Development and Validation of the Imhof-Janusik Listening Concepts Inventory to Measure Listening Conceptualization Differences between Cultures

The Role of “Active Listening” in Informal Helping Conversations: Impact on Perceptions of Listener Helpfulness, Sensitivity, and Supportiveness and Discloser Emotional Improvement

“…Active listening is posited as evaluatively positive on each of these three dimensions. Of the 40 themes Goldsmith, McDermott, and Alexander (2000) derived from participant reports of their understanding of the terms helpful, sensitive, and supportive, listening and three other closely related termsunderstanding, caring, and helps clarify ideas (see Bodie, St. Cyr, Pence, Rold, & Honeycutt, 2012;Imhof & Janusik, 2006)-were the top four themes, constituting nearly a third of the total responses. An additional 21% of the remaining themes are related to lay notions of good listening.…”

Listening Competence in Initial Interactions I: Distinguishing Between What Listening Is and What Listeners Do

“…This literature shares a general interest with social cognitive research in discovering how "the organized thoughts people have about human interaction" (Roloff & Berger, 1982, p. 21) influence action (for reviews see Roskos-Ewoldsen & Monahan, 2007). Such research has discovered that both laypersons and professionals conceptualize listening in myriad ways (Halone, Cunconan, Coakley, & Wolvin, 1998;Imhof & Janusik, 2006;Witkin & Tochim, 1997); however, implicit theories of listening are moderated by individual and situational differences (Halone & Pecchioni, 2001;Halone, Wolvin, & Coakley, 1997;Imhof, 2003). Consequently, the implicit theories of listening people use when forming impressions of others likely vary as a function of the individual with whom and the situation within which the interaction takes place, making it necessary to investigate implicit theories of listening in various interaction environments (see also Roloff & Kellermann, 1984).…”

Confidence to Foster Across Cultures: Caregiver Perspectives

“…Purposes include program development (Trochim et al 2008), program evaluation (Poole and Davis 2006), instrument development (Imhof and Janusik 2006), risk assessment (Ryan et al 2005) as well as curriculum development (Cash et al 2006) research methods (Petrucci et al 2007) and policy analysis (Trochim and Cabrera 2005). The method has been used with youth (Ries et al 2008), older adults (Groenewoud et al 2008), professionals (Shewchuk et al 2005) as well as non-professionals (e.g.…”