Active listening is more than ‘hearing’ someone’s words. It means fully attuning to the feelings and views of the speaker, demonstrating unbiased acceptance and validation of their experience (Nelson-Jones, 2014).
When we practice active listening, we pay attention to what is being communicated both verbally and nonverbally. We focus on the content of the message, but also on the interpretation of the emotions conveyed through it and the speaker’s body language.
We also show our understanding of the message. We acknowledge the speaker’s internal frame and reflect their emotions back to them (Miller and Rollnick, 2013).
What Is Active Listening? Definition and Origins
Active listening is a deliberate, learnable skill, not a personality trait or a by-product of caring about someone. It grew out of Carl Rogers’s person-centred approach to therapy. It now applies to any relationship in which one person wants to understand another accurately.
Rogers’s Person-Centred Roots
Active listening did not begin as a communication tip.
It grew from Rogers’s claim that a small set of relational conditions, rather than technique alone, makes psychological change possible.
In a theoretical paper, Rogers (1957) argued that six conditions are necessary for constructive personality change in therapy, and sufficient if maintained over time. Three of them became the bedrock of later listening skills: congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathic understanding.
In Rogers’s terms, the three conditions mean the following:
- Congruence: genuineness, with no professional facade.
- Unconditional positive regard: accepting the client as they are, without judgment.
- Empathic understanding: accurately sensing the client’s internal frame of reference and communicating that sensing back.
Rogers was not describing a technique for a passive client.
He described an attitude that, if genuinely held, shows itself through behaviors such as paraphrasing and reflecting feeling. Rogers and Farson (1957) then translated that clinical stance into a short pamphlet for supervisors and colleagues in industry.
Evidence for the Core Idea
Rogers’s 1957 claim was a theoretical position, not an experiment, so later research has tested it piece by piece.
Two large meta-analyses give a good indication of how well it has held up.
Elliott, Bohart, Watson, and Murphy (2018) synthesised 82 studies. They found that therapist empathy, the process active listening is designed to communicate, is reliably linked to better therapy outcomes. It explains a small-to-moderate share of outcome variance.
Flückiger, Del Re, Wampold, and Horvath (2018) reviewed a much larger literature on the working alliance, the collaborative bond between client and therapist. They found a comparable positive link between alliance quality and outcome.
Neither meta-analysis measured active listening behaviors directly.
Both point to Rogers’s underlying idea. Being genuinely heard and understood is a reliable lever on relationship quality. That holds whether the outcome is symptom change in therapy or trust and cooperation in everyday life.
Gordon’s Model and Motivational Interviewing
A parallel strand entered popular use through Thomas Gordon’s (1970) parent-education programme, Parent Effectiveness Training. It taught parents to reflect a child’s message back accurately, largely as a stand-alone technique for defusing conflict.
Gordon leaned on the mechanics of paraphrasing. He leaned less on Rogers’s insistence that the skills only work when grounded in a genuinely accepting attitude.
Motivational interviewing (MI) is a counselling style for behavior change. It was developed originally around substance use. It uses a close cousin of active listening called reflective listening. Reflective listening is one of four core “OARS” skills: open questions, affirmations, reflections, and summaries (Miller and Rollnick, 2013).
The difference is purpose, not mechanics. Rogerian active listening is deliberately non-directive and follows wherever the speaker’s meaning leads. MI uses reflection strategically, to reinforce a client’s own statements in favor of change over statements defending the status quo.
Components of Active Listening
The concept has its roots in the work of psychologists Rogers and Farson (1957). They described active listening as an important tool for fostering positive change in dyadic, client-helper, and group interactions alike.
On their account, active listening rests on three main components.
- Listen for total meaning: a message carries two layers, its content and the feeling underneath it, and attuning to both helps a listener grasp its meaning accurately.
- Respond to feelings: once we have listened, responding to the feeling in the message at the right moment lets the speaker feel believed and supported.
- Note all cues: nonverbal signals, like facial expression, eye contact, posture, and tone of voice, reveal the speaker’s emotional state and level of comfort.
Put into practice, these three components create a climate of respect and acceptance that gives the speaker a sense of psychological security.
That security matters. It makes people more aware of what they have shared, and more open to considering alternative perspectives that can prompt personal change.
Ultimately, active listening, applied consistently, helps build deeper and stronger relationships between the listener and the speaker (Rogers & Farson, 1957).
How to Improve Active Listening Skills
Active listening calls on a set of skills that goes beyond the social skills we use in everyday interactions.
Building awareness of these behaviors improves the quality of our listening and serves the underlying values of empathy, genuineness, and unconditional positive regard (Westland, 2015).
Paraphrasing
Restating what a person has said in our own words gives us the opportunity to understand whether we captured their point of view accurately. It also conveys interest in the content of the conversation and prevents potential miscommunications (Garland, 1981).
For example, we might say, “I understand that this X situation has caused Y,” followed by, “Is that correct?”
This encourages the speaker to elaborate on their thoughts. They keep talking.
This paraphrasing builds closeness with the listener. It can also raise perceptions of social attractiveness. The listener becomes more likely to be seen as a pleasant member of the speaker’s social circle (Weger, Castle, & Emmett, 2010).
Open-ended questions
Closed, “yes or no” questions can block access to the speaker’s internal frame of reference. They reduce the amount of information shared and stop the conversation from flowing.
Open-ended questions carry no predetermined answer. They are a more powerful tool for drawing out expansive responses.
In practice, we can replace “Do you think this was the wrong decision?” with an open version: “What do you think about this decision?”
“How could you have responded differently?” works too.
In general, questions starting with “What?”, “How?” and “Why” are less biased and more likely to generate a full answer.
Verbalizing emotions
Verbalizing emotions is similar to paraphrasing. It focuses less on content and more on perceiving the feelings the speaker expresses, then reflecting them back (Miller and Rollnick, 2013).
It involves listening for words and phrases manifesting emotional states ranging from fear, lack of self-confidence, and boredom to cheerfulness and excitement.
For example, if a person says, sighing, “Tomorrow I have got an early shift at work,” we can verbalize their emotions by saying, “You don’t seem to be looking forward to it.” In this way, we encourage the other person to open up and evaluate their own feelings.
Verbal affirmations
Showing short, positive expressions of interest demonstrates our engagement in the conversation, motivating the person to keep talking without interruptions (Nelson-Jones, 2014).
Small affirmations act as incentives to keep talking: “I understand,” “I see,” and “That makes sense.” Smiling and nodding often accompany them.
Verbal affirmations work best when we offer them in response to content the speaker especially wants us to notice. They also increase the other person’s sense of being believed and supported.
Clarifying
Asking for clarification helps to gain a better understanding of concepts that are too vague or unclear. It delivers the positive intent of wanting to learn more rather than making assumptions that are based on our own interpretative structures.
Clarifying questions can also prompt further reflection and redefinition of ideas that have been shared, helping people to see things from an alternative angle. Some examples of clarifying questions are “What do you mean by this?”, “Can you give me an example?”.
Encouraging
Encouraging the speaker to add further detail shows our willingness to listen and dig deeper (Weger, Castle, and Emmett, 2010).
It facilitates greater openness from the speaker, fostering feelings of safety and acceptance.
During a story, we can ask, “What happened next?” or “How did this make you feel?” We may also vary our intonation to express interest. Verbal prompts can elicit further reflection.
Non-verbal affirmations
Using positive body language also shows that we are present and willing to follow the conversation (McNaughton et al., 2008). Gently nodding our head, making eye contact, and smiling are simple, supportive cues that help the speaker feel listened to and comfortable.
Maintaining a still position also communicates concentration and focus. So it helps to avoid behaviors that broadcast distraction, such as glancing at our watch, multitasking, or daydreaming.
Awareness of our facial expressions also ensures that we are not conveying any negative or judgemental response.
Trainers often teach these behaviors through one mnemonic. Egan’s (1990) SOLER model lists five cues:
- Squarely: sit squarely facing the speaker.
- Open: keep an open posture.
- Lean: lean slightly toward the speaker.
- Eye contact: sustain eye contact.
- Relaxed: stay relaxed.
SOLER is one of the most widely used starting points for training novice listeners, such as counselling students, nursing students, and new managers. “Listen attentively” is hard to act on without a checklist of observable behaviors.
Waiting to disclose opinions
Patiently waiting to disclose our opinion allows the other person’s train of thought to continue without interruptions.
It also limits the risk of “myside bias”: the tendency to interpret information in ways that confirm our own opinions (Stanovich, West, & Toplak, 2013).
Rushing to share our thoughts signals that the speaker’s ideas matter less than ours. It can read as boredom or impatience.
Suspending our responses gives the speaker space to reflect. We gain a complete picture of their point of view.
As licensed marriage and family therapist Esther Perel explains, real listening is an act of curiosity, not confirmation. Listening only to gather evidence for a conclusion we have already reached, she argues, is not really listening at all (Perel, 2024).
In a live conversation with Trevor Noah at SXSW 2024, Perel described listening as something done with the whole body, not only the ears. She named voice, eyes, expression, and physical presence.
She says a skilled couples therapist must track what each partner says. The therapist must also track what they express without saying it, including through gesture and body language.
On her account, the quality of a listener’s attention shapes what the speaker is willing to reveal, and how openly. Listening is not passive reception. It changes the speaker.
Barriers to Active Listening
Four habits most often block good listening:
- Holding judgments: labeling or criticism raises defensiveness and makes free expression harder.
- Suggesting solutions: unrequested advice can discourage speakers from working out their own answer.
- Interrupting: it signals disinterest and can dominate the conversation.
- Diverting the conversation: changing the subject, or steering it to ourselves, tells the speaker their experience matters less.
Holding judgments
When practicing active listening, self-monitoring our thoughts can help us refrain from making judgments. Responses containing labeling or criticism can increase the other person’s defensiveness, making the free expression of thoughts more difficult (Robertson, 2005).
Other people’s ideas are shaped by many factors. Remembering this makes it easier to stay open and non-judgemental.
These factors include culture, educational background, religious belief, and the support system around a person (Nelson-Jones, 2014).
With this in mind, it is easier to create a climate of acceptance and use other people’s perspectives as opportunities to enrich our own.
Suggesting solutions
It can be tempting to suggest solutions. It might feel supportive. Still, it is worth asking first whether the person airing a problem actually wants advice or simply needs a space to be heard.
The distinction matters. Jumping to solutions can betray our own discomfort with what is being said. It can also tip the conversation’s power balance, discouraging the speaker from working out their own solution (Weiste & Peräkylä, 2014).
Alternatively, we can offer empathetic responses, such as “I understand this is causing frustration,” or reflect the speaker’s emotions.
Interrupting
Interrupting signals that we are not interested in what the other person has to say, or that we do not have time to listen.
It can also be an attempt to dominate the conversation by imposing our own opinion. Depth suffers. The speaker feels less motivated to disclose anything deeper or more meaningful.
Two strategies help maintain positive interactions: waiting for natural breaks in the conversation, and pausing for a few seconds before speaking (Lunenburg, 2010).
If we find ourselves interrupting, we might also allow the other person to continue speaking by saying, “Sorry for interrupting. Please go on.”
Diverting the conversation
Changing the subject shows that we are rejecting what the speaker is saying. It is a recognisable marker of unassertive communication (Weiste & Peräkylä, 2014). The message still lands.
If we feel uncomfortable talking about a specific topic, it is more respectful to say so directly and offer an alternative time to discuss it.
Diverting the conversation towards ourselves is also a major listening barrier.
Statements like “I had a similar situation when…” or “This is nothing compared to when I…” say that our own experience matters more. They also introduce unhelpful comparisons with the speaker.
Benefits of Active Listening
Practicing active listening can have a positive impact in many areas of life, including personal relationships, social interactions, and work collaborations.
Five benefits stand out, each explained below:
- Building Trust: feeling listened to makes it easier to build relationships grounded in trust and loyalty.
- Resolving Conflicts: understanding alternative viewpoints reveals possible areas of agreement.
- Broadening Knowledge: sustained interest in a conversation promotes understanding and learning.
- Anticipating Problems: accurate understanding helps us spot problems that are not obvious.
- Collaboration and Empathy: validating feedback builds empathy and stronger teamwork.
Building trust
When a person feels listened to, it is easier to build a relationship grounded in trust and loyalty. Trust matters most under strain. Especially when someone is dealing with hardship, active listening lets us show compassion, making the other person more comfortable sharing their vulnerabilities (Doell, 2003).
In the workplace, active listening between team members strengthens working relationships. It also lifts engagement and information-sharing, both of which matter for group development (Rogers & Farson, 1957).
The same pattern appears outside work. Participants in an experimental test of first encounters felt significantly more understood after receiving active-listening responses. The comparison conditions were advice and a simple acknowledgement (Weger et al., 2014).
Resolving conflicts
Sometimes, we become so entrenched in our own beliefs that it is difficult to see other people’s perspectives. Active listening gives the opportunity to understand alternative viewpoints and identify possible areas of agreement to move forward toward a resolution (Phillips, 1999).
When neither party is listening, the conversation becomes formulaic, and there is a greater risk of misunderstanding.
As counselor educator Jude T. Austin II recounts, a client’s mother once stood up mid-session, shouting about her family’s situation, and walked out of the room.
He said nothing at first.
Rather than escalating, Austin waited, then applied active-listening skills: reflecting back what she had said and asking what he could do to support her.
By his account, this de-escalated the confrontation. The mother explained that her outburst came from feeling misunderstood by the school system and unsupported by her family. She chose to continue therapy (Austin & Austin, 2023).
Austin presents the episode as a formative lesson. He says he became reliably able to use these skills only “after years of training and practice.”
Broadening knowledge
Maintaining a good level of interest in the topic of the conversation can promote understanding and learning of a variety of subjects. In personal interactions, this approach helps incorporate new knowledge and opinions into our perspective, empowering our ability to see things with greater awareness.
In the workplace, it supports a more in-depth grasp of a topic. It also helps with strategy planning for organizational improvement.
Anticipating problems
Making an effort to understand a speaker’s message correctly puts us in a better position to spot problems that are not immediately obvious. We can then devise a strategy to address them promptly (Phillips, 1999).
This can also limit the chance of errors occurring in the workplace, as we make sure we are not missing important information.
Teams that listen miss fewer warning signs. They catch problems before they become costly.
Promoting collaboration and empathy
Validating words and feedback help us adopt a more empathetic attitude when listening to others’ experiences. The result is greater emotional support and stronger relationships.
It also helps create a positive environment at work by encouraging open communication between colleagues and improving teams’ collaboration skills.
One study of Icelandic hospitality-sector employees found that supervisors’ active-empathetic listening predicted staff work engagement (Jonsdottir and Kristinsson, 2020).
Active Listening in Practice
Active listening was formulated for the counselling room, but its skills travel. Four settings beyond the workplace show how.
| Setting | How it is used | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Education | Early-childhood and special-education professionals use verbal and non-verbal affirmations to help children with communication difficulties feel understood and disclose more. | McNaughton et al. (2008) |
| Healthcare | General practitioners move beyond collecting symptoms to acknowledging concerns and validating experience, linked to better rapport and more accurate history-taking. | Robertson (2005) |
| Mediation | Mediators use it so each party feels their account has registered, often a precondition for considering the other side. | Phillips (1999) |
| Couples and families | Trained partners paraphrase and check meaning, improving behavior in later disagreements and self-reported marital adjustment. | Garland (1981) |
Critical Evaluation
Active listening’s core claims hold up well under scrutiny. But recent research also reveals real limits to the evidence, worth understanding alongside the skill itself.
Contemporary Research
Four studies test active listening from different angles:
| Study | Design | Main finding |
|---|---|---|
| Bodie et al. (2015) | Randomized experiment, 171 undergraduates | Active listening improved emotions, through emotional processing |
| Lee et al. (2024) | Laboratory experiment, 163 students | Listening built a stronger working alliance than talking alone |
| Kluger et al. (2024) | Meta-analysis, 664 effect sizes | Perceived listening predicted work outcomes, mainly via relationship quality |
| Larsson et al. (2025) | Interviews, 12 telenurses | Listening created confirmation and security over the phone |
Does Listening Change How People Feel?
An experimental study offers the clearest test of what active listening actually does in a single conversation. Researchers randomly assigned 171 undergraduates to disclose a genuine problem to a partner trained in active-listening skills, or to an untrained partner.
Both verbal and nonverbal active-listening behaviors led to greater emotional improvement for the person disclosing. Verbal behaviors, like paraphrasing, mattered most.
The benefit ran specifically through emotional processing, not through solving the discloser’s problem or deepening the relationship in the moment (Bodie, Vickery, Cannava, & Jones, 2015).
Why Listening Builds the Working Alliance
Does talking alone build a bond, or must someone listen? Lee, Platow, and Cruwys (2024) tested whether active listening builds a working alliance, the collaborative bond between two people working something through.
In a laboratory experiment, 163 university students each spent five minutes describing how they manage exam stress to a partner.
Unknown to them, the partner was a confederate. That is a researcher posing as an ordinary participant.
Each confederate was randomly assigned to listen actively, with an open posture, sustained eye contact, and paraphrasing. Others withheld it, with a closed posture, averted eyes, and a glance at the time. Students could talk in both conditions.
Students who were actively listened to rated their partner significantly higher on working alliance, procedural justice, social identification, and identity leadership. They also reported more positive affect and greater satisfaction.
Procedural justice is the sense of being treated fairly. Identity leadership is the sense that a partner is building a shared “us.”
Talking alone did not build the alliance. Active listening did, because it signalled fair treatment and a shared bond. The experiment offers a causal account of why listening and alliance go together (Lee, Platow, & Cruwys, 2024).
Does Listening Pay Off at Work?
The strongest evidence on payoff at work comes from a large meta-analysis, a statistical pooling of 664 effect sizes from over 400,000 observations. The studies span the organizational-listening literature. The scale is unusual.
Being perceived as a good listener showed a robust positive link with work outcomes, notably stronger for relationship quality than for job performance directly. The link held even after isolating studies that avoided pure self-report, though it shrank once they were.
The pattern replicated. Listening appears to improve outcomes chiefly by improving the relationship between listener and speaker, which then benefits performance (Kluger et al., 2024).
How Does Listening Feel From the Inside?
A 2025 qualitative interview study asked what attentive listening feels like from the listener’s side. Twelve telephone-based nurses in Sweden described creating a sense of security for patients they could not see face to face.
Confirmation mattered most. They built that security through mutual understanding, staying attentive to the patient’s context, and keeping the conversation calm and unhurried.
Voice had to do the work. Eye contact and body language were unavailable over the phone. The verbal components of active listening had to carry that work alone instead (Larsson, Gillsjö, Sundberg, Zakrisson, & Eriksson, 2025).
Self-Report Limits
Much of this evidence still leans on self-report, with participants rating both how well they were listened to and the outcome it produced.
The concern is real. That correlation shrank by roughly half once self-report-only studies were excluded, though it did not disappear (Kluger et al., 2024).
An experimentally controlled study found comparable benefits without relying on self-report at all. It used trained confederates, research assistants posing as ordinary participants, and independent behavioral coding (Bodie et al., 2015). The result still held.
This suggests the effect is real, even if its true size is smaller than headline correlations imply.
A direct comparison of behaviourally coded listening against matched self-report measures of the same conversations would help show how much of the correlation reflects listening itself. That comparison has not yet been done.
Technique Versus Attitude
Rogers (1957) was explicit that listening behaviors produce change only when they express real congruence, acceptance, and empathic understanding.
Used as a scripted technique, they do not work. That clashes with how active listening is often taught. Workplace and negotiation training frequently presents it as a checklist: nod, paraphrase, ask an open question.
Later meta-analyses broadly support Rogers’s emphasis on relational quality. Therapist empathy and alliance quality both predict outcome (Elliott et al., 2018; Flückiger et al., 2018). Neither shows that surface behaviors alone, stripped of genuine regard for the speaker, bring the same benefit.
No one has tested that directly. Trained-confederate studies such as Bodie et al. (2015) necessarily use listeners performing a script, not genuinely invested ones.
Cultural Bias
The active-listening literature is also disproportionately built on Western, English-speaking, university samples. Context matters.
Its most visible behaviors, like paraphrasing aloud and explicit verbal affirmation, reflect communication norms typical of low-context cultures: cultures where meaning is spelled out in words.
A high-context listener is instead expected to infer meaning from silence and shared background. The direction can flip.
The same paraphrasing that reads as attentive in a low-context setting could read as intrusive there (Hall, 1976). These same behaviors are teachable enough to be used for other ends too.
Sales pitches and negotiation tactics can mimic empathy without its substance.
Neither caveat undercuts the skill’s real value. Both are worth keeping in mind, especially when applying the skill outside a familiar cultural context.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between active and passive listening?
In active listening, the listener pays complete attention to the content of the conversation and responds accordingly. Passive listening is different. There is no reaction or comment on the information shared.
A passive listener simply consumes the message without showing interest in the content. They neglect the details that allow a full understanding of the speaker’s intention, including nonverbal cues and hidden meanings.
An indication of passive listening is the person not being able to fully absorb the content of the message and recall it in the future.
How can active listening help to avoid miscommunication?
Miscommunication typically occurs when there is a mismatch between our understanding and the real meaning of the message, increasing the risk of problems and conflicts.
One of the most effective skills is restating what the person has said. This clarifies whether the information has been understood properly. Asking relevant follow-up questions helps too.
In addition, fully engaging in the conversation and avoiding distractions directs most of our attentional resources toward the speaker. We then notice the nuances of their opinions more accurately.
How can active listening improve a relationship?
Listening is an emotional skill that enables us to be sensitive to what others are saying, prioritizing their expression of thoughts and feelings over ours.
Through active listening, we deliver the message that we want to be there for that person, providing a safe space where they will not be judged, disbelieved, or criticized.
When we show understanding and remember information that is relevant to the other person, we can create stronger bonds and healthier relationships. Trust and empathy underpin them (Bodie et al., 2015).
Key Takeaways
- Not Innate: Active listening is a learnable skill set, not just a personality trait.
- Two Layers: It targets both what someone says and the feeling underneath it.
- Core Skills: Paraphrasing, open questions, and reflecting emotions build the skill.
- Common Barriers: Judging, interrupting, and jumping to solutions all undermine it.
- Real Benefits: It builds trust, resolves conflict, and strengthens relationships at work and at home.
- Evidence Caveat: A 2024 meta-analysis found its workplace benefits run mainly through relationship quality, and much of the evidence still relies on self-report.
References
Austin, J. T., II, & Austin, J. A. (2023). Doing counseling: Developing your clinical skills and style. American Counseling Association.
Bodie, G. D., Vickery, A. J., Cannava, K., & Jones, S. M. (2015). The role of “active listening” in informal helping conversations: Impact on perceptions of listener helpfulness, sensitivity, and supportiveness and discloser emotional improvement. Western Journal of Communication, 79(2), 151-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2014.943429
Doell, F (2003). “Partners’ listening styles and relationship satisfaction: listening to understand vs. listening to respond.” Graduate thesis. The University of Toronto Psychology Dept.
Egan, G. (1990). The skilled helper: A systematic approach to effective helping (4th ed.). Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Elliott, R., Bohart, A. C., Watson, J. C., & Murphy, D. (2018). Therapist empathy and client outcome: An updated meta-analysis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 399-410. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000175
Flückiger, C., Del Re, A. C., Wampold, B. E., & Horvath, A. O. (2018). The alliance in adult psychotherapy: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 316-340. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000172
Garland, D. R. (1981). Training married couples in listening skills: Effects on behavior, perceptual accuracy and marital adjustment. Family Relations, 297-306.
Gordon, T. (1970). Parent effectiveness training: The tested new way to raise responsible children. Peter H. Wyden.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books/Doubleday.
Jonsdottir, I. J., & Kristinsson, K. (2020). Supervisors’ active-empathetic listening as an important antecedent of work engagement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 7976.
Kluger, A. N., Lehmann, M., Aguinis, H., Itzchakov, G., Gordoni, G., Zyberaj, J., & Bakaç, C. (2024). A meta-analytic systematic review and theory of the effects of perceived listening on work outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 39(2), 295-344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-023-09897-5
Larsson, M., Gillsjö, C., Sundberg, A., Zakrisson, M., & Eriksson, I. (2025). Attentive listening and confirmation: Key aspects in health promotion encounters with patients in telephone counselling. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 39(4), Article e70141. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.70141
Lee, G. C., Platow, M. J., & Cruwys, T. (2024). Listening quality leads to greater working alliance and well-being: Testing a social identity model of working alliance. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63(4), 573-588. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12489
Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). Communication: The process, barriers, and improving effectiveness. Schooling, 1(1), 1-10.
McNaughton, D., Hamlin, D., McCarthy, J., Head-Reeves, D., & Schreiner, M. (2008). Learning to listen: Teaching an active listening strategy to preservice education professionals. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27(4), 223-231.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
Nelson-Jones, R. (2014). Nelson-Jones’ theory and practice of counselling and psychotherapy (6th ed.). Sage.
Perel, E. (2024, March). A live conversation with Esther Perel and Trevor Noah: Where should we begin? [Video]. SXSW. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NrHb_nLY38
Phillips, B. (1999). Reformulating dispute narratives through active listening. Mediation Quarterly, 17(2), 161-180.
Robertson, K. (2005). Active listening: More than just paying attention. Australian Family Physician, 34(12), 1053–1055.
Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95-103.
Rogers, C. R., & Farson, R. E. (1957). Active listening. Industrial Relations Center, University of Chicago.
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2013). Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 259-264.
Weger Jr, H., Castle, G. R., & Emmett, M. C. (2010). Active listening in peer interviews: The influence of message paraphrasing on perceptions of listening skill. The Intl. Journal of Listening, 24(1), 34-49.
Weger, H., Jr., Castle Bell, G., Minei, E. M., & Robinson, M. C. (2014). The relative effectiveness of active listening in initial interactions. International Journal of Listening, 28(1), 13-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2013.813234
Weiste, E., & Peräkylä, A. (2014). Prosody and empathic communication in psychotherapy interaction. Psychotherapy Research, 24(6), 687-701.
Westland, G. (2015). Verbal and non-verbal communication in psychotherapy. W. W. Norton & Company.
