov, G., and Reis, H. T. (2023). Listening and perceived responsiveness: Unveiling the significance and exploring crucial research endeavors. Current Opinion in Psychology. Source
Itzchakov, G., Kluger, A. N., and Castro, D. R. (2017). I am aware of my inconsistencies but can tolerate them: The effect of high quality listening on speakers’ attitude ambivalence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 105–120. Source
Itzchakov, G., Weinstein, N., Legate, N., and Amar, M. (2020). Can high quality listening predict lower speakers’ prejudiced attitudes? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 91, 104022. Source
Kluger, A. N., Lehmann, M., Aguinis, H., et al. (2024). A meta-analytic systematic review and theory of the effects of perceived listening on work outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 39, 295–344. Source
Laws, M. B., Magill, M., Mastroleo, N. R., et al. (2018). A sequential analysis of motivational interviewing technical skills and client responses. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 92, 27–34. Source
Magill, M., Apodaca, T. R., Borsari, B., et al. (2018). A meta-analysis of motivational interviewing process: Technical, relational, and conditional process models of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86(2), 140–157. Source
Sasaki, E., and Overall, N. C. (2023). Constructive conflict resolution requires tailored responsiveness to specific needs. Current Opinion in Psychology, 52, 101638. Source
Weger, H., Jr., Bell, G. C., Minei, E. M., and Robinson, M. C. (2014). The relative effectiveness of active listening in initial interactions. International Journal of Listening, 28(1), 13–31. Source