Flynn Collins & Zlatev 2022 Corrigendum

With the help of an outside team of researchers, the authors uncovered an error in the process used to clean the data in Study 1. As a result of that process, some listening ratings were associated with incorrect raters. This error occurred only within-squad, which means that it primarily affected the variance calculations, not the main test of the study hypothesis. The outside team of researchers proposed a small change to the Social Relations Model (SRM) analysis based on best practices, which the authors incorporated. With this new analysis, the association between listening and extraversion remains materially unchanged. Extraversion is negatively and significantly associated with squad members’ ratings of listening behavior.

The change does affect the supplemental analyses reported in the Supplemental Material, which examine the sub-factors of extraversion. In this case, one result which was previously reported as marginal is now significant, and two results which were previously reported as nonsignificant are now marginally significant.

The authors are grateful to Sarit Pery, Avi Kluger, and Tom Malloy for bringing this issue to their attention.

Results

First, we calculated the variance in listening ability explained by the aforementioned three components. To do so, we created two listening indicators: Indicator A represented the average of the first and third listening items while Indicator B represented the average of the second and fourth (reverse-coded) listening items. Perceiver variance accounted for a nonsignificant portion of the variance (2.3%, p = .163), whereas target variance (12.5%, p < .001) and relationship variance (12.3%, p < .001) each accounted for a significant portion of the variance. These results suggest that perceivers were generally able to agree on a given target’s listening ability, but that there was an additional uniquely dyadic effect that was not captured by simply looking at perceiver or actor ratings alone. It is important to note that these variance results are somewhat outside the norm of those found in previous related research (e.g., Kluger et al., 2021). One potential reason for this is that a large number of groups were dropped from the analyses because of missing data, meaning these results are likely underpowered and should be interpreted with caution.

We then used the target scores calculated by the SRM (representing the degree to which each participant was seen as a good listener) as the dependent measure in a series of regressions with the extraversion subscale of the NEO Personality Inventory and its six facets as independent measures (each run as a separate regression). We found a significant, negative relationship between an individual’s self-reported extraversion and group members’ ratings of that individual’s listening behavior, β = −0.38, b = −0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [−0.44, −0.16], p < .001. Breaking down extraversion into the six separate facets, the negative relationship with perceived listening was significant for each facet: gregariousness (β = −0.35, b = −0.17, 95% CI = [−0.25, −0.08], p < .001), assertiveness (β = −0.28, b = −0.17, 95% CI = [−0.28, −0.06], p = .003), excitement seeking (β = −0.25, b = −0.15, 95% CI = [−0.27, −0.04], p = .01), warmth (β = −0.23, b = −0.13, 95% CI = [−0.23, −0.02], p = .018), positive emotions (β = −0.26, b = −0.13, 95% CI = [−0.23, −0.04], p = .008), and activity (β = −0.23, b = −0.16, 95% CI = [−0.30, 0.03], p = .018).

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material is available online with this article.

References

Flynn, F. J., Collins, H., & Zlatev, J. (2022). Are You Listening to Me? The Negative Link Between Extraversion and Perceived Listening. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 01461672211072815.

Kluger, A. N., Malloy, T. E., Pery, S., Itzchakov, G., Castro, D. R., Lipetz, L., . . .Borut, L. (2021). Dyadic listening in teams: Social relations model. Applied Psychology, 70(3), 1045–1099.