Development and validation of the active empathetic listening scale
By Tanya Drollinger, Lucette B. Comer, Patricia T. Warrington. 2006
190 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Communication, Social Psychology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c1e899fbc3bae2766d510990237e43780d41868d
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Communication
- Graham D. Bodie
- M. Sharifirad
- Christopher C. Gearhart
- Jimmy Sanderson
- Jeffrey W. Kassing
- Tanya Drollinger
- Lucette B. Comer
- Gary P. Latham
In Social Psychology
- Graham D. Bodie
- Christopher C. Gearhart
- M. Sharifirad
- Marie-Hélène Budworth
- Laxmikant Manroop
- Gina Castle Bell
- Elizabeth M. Minei
- M.C. Robinson
Citations in the corpus
- The Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS): Conceptualization and Evidence of Validity Within the Interpersonal Domain (2011, methodology): “The relationship between the AELS and empathy mirrors the work of Drollinger et al. (2006), who found correlations of similar magnitude between each AELS subscale and measures of empathic concern and PT.”
- Active-Empathic Listening as a General Social Skill: Evidence from Bivariate and Canonical Correlations (2011, methodology): “Although any given operationalization of AEL might attempt to include one or more types of empathy, the measure created by Drollinger et al. (2006) borrowed Rogers’s definition—‘‘the ability to perceive the internal frame of of another with accuracy, and with the emotional components and meanings .…”
- Transformational leadership, innovative work behavior, and employee well-being (2013, methodology): “The active empathetic listening (AEL) scale developed by Drollinger et al. (2006) was used in order to measure leaders’ ability to demonstrate AEL in supervisor–subordinate interactions.”
- The Relative Effectiveness of Active Listening in Initial Interactions (2014, background): “The majority of the remaining studies report associations between self and/or other reports of using active listening and some criterion variable (e.g., Drollinger et al., 2006; Young & Cates, 2010).”
- Factors Affecting Customer Satisfaction in Responses to Negative Online Hotel Reviews (2015, background): “One way to do this is with active listening, which often includes verbal cues such as paraphrasing or restating what a speaker said or asking for further information, and nonverbal cues, such as nodding (Drollinger, Comer, and Warrington 2006).”
- The feedforward interview (2010, unknown): “Active listening is recommended by practitioners as a means to generate win-win outcomes both in business (e.g., Covey, 1989) and in marriage (e.g., Hendrix, 1988), and is documented by researchers to be a good business practice (Drollinger et al., 2006).”
- On the Role of Empathy in Customer-Employee Interactions (2012, background): “Other studies suggest that satisfying encounters result from positive communication with customers, which can be attributed to higher levels of employee empathy (Boorom, Goolsby, and Ramsey 1998; Comer and Drollinger 1999; Drollinger, Comer, and Warrington 2006; Pilling and Eroglu 1994).”
- Salesperson's listening ability as an antecedent to relationship selling (2013, background): “The responding dimension is perhaps one in which the speaker is best assured of the salesperson’s effort to listen actively and empathetically (Drollinger et al., 2005).”
- “You're the Kind of Guy That We All Want for a Drinking Buddy”: Expressions of Parasocial Interaction on Floydlandis.com (2009, background): “Sympathy is commonly employed by those who deal with individuals experiencing difficulty (Pudlinski, 2005 ) and elemental to relationally competent behavior (Drollinger, Comer, & Warrington, 2006 ), so it is expected that fans would respond sympathetically to Landis.”
- Looking Forward to Performance Improvement: A Field Test of the Feedforward Interview for Performance Management (2015, background): “For example, Mani (2002) found that over 40 percent of the staff in a public-sector organization were dissatisfied with their PA, including those who received a “good” or “outstanding” rating.”