But how does the listener break down information when both a man and a woman are saying the exact same thing? According to research, the voice itself is the source of unconscious bias for the listener, and women are interpreted differently as a result. Meghan Sumner, an associate professor of linguistics at Stanford University, stumbled into the unconscious bias realm after years of investigating how listeners extract information from voices, and how the pieces of information are stored in our memory. Study after study, she found that we all listen differently based on where we’re from and our feelings toward different accents. It’s not a conscious choice, but the result of social biases that form unconscious stereotyping which then influences that way we listen. “It’s not always what someone said, it’s also how they said it,” Sumner tells Fast Company. “How we view people socially from their voice, influences how we attend to them, how we listen to them.” For instance, in one experiment, Sumner found that the “average American listener” preferred a “Southern Standard British English” voice rather than one who had a New York City accent, even if both voices are saying the same words. Consequently, the listener will remember more of what the English speaker says and will deem them as smarter. All of this is impacted by the stereotypes that we have of British people and New Yorkers. Even if you don’t have any association or interactions with a group of people, a listener can still presume they know what those people would say. For example, if you don’t interact with women often, you might still assume you know what women talk about. It doesn’t matter what the woman is actually saying because the listener will always automatically anticipate what she’ll say next, or what she’s trying to say. Often, this stops us from truly listening to what people say. In another small study, Sumner and her colleague, Ed King, found that if a man says the word “academy,” the listener might assume that he’s speaking about a school, but when a woman says “academy,” listeners will more likely presume that she’s talking about an award show. Contrary to what many may think, unconscious bias is not a bias against one group, according to Sumner, but is the gap created from “the pulling apart of the two categories.” She’s found that there’s not a negative bias against women. It’s just that when women are compared to men, they are downgraded while men are upgraded. Sumner found that even when a certain female voice is deemed trustworthy, clear, and comprehensible, her voice receives lower ratings when put in context with a man’s voice. Even if a man’s voice is rated as not-so-reliable or intelligent on its own, when he’s compared to a woman’s, he suddenly gets a boost in ratings. In an interview for Stanford’s Clayman Institute for Gender Research, Sumner says, “It is clear that how we hear a voice can change depending on whether it is alone, or in the context of another voice. Everything is relative.” It’s obvious that unconscious bias impacts all of our choices. But if we can’t help it, what can we do about it? Most importantly, let’s not talk about what women should be doing, says Sumner, but rather, how each and every one of us can change the way we process information.“Gendered Listening”
When you can, she suggests, consider writing everything down and going back to read over your notes to make sure you’re really getting what people are saying. Even then, there’s a good chance you are not actually writing down what they’re saying, warns Sumner, but only what you think they said.
This can be particularly valuable during the hiring process. Sumner points to Iris Bohnet’s work on removing societal barriers that could be putting women at a professional disadvantage. In her book What Works: Gender Equality by Design, Bohnet, a behavioral economist at Harvard University, recommends having structured job interviews where the hiring manager thinks about questions that can predict success beforehand, then asks all candidates the same questions, in the same order.
Taking that practice a step further, Sumner’s suggestion to record the conversation through note-taking can be particularly valuable. If the interviewer is focused on writing down what the candidate is saying, they are not so focused on the candidate’s demeanor or their demographic characteristics.
By assigning each candidate’s answers a number instead of their name serves to anonymize the responses somewhat when the notes are reviewed. Another option would be to ask candidates to fill out the performance-based questions in their own writing after having a face-to-face interview for personality and culture fit purposes.
In every instance, ask: “What evidence do I have that I’m basing my decision on?” advises Sumner. She cautions that discriminatory behavior, especially those related to vocal cues are activated “fast and early,” meaning the biases that come into play when we process what someone is saying occurs shortly after the initial meeting–much earlier than most of us expect.
Related Video: Being Fat In The Workplace Is Hard. Admitting It Is Harder.
Learning Objectives
- Understand the types of noise that can affect a listener’s ability to attend to a message.
- Explain how a listener’s attention span can limit the listener’s ability to attend to a speaker’s message.
- Analyze how a listener’s personal biases can influence her or his ability to attend to a message.
- Define receiver apprehension and the impact it can have on a listener’s ability to attend to a message.
At times, everyone has difficulty staying completely focused during a lengthy presentation. We can sometimes have difficulty listening to even relatively brief messages. Some of the factors that interfere with good listening might exist beyond our control, but others are manageable. It’s helpful to be aware of these factors so that they interfere as little as possible with understanding the message.
Noise is one of the biggest factors to interfere with listening; it can be defined as anything that interferes with your ability to attend to and understand a message. There are many kinds of noise, but we will focus on only the four you are most likely to encounter in public speaking situations: physical noise, psychological noise, physiological noise, and semantic noise.
Physical noise consists of various sounds in an environment that interfere with a source’s ability to hear. Construction noises right outside a window, planes flying directly overhead, or loud music in the next room can make it difficult to hear the message being presented by a speaker even if a microphone is being used. It is sometimes possible to manage the context to reduce the noise. Closing a window might be helpful. Asking the people in the next room to turn their music down might be possible. Changing to a new location is more difficult, as it involves finding a new location and having everyone get there.
Psychological noise consists of distractions to a speaker’s message caused by a receiver’s internal thoughts. For example, if you are preoccupied with personal problems, it is difficult to give your full attention to understanding the meanings of a message. The presence of another person to whom you feel attracted, or perhaps a person you dislike intensely, can also be psychosocial noise that draws your attention away from the message.
Physiological noise consists of distractions to a speaker’s message caused by a listener’s own body. Maybe you’re listening to a speech in class around noon and you haven’t eaten anything. Your stomach may be growling and your desk is starting to look tasty. Maybe the room is cold and you’re thinking more about how to keep warm than about what the speaker is saying. In either case, your body can distract you from attending to the information being presented.
Semantic noise occurs when a receiver experiences confusion over the meaning of a source’s word choice. While you are attempting to understand a particular word or phrase, the speaker continues to present the message. While you are struggling with a word interpretation, you are distracted from listening to the rest of the message. One of the authors was listening to a speaker who mentioned using a sweeper to clean carpeting. The author was confused, as she did not see how a broom would be effective in cleaning carpeting. Later, the author found out that the speaker was using the word “sweeper” to refer to a vacuum cleaner; however, in the meantime, her listening was hurt by her inability to understand what the speaker meant. Another example of semantic noise is euphemism. Euphemism is diplomatic language used for delivering unpleasant information. For instance, if someone is said to be “flexible with the truth,” it might take us a moment to understand that the speaker means this person sometimes lies.
Figure 1. Types of Noise
Many distractions are the fault of neither the listener nor the speaker. However, when you are the speaker, being aware of these sources of noise can help you reduce some of the noise that interferes with your audience’s ability to understand you.
A person can only maintain focused attention for a finite length of time. In his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, New York University’s Steinhardt School of Education professor Neil Postman argued that modern audiences have lost the ability to sustain attention to a message. More recently, researchers have engaged in an ongoing debate over whether Internet use is detrimental to attention span. Whether or not these concerns are well founded, you have probably noticed that even when your attention is “glued” to something in which you are deeply interested, every now and then you pause to do something else, such as getting a drink of water, stretching, or looking out the window.
The limits of the human attention span can interfere with listening, but listeners and speakers can use strategies to prevent this interference. As many classroom instructors know, listeners will readily renew their attention when the presentation includes frequent breaks in pacing. For example, a fifty- to seventy-five-minute class session might include some lecture material alternated with questions for class discussion, video clips, handouts, and demonstrations. Instructors who are adept at holding listeners’ attention also move about the front of the room, writing on the board, drawing diagrams, and intermittently using slide transparencies or PowerPoint slides.
If you have instructors who do a good job of keeping your attention, they are positive role models showing strategies you can use to accommodate the limitations of your audience’s attention span.
Good listening involves keeping an open mind and withholding judgment until the speaker has completed the message. Conversely, biased listening is characterized by jumping to conclusions; the biased listener believes, “I don’t need to listen because I already know what I think.” Receiver biases can refer to two things: biases with reference to the speaker and preconceived ideas and opinions about the topic or message. Both can be considered noise. Everyone has biases, but good listeners have learned to hold them in check while listening.
The first type of bias listeners can have is related to the speaker. Often a speaker stands up and an audience member simply doesn’t like the speaker, so the audience member may not listen to the speaker’s message. Maybe you have a classmate who just gets under your skin for some reason, or maybe you question a classmate’s competence on a given topic. When we have preconceived notions about a speaker, those biases can interfere with our ability to listen accurately and competently to the speaker’s message.
The second type of bias listeners can have is related to the topic or content of the speech. Maybe the speech topic is one you’ve heard a thousand times, so you just tune out the speech. Or maybe the speaker is presenting a topic or position you fundamentally disagree with. When listeners have strong preexisting opinions about a topic, such as the death penalty, religious issues, affirmative action, abortion, or global warming, their biases may make it difficult for them to even consider new information about the topic, especially if the new information is inconsistent with what they already believe to be true. As listeners, we have difficulty identifying our biases, especially when they seem to make sense. However, it is worth recognizing that our lives would be very difficult if no one ever considered new points of view or new information. We live in a world where everyone can benefit from clear thinking and open-minded listening.
Listening or receiver apprehension is the fear that you might be unable to understand the message or process the information correctly or be able to adapt your thinking to include the new information coherently. In some situations, you might worry that the information presented will be “over your head”—too complex, technical, or advanced for you to understand adequately.
Many students will actually avoid registering for courses in which they feel certain they will do poorly. In other cases, students will choose to take a challenging course only if it’s a requirement. This avoidance might be understandable but is not a good strategy for success. To become educated people, students should take a few courses that can shed light on areas where their knowledge is limited.
As a speaker, you can reduce listener apprehension by defining terms clearly and using simple visual aids to hold the audience’s attention. You don’t want to underestimate or overestimate your audience’s knowledge on a subject, so good audience analysis is always important. If you know your audience doesn’t have special knowledge on a given topic, you should start by defining important terms. Research has shown us that when listeners do not feel they understand a speaker’s message, their apprehension about receiving the message escalates. Imagine that you are listening to a speech about chemistry and the speaker begins talking about “colligative properties.” You may start questioning whether you’re even in the right place. When this happens, apprehension clearly interferes with a listener’s ability to accurately and competently understand a speaker’s message. As a speaker, you can lessen the listener’s apprehension by explaining that colligative properties focus on how much is dissolved in a solution, not on what is dissolved in a solution. You could also give an example that they might readily understand, such as saying that it doesn’t matter what kind of salt you use in the winter to melt ice on your driveway, what is important is how much salt you use.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Listeners are often unable to accurately attend to messages because of four types of noise. Physical noise is caused by the physical setting a listener is in. Psychological noise exists within a listener’s own mind and prevents him or her from attending to a speaker’s message. Physiological noise exists because a listener’s body is feeling some sensation that prevents him or her from attending to a speaker’s message. Semantic noise is caused by a listener’s confusion over the meanings of words used by a speaker.
- All audiences have a limited attention span. As a speaker, you must realize how long you can reasonably expect an audience to listen to your message.
- Listeners must be aware of the biases they have for speakers and the topics speakers choose. Biases can often prevent a listener from accurately and competently listening to a speaker’s actual message.
- Receiver apprehension is the fear that a listener might be unable to understand the message, process the information correctly, or adapt thinking to include new information coherently. Speakers need to make sure their messages are appropriate to the audience’s knowledge level and clearly define and explain all terms that could lead to increased anxiety.
EXERCISES
- In a group, discuss what distracts you most from listening attentively to a speaker. Have you found ways to filter out or manage the distraction?
- This chapter refers to psychological noise as one of the distractions you might experience. Identify strategies you have successfully used to minimize the impact of the specific psychological noises you have experienced.
- Make a list of biases you might have as a listener. You can think about how you’d answer such questions as, With whom would I refuse to be seen socially or in public? Who would I reject as a trustworthy person to help if I were in danger? What topics do I refuse to discuss? The answers to these questions might provide useful insights into your biases as a listener.