SUAVIQNight one
← The evidence registry
Research

Conversational Receptiveness: Improving Engagement with Opposing Views

Yeomans, Minson, Collins, Chen & Gino (2020) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160

Relied on in 3 places across the academy · 1 stated limit

Read the paper ↗

What it found

Executives who came across as more open to the person they were arguing with were seen as better teammates and advisers, and were more persuasive. How open they thought they were did not predict any of that.

Wikipedia editors who wrote in a more open way got fewer personal attacks from editors who disagreed with them.

Naming the other person's view, saying out loud what you agree with, and softening your own claims were among the things that made people sound open. And sounding open went with being liked, being trusted, and changing minds.

What it does not show

Measured on written disagreement rather than on a live argument between two people who know each other, and it tracks perceived receptiveness rather than anybody changing their mind.

And where we carry it further

The researchers watched what happened on Wikipedia. They did not run an experiment. So we cannot be sure the open writing caused the calmer replies, rather than the other way round.

Where we rely on it

3 places in the academy. If this paper turned out to be wrong, this is the list that would have to change.

Cited alongside it

Papers that sit under the same topics and films. Not a claim that they agree with each other — only that the same exercises lean on both.

Research

A real study. We tell you what it found, how many people were in it, and what it can't prove.

Free to read, link to and quote. If we have carried this paper further than it goes, say so at contact@suaviq.com — corrections to this registry are the most useful mail we get.