Hi everyone, and welcome back to COMM 1035: Listening.
I’m thrilled you’re here for Unit 3, because this is where we shift from the “what” of
listening to the “why” and “how.”
In Units 1 and 2, we explored the listening process, the role of attention, and the barriers
that interfere with understanding.
Now, in Unit 3, we step into the world of theories and principles—the academic models
scholars use to explain stages, behaviors, and the more complex cognitive processes of
listening.
Our main goal in this unit:
Analyze and evaluate key theories and concepts that contribute to effective listening.
By the end of this unit, you won’t just practice listening—you’ll be able to explain and
analyze how listening works using theoretical frameworks.
[Why Theories Matter]
Listening theories help us:
Break down complex moments
Understand why misunderstandings occur
See how cognition, emotion, behavior, and context interact
Evaluate what “went wrong” and how to improve
The Foundations of Listening Theory When Did Listening Become an Academic Discipline?
Alright — before we dive into models and frameworks, let’s zoom out for a minute.
Have you ever noticed that in school we’re taught how to read, write, and speak… but almost
never how to listen?
That’s not accidental.
For most of history, listening wasn’t treated as a separate academic discipline.
It was assumed to be automatic — something you either did well or didn’t.
But that assumption started to change in the 20th century.
Early Roots: Before Listening Was a Field
In ancient rhetoric — think Aristotle and classical education — communication focused
heavily on speaking.
Persuasion. Argument. Delivery.
Listening was implied, but not analyzed.
Fast forward to the early 1900s, and speech communication programs were emerging in
universities.
But even then, listening wasn’t a major focus.
The emphasis was still on public speaking and rhetoric.
It wasn’t until mid-century that scholars began asking a simple but powerful question:
If communication is transactional… shouldn’t we study the receiver just as much as the
sender?
That shift laid the groundwork for listening research.
The 1950s–1970s: Listening Gains Academic Attention
Listening began to gain serious academic attention in the 1950s.
Why then?
Two major reasons:
The rise of interpersonal communication research
Organizational and workplace studies
Researchers began to notice that breakdowns in communication weren’t always about poor
speaking — they were often about poor listening.
By the 1960s and 1970s, scholars started treating listening as:
A cognitive process
A measurable skill
A behavior that could be improved
This was a major shift.
Listening was no longer passive. It was active.
It was something you could study, assess, and teach.
The 1980s: Listening Becomes Its Own Subfield
The 1980s were a turning point.
This is when listening began to solidify as a recognized area within communication studies.
Scholars like Judi Brownell and others began developing structured models — like HURIER —
that broke listening into stages and competencies.
Listening research during this time focused on:
Cognitive processing
Listening styles
Workplace listening
Educational listening
Critical listening
Professional organizations also emerged to support research and teaching in listening.
At this point, listening was no longer an afterthought. It was a field.
Expanding the Field: Emotion, Empathy, and Relational Listening
In the 1990s and early 2000s, listening theory expanded again.
Earlier research emphasized cognitive steps — hearing, understanding, remembering.
But newer scholarship began exploring:
Empathic listening
Emotional intelligence
Relational dynamics
Cultural listening differences
Identity and power
Listening was no longer just about processing information.
It was about connection.
Researchers began asking:
What makes someone feel heard? What creates psychological safety?
How does listening impact trust?
This shift moved the field beyond skill performance into relational meaning.
Modern Listening Research
Today, listening theory draws from multiple disciplines:
Communication studies
Psychology
Neuroscience
Organizational leadership
Conflict resolution
Counseling
Modern research explores:
Listening and mental health
Listening and leadership effectiveness
Listening in intercultural contexts
Digital and mediated listening
The neuroscience of empathy
In other words, listening is now seen as foundational to:
Relationship quality
Workplace performance
Conflict management
Leadership credibility
It is not a “soft skill.”
It is a central communication competency.
Why This History Matters
Here’s why this overview matters.
If listening wasn’t historically emphasized, that explains why many people were never taught
how to do it well.
And if listening only became a formal academic focus in the last 60–70 years, that means the
field is still evolving.
We are studying something deeply human — and still discovering new layers.
Big Takeaway
Listening began as an overlooked component of rhetoric.
It evolved into a cognitive skill studied in the mid-20th century.
It became a structured subfield in the 1980s.
And today, it integrates cognitive, emotional, relational, and cultural perspectives.
Listening is not automatic.
It is complex. It is layered.
And it is one of the most powerful forces shaping human relationships.
🎧 Before We Begin: A Realistic Listening Scenario
Before we dive into theories, let’s create a scenario we’ll return to throughout the
lecture:
The Scenario:
You and a coworker, Maya, are discussing a group project. She says:
“I feel like I’m carrying most of the weight on this project.
I need you to take more initiative.”
You weren’t expecting this. You feel defensive. You thought you were contributing.
You’re also tired from a long day. Your mind starts racing: Is she blaming me?
Did I miss something?
This moment is emotionally loaded, ambiguous, evaluative, and relational—exactly the kind of
conversation where listening theories help.
We’ll apply each theory to this same scenario, so by the end, you’ll see how each one
illuminates different parts of the listening process.
[The HURIER Model: A Step-by-Step View of Listening]
Before we dive in, let’s talk about where this model comes from.
The HURIER Model was developed by communication scholar Judi Brownell in the 1980s.
She created it to help explain listening as a learnable, skill-based process, especially in
professional and organizational settings.
At the time, listening was often treated as something passive—either you were “a good
listener” or you weren’t.
Brownell challenged that idea.
She argued that listening is a structured, sequential process that can be improved with
awareness and practice.
That shift was important because it moved listening from a personality trait to a
communication skill.
Alright, so let’s talk about one of the most practical models of listening: the HURIER
Model.
If you’ve ever thought, “Wait… how did this conversation go so wrong?” — this model helps
you figure that out.
HURIER breaks listening into six clear stages.
Think of it like a checklist your brain moves through—often in seconds.
Here are the six stages:
Hearing
Understanding
Remembering
Interpreting
Evaluating
Responding
Before we go deeper, I want to point something out.
Some of the first stages may sound familiar. That’s intentional.
We’ve already explored ideas like attention, perception, noise, and memory earlier in the
course.
What the HURIER model does is organize those concepts into a clear, structured listening
framework.
So think of this section not as brand-new material, but as integration — we’re connecting
concepts you already know into a step-by-step process.
Let’s slow this down and really unpack what’s happening at each stage.
Brownell didn’t just list six steps — she described interrelated competencies.
And later theories have added even more nuance.
Now let’s walk through each stage with that in mind.
1. Hearing
At the most basic level, hearing is the physiological process.
Sound waves travel through the ear canal, vibrate the eardrum, and get translated into
neural signals.
But Brownell emphasized something important: Hearing is selective.
We don’t hear everything equally.
Later research in attention theory and cognitive psychology shows that we filter sounds
constantly.
We engage in what’s called selective attention. That’s why:
You can tune out traffic noise.
But instantly hear your name across the room.
So hearing isn’t just about ability — it’s about focus.
Modern updates also highlight:
Environmental noise (actual sound interference)
Physiological noise (fatigue, hunger, illness)
Psychological noise (stress, anxiety)
So when students say, “I didn’t hear you,” it might not be literal deafness — it might be
divided attention.
And here’s the key: if attention fails here, the rest of the process never fully activates.
2. Understanding
Brownell described understanding as attaching meaning to the message. This involves:
Language comprehension
Vocabulary knowledge
Context awareness
Cultural background
Understanding is heavily shaped by what communication scholars call schemas — mental
frameworks that help us organize information.
Later intercultural communication research shows that understanding can break down when:
Words carry different connotations across cultures.
Shared context is missing.
Assumptions differ.
For example: “We need to talk” In one context = neutral project update.
In another context = impending relationship doom.
Same words. Different perceived meaning.
So understanding is not just dictionary definition — it’s socially constructed.
3. Remembering
Brownell emphasized that listening requires memory — especially in professional settings.
You can’t respond appropriately if you can’t retain the information.
Cognitive psychology expands this by explaining:
Short-term memory holds information briefly.
Working memory actively processes it.
Long-term memory stores it through rehearsal and association.
Later listening research highlights:
We remember what feels emotionally relevant.
We remember what confirms our beliefs.
We forget what doesn’t seem important.
That’s confirmation bias at work.
This is why two people can attend the same meeting and remember completely different
details.
Remembering is not passive storage — it’s selective reconstruction.
4. Interpreting
This is where things get really interesting.
Brownell identified interpreting as assigning meaning beyond words — tone, facial
expression, pacing, posture.
Later interpersonal communication theories expanded this stage dramatically.
Interpreting is influenced by:
Perception
Emotional intelligence
Relational history
Attribution theory
We don’t just interpret tone. We interpret intent.
“Why did she say it that way?” “Is he annoyed?” “Is she disrespecting me?”
Modern updates emphasize that this stage is deeply emotional.
Neuroscience research shows that emotional processing can happen faster than rational
thought.
So sometimes you feel offended before you consciously evaluate why.
Interpreting is where misunderstandings most often occur — because we are filling in gaps
with our own assumptions.
5. Evaluating
In Brownell’s model, evaluating is where we assess the message’s credibility, logic, and
relevance.
Questions at this stage might include:
Is this accurate?
Is this supported?
Is this reasonable?
Is this fair?
Critical listening research builds on this stage, emphasizing:
Bias detection
Evidence evaluation
Logical reasoning
But later relational theories point out something important:
Evaluation is rarely purely logical.
We evaluate through:
Personal values
Identity
Emotional state
Power dynamics
If someone challenges something connected to your identity, evaluation becomes emotional
very quickly.
This is where defensiveness is born.
6. Responding
Brownell saw responding as feedback — verbal and nonverbal signals that show engagement.
Responses can include:
Nodding
Paraphrasing
Asking clarifying questions
Offering support
Challenging ideas
Later listening scholarship emphasizes that responding shapes the relational climate.
Supportive responses build trust. Defensive responses escalate conflict.
And importantly — responding feeds back into the process.
Once you respond, the other person begins their HURIER cycle.
Listening is not linear. It’s dynamic and recursive.
The Big Update from Later Theories
If we zoom out, here’s what newer research has added to Brownell’s original structure:
Listening is influenced by emotion at every stage.
Power and identity shape interpretation and evaluation.
Memory is biased and selective.
Listening is relational, not just cognitive.
The stages overlap and interact rather than occurring in perfect sequence.
Brownell gave us the structure.
Later theories added depth — especially around emotion, perception, and relational dynamics.
🔍 Applying HURIER to the Maya Scenario
You and a coworker, Maya, are discussing a group project. She says:
“I feel like I’m carrying most of the weight on this project.
I need you to take more initiative.”
Where might the breakdown happen?
Hearing: You hear her words just fine.
Understanding: You understand the literal meaning.
Interpreting: But here’s the issue—you interpret her tone as criticism.
Evaluating: Your evaluation (“She’s being unfair”) triggers defensiveness.
Responding: You respond defensively instead of collaboratively.
HURIER helps us locate the breakdown: interpreting and evaluating.
Let's look at each step in more detail:
Hearing
You hear her words clearly.
There’s no confusion about what she said. You’re not distracted.
You don’t mishear “initiative” as something else.
So the breakdown probably isn’t at the hearing stage.
Understanding
You understand the literal meaning.
She feels overwhelmed. She believes she’s doing more than you.
She wants you to contribute more actively.
On a basic semantic level, the message is clear.
So again, no major breakdown yet.
But this is where things start to become layered.
Because this message isn’t just informational — it’s emotional.
Interpreting
Now your brain starts filling in meaning beyond the literal words.
You may interpret her statement as:
“She thinks I’m lazy.”
“She doesn’t respect my effort.”
“She’s accusing me.”
“She’s attacking my work ethic.”
But notice — she said: “I feel like I’m carrying most of the weight.”
That’s a feeling statement.
Yet you might interpret it as a character judgment.
This is where perception, insecurity, and relational history enter the picture.
If you already felt unsure about your contributions, or if you’ve been criticized in group
settings before, your interpretation may tilt negative very quickly.
And interpretation feels factual — even when it’s assumption.
This is often the first real breakdown point.
Evaluating
Now your mind moves into judgment.
Based on your interpretation, you evaluate the situation:
“That’s unfair.”
“She doesn’t see what I’ve done.”
“She’s exaggerating.”
“She’s being dramatic.”
And here’s the shift:
Evaluation activates emotion.
You might feel:
Defensive
Hurt
Angry
Embarrassed
Maybe your heart rate increases. Maybe your posture tightens.
Maybe your tone shifts without you realizing it.
Now we’re no longer in a neutral cognitive space.
We’re in an emotional one.
This is often where conflict escalates.
Responding
Now you respond.
Instead of: “I didn’t realize you felt that way. Can we look at how we’re dividing tasks?”
You might say: “I’ve been doing my part.” Or, “That’s not true.”
Or you might respond indirectly: “Fine. I’ll do more.” (short tone, minimal eye contact)
Even silence can communicate defensiveness.
And now Maya begins her own listening cycle.
She interprets your tone. She evaluates your reaction. She responds.
And what started as an expression of frustration becomes a relational rupture.
Where Was the Breakdown?
It likely wasn’t at hearing.
It likely wasn’t at understanding.
The breakdown most likely occurred at:
Interpreting (assigning negative intent)
Evaluating (judging her statement as unfair or accusatory)
That’s what makes HURIER powerful.
It helps us slow down the moment and pinpoint:
“I may have interpreted her emotional expression as a personal attack.”
That insight creates room for adjustment.
Strengths of HURIER in This Scenario
HURIER helps us:
Separate literal meaning from perceived intent
Identify exactly where defensiveness enters
Recognize how quickly interpretation shapes emotion
Diagnose breakdowns with precision
Instead of saying: “She came at me.”
We can say: “I interpreted her feeling statement as a character judgment.”
That’s a very different conclusion.
Limitations of HURIER
But here’s the limitation.
HURIER shows us where the breakdown happened.
It doesn’t fully explain why the interpretation went negative so quickly.
For example:
Maybe you strongly identify as responsible and hardworking.
Maybe you grew up being criticized frequently.
Maybe you were already stressed.
Maybe there’s an underlying power imbalance in the group.
Those deeper emotional triggers, identity concerns, and relational histories aren’t fully
explained by a step-by-step cognitive model.
HURIER maps the process.
It doesn’t fully map the emotional depth beneath it.
And that’s why later listening theories — especially those focused on empathy, relational
dynamics, and emotional intelligence — become so important.
The Transactional Model & Listening Fidelity: Meaning Is Co-Created
Before we apply this model, let’s talk about where it comes from.
The Transactional Model of Communication emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as communication
scholars began challenging earlier linear models.
Early models treated communication like a one-way delivery system: a sender sends a message,
a receiver receives it.
But researchers noticed something that didn’t fit that framework:
Communication doesn’t move in straight lines.
Scholars such as Dean Barnlund proposed a different view — that communication is
simultaneous, dynamic, and continuous.
Both people are sending and receiving messages at the same time.
This became known as the transactional perspective.
Unlike linear models, the Transactional Model emphasizes:
Simultaneous communication
Continuous feedback loops
Context and relational history
Internal and external noise
Co-creation of meaning
In later decades, interpersonal and relational communication research expanded the model
further.
Scholars added insights about:
Identity and power dynamics
Emotional regulation
Cultural context
Implicit bias
Psychological safety
More recent research even integrates neuroscience, suggesting that emotional responses and
stress reactions shape communication moment by moment.
So while the original model shifted us away from one-way thinking, later updates deepened it
— showing that communication is shaped by emotion, history, identity, and context.
Now let’s break down what this means.
Core Principles of the Transactional Model 1. Communication Is Simultaneous
You are never “just listening.”
Even while someone else is speaking, you are:
Sending facial expressions
Adjusting posture
Regulating tone
Signaling agreement or resistance
Communication overlaps.
It is not turn-taking. It is ongoing exchange.
2. Feedback Loops Shape Meaning
Every message influences the next one.
Your reaction affects their reaction.
Their tone affects your tone.
Meaning evolves in real time.
Communication is iterative — not fixed.
3. Context Matters
No conversation happens in isolation.
Context includes:
Relational history
Cultural background
Power dynamics
Environment
Timing
All of these factors shape interpretation.
4. Noise Is Always Present
Noise isn’t just loud sounds.
It includes:
Stress
Fatigue
Insecurity
Emotional triggers
Distractions
Both participants bring internal noise into the exchange.
5. Meaning Is Co-Created
Perhaps the most important idea:
Meaning does not belong solely to the speaker or the listener.
It emerges between them.
It is negotiated — moment by moment.
🔍 Applying the Transactional Model to the Maya Scenario
Now let’s apply this perspective to the same situation.
Maya says:
“I feel like I’m carrying most of the weight on this project.
I need you to take more initiative.”
Instead of analyzing internal stages like we did with HURIER, we now observe the interaction
unfolding between you.
Simultaneous Communication
The moment Maya speaks, you’re already responding nonverbally.
Maybe:
Your arms cross.
You lean back.
Your facial expression tightens.
You avoid eye contact.
Even if you say nothing, those signals communicate something.
Maya sees them.
She begins interpreting your reaction immediately.
Communication is already happening in both directions.
Feedback Loop in Action
Let’s say you respond:
“I’ve been doing my part.”
Your tone is clipped.
Maya hears the defensiveness.
Her next statement shifts:
“Well, it doesn’t seem like it.”
Now your tone sharpens further.
Notice what’s happening.
Each message reshapes the next.
The meaning of the conversation is evolving based on mutual reaction.
This is a feedback loop.
Context and Relational History
Ask yourself:
Have you and Maya disagreed before?
Is she usually more dominant in group work?
Do you already feel underappreciated?
Relational history influences how her statement lands.
If you’ve felt micromanaged, her comment may feel like confirmation.
If you’ve trusted her judgment in the past, it may feel constructive.
Context shapes perception.
Internal Noise
Maybe you’re:
Exhausted from another class.
Stressed about an exam.
Feeling insecure about your contribution.
That internal state intensifies your reaction.
Maybe on a different day, the same comment wouldn’t feel as threatening.
Internal noise alters meaning.
Listening Fidelity Applied
Now let’s talk about listening fidelity.
Listening fidelity asks:
Did the meaning you constructed match the meaning Maya intended?
Maybe Maya intended:
“I’m overwhelmed and need support.”
But you heard:
“You’re not pulling your weight.”
If those don’t match, fidelity is low.
And here’s where the transactional dynamic matters:
If you respond defensively, Maya may interpret that as avoidance or guilt.
Now she becomes firmer.
The loop reinforces the misunderstanding.
Without clarification, both of you are reacting to interpretations — not intentions.
High fidelity listening requires checking the gap:
“When you say you’re carrying most of the weight, can you help me understand what feels
uneven?”
That question can interrupt the escalation loop.
Where Is the Breakdown in This Model?
Unlike HURIER, the breakdown isn’t isolated to one internal stage.
It may involve:
Escalating nonverbal signals
Tone shifts
Emotional contagion
Relational history
Internal stress
Lack of clarification
The breakdown is relational.
It is co-created.
Strengths of the Transactional Model
This model:
Captures relational and contextual dynamics
Explains the “dance” between participants
Highlights feedback loops
Recognizes emotional influence
Shows how meaning evolves in real time
It helps us move away from blame and toward shared responsibility.
Limitations of the Transactional Model
However, it does not detail internal cognitive processing.
It does not break listening into structured competencies like:
Hearing
Understanding
Remembering
Interpreting
Evaluating
It shows the interaction pattern — but not the step-by-step mental process inside each
participant.
That’s where models like HURIER are helpful.
Big Picture
HURIER helps us diagnose internal listening breakdowns.
The Transactional Model helps us understand relational escalation and co-created meaning.
One focuses on cognitive structure. The other focuses on dynamic interaction.
Together, they give us a more complete understanding of listening.
Listening is not just something happening inside you.
It’s happening between you.
Mindful & Empathic Listening: The Emotional and Cognitive Layer
Now let’s move into a model that shifts our focus again.
If HURIER zooms in on cognitive stages, and the Transactional Model zooms out to relational
dynamics,
Mindful and Empathic Listening zoom inward to emotional awareness and regulation.
Before we apply it, let’s look at where these ideas come from.
Origins and Development
Mindful listening draws heavily from mindfulness research in psychology and contemplative
traditions, particularly the work popularized in Western psychology in the late 20th
century.
Scholars studying attention regulation and stress reduction found that present-moment
awareness significantly improves emotional regulation and cognitive clarity.
As mindfulness entered communication and leadership research in the 1990s and 2000s,
scholars began applying it to listening.
The idea was simple but powerful:
Many listening breakdowns happen not because we lack skill — but because we are not fully
present.
At the same time, empathic listening has roots in humanistic psychology, especially the work
of Carl Rogers in the mid-20th century.
Rogers emphasized unconditional positive regard and reflective listening in therapeutic
settings.
Later interpersonal communication research expanded empathic listening beyond counseling
contexts into:
Leadership
Conflict resolution
Healthcare
Education
Organizational communication
More recent updates integrate emotional intelligence research, showing that recognizing and
regulating emotional responses is central to effective listening.
So while earlier models focused on structure and interaction, mindful and empathic listening
focus on:
Emotional awareness
Attention control
Perspective-taking
Psychological safety
Now let’s break down what that means.
Core Principles 1. Mindful Listening: Present-Moment Awareness
Mindful listening focuses on regulating attention.
It asks:
Am I fully present?
Or am I reacting internally?
Am I preparing my defense instead of hearing the message?
Mindful listening requires:
Awareness of internal thoughts
Awareness of emotional shifts
Intentional refocusing on the speaker
It does not eliminate emotion.
It helps you notice emotion without being controlled by it.
2. Empathic Listening: Understanding Emotional Meaning
Empathic listening goes one layer deeper.
It asks:
What is this person feeling?
What need might be underneath this message?
What does this situation feel like from their perspective?
Empathic listening shifts from evaluation to curiosity.
Instead of asking: “Is she right?”
It asks: “What might she be experiencing?”
This doesn’t mean agreement.
It means understanding emotional meaning.
🔍 Applying Mindful & Empathic Listening to the Maya Scenario
Let’s return to the same moment.
Maya says:
“I feel like I’m carrying most of the weight on this project.
I need you to take more initiative.”
Now we apply this model.
Mindful Listening in Action
The first thing you notice is your internal reaction.
Maybe you feel:
A surge of defensiveness
Tightness in your chest
A rush of “That’s not fair”
Mindful listening asks you to pause.
Instead of immediately responding, you notice:
“I’m feeling defensive right now.”
That awareness creates space.
You refocus your attention on her words instead of your reaction.
You think:
“What exactly did she say?”
She said: “I feel like I’m carrying most of the weight.”
That’s a feeling statement.
Mindfulness helps you separate:
Her words from your emotional response.
That pause can interrupt escalation.
Empathic Listening in Action
Now you shift perspective.
Instead of: “She’s criticizing me.”
You consider: “She might be overwhelmed.” “She might be stressed.” “She might be asking for
help.”
Empathic listening reframes the message.
You begin to hear:
“I’m struggling.”
instead of
“You’re failing.”
That shift changes your response options.
Instead of defending, you might say:
“It sounds like you’re feeling overloaded. Can we look at how we’re dividing tasks?”
Now the conversation moves toward collaboration instead of conflict.
What This Model Reveals
Mindful listening manages internal noise.
Empathic listening manages relational meaning.
Together, they help prevent emotional escalation before it happens.
Unlike HURIER, which diagnoses breakdown after it occurs, mindful and empathic listening aim
to interrupt breakdown in real time.
Strengths of Mindful & Empathic Listening
This model:
Addresses emotional noise directly
Improves emotional regulation
Reduces defensiveness
Builds psychological safety
Increases trust
Encourages perspective-taking
It is especially powerful in conflict situations.
Because many conflicts escalate not from misunderstanding facts — but from unmanaged
emotional reactions.
Limitations
However, this approach has limits.
Mindful listening requires emotional discipline.
Empathic listening requires cognitive effort and perspective-taking.
In fast-paced, high-stress environments:
People may not pause.
Emotional reactivity may override awareness.
Time pressure may reduce reflective space.
It is easier to practice in calm settings than in heated moments.
And it does not provide the structured cognitive roadmap that HURIER offers.
Big Picture
HURIER helps us understand internal listening stages.
The Transactional Model helps us understand relational dynamics.
Mindful and Empathic Listening help us regulate emotion and increase connection.
Each model highlights a different layer:
Cognitive Relational Emotional
Together, they show that listening is not just hearing words.
It is attention regulation. It is emotional management. It is relational awareness.
And when all three layers work together, listening becomes transformative.
Constructivist Listening: How We Build Meaning
Now let’s move to a model that focuses on something deeper than stages, interaction
patterns, or emotional regulation.
If HURIER focuses on internal processing, and the Transactional Model focuses on relational
exchange, and Mindful/Empathic Listening focuses on emotional awareness,
Constructivist Listening focuses on how we build reality itself.
Before we apply it, let’s look at where it comes from.
Origins and Development
Constructivist theory has roots in cognitive psychology and educational theory, particularly
the work of scholars like Jean Piaget, who argued that humans actively construct knowledge
rather than passively absorb it.
Later communication scholars applied this idea to interpersonal communication.
The core assumption became:
We don’t simply receive messages.
We interpret them through mental frameworks.
These frameworks are called schemas.
Schemas are cognitive structures built from:
Past experiences
Cultural background
Family norms
Personal beliefs
Expectations about relationships
In the 1980s and 1990s, communication scholars expanded constructivism to explain why two
people can experience the same interaction but walk away with completely different
interpretations.
More recent research integrates constructivism with intercultural communication, identity
theory, and social cognition — emphasizing that our social identities and cultural norms
strongly shape how we interpret meaning.
Constructivist listening suggests:
Listening is not just processing words.
It is filtering them through mental models we’ve built over time.
Core Principles of Constructivist Listening 1. Meaning Is Constructed, Not Discovered
We often assume meaning is “in” the message.
Constructivism says meaning is created by the listener.
The speaker provides words.
The listener supplies interpretation.
Those interpretations are shaped by schemas.
2. Schemas Shape Perception
Schemas are mental shortcuts.
They help us make sense of the world quickly.
But they also bias interpretation.
For example:
If you have a schema that “criticism equals rejection,” you may interpret feedback as a
threat to the relationship.
If you have a schema that “directness equals efficiency,” you may interpret blunt feedback
as normal and productive.
Schemas operate automatically.
Often, we don’t realize they’re influencing us.
3. Identity and Culture Influence Schemas
Constructivist listening also emphasizes:
Cultural norms
Family communication styles
Power dynamics
Gender expectations
Social identity
All of these shape the frameworks we use to interpret messages.
Two people can hear the same sentence — and construct entirely different meanings.
🔍 Applying Constructivist Listening to the Maya Scenario
Let’s return again to Maya’s statement:
“I feel like I’m carrying most of the weight on this project.
I need you to take more initiative.”
Now we ask:
What schemas are at play?
Your Schema
Imagine you grew up in a household where feedback felt harsh or critical.
Maybe mistakes were highlighted more than effort.
Over time, you developed a schema:
“Feedback means I’ve failed.”
When Maya speaks, that schema activates automatically.
You may construct the message as:
“She thinks I’m incompetent.” “She’s disappointed in me.” “This is about my character.”
Even if Maya’s intention was about workload, your schema filters it through a threat lens.
Maya’s Schema
Now consider Maya’s background.
Maybe she grew up in an environment where directness was normal.
Maybe in her family or culture, being straightforward signals trust.
Her schema might be:
“If I don’t speak directly, the problem won’t get solved.”
So when she says: “I need you to take more initiative,”
She may mean: “We need to rebalance tasks.”
She may not perceive her tone as harsh at all.
From her perspective, she is being clear and efficient.
Two Different Constructions
Same words.
Two different mental constructions.
Constructivist listening shows us that the breakdown may not be:
Mishearing
Misunderstanding vocabulary
Even emotional escalation
It may be schema collision.
Your framework and her framework are not aligned.
Meaning diverges before either of you realize it.
What This Model Reveals
Constructivism explains why:
Good intentions don’t guarantee good outcomes
Cultural misunderstandings occur
Feedback feels personal to some but neutral to others
Conflict can arise even without hostility
It shifts the question from:
“Who is right?”
to
“How are we constructing this differently?”
That shift reduces blame and increases curiosity.
Strengths of Constructivist Listening
This model:
Explains perception differences clearly
Is powerful for intercultural communication analysis
Helps uncover hidden assumptions
Encourages self-awareness about bias
Highlights identity and social influence
It is especially useful in diverse teams or cross-cultural environments.
Because many misunderstandings are not about intent — they’re about interpretation
frameworks.
Limitations
However, constructivism can feel abstract.
It explains why interpretations differ, but it does not always provide concrete behavioral
steps for change.
It doesn’t break listening into stages like HURIER.
It doesn’t map relational feedback loops like the Transactional Model.
It doesn’t explicitly guide emotional regulation like Mindful Listening.
It focuses on cognitive frameworks — not specific skills.
Big Picture
HURIER shows us internal processing stages.
The Transactional Model shows us co-created relational dynamics.
Mindful and Empathic Listening show us emotional regulation and perspective-taking.
Constructivist Listening shows us the mental frameworks shaping interpretation.
Each model answers a different question:
HURIER: Where did the breakdown occur internally?
Transactional: How are we shaping meaning together?
Mindful/Empathic: How do we regulate emotion and build connection?
Constructivist: What schemas are shaping our interpretation?
Together, they reveal that listening is not passive.
It is cognitive construction, emotional regulation, relational exchange, and identity
negotiation — all at once.
Revisiting the Scenario: Theory-by-Theory
Now let’s zoom out one more time.
We’ve analyzed Maya’s statement through multiple theoretical lenses.
Let’s bring them all back together.
Maya says:
“I feel like I’m carrying most of the weight on this project.
I need you to take more initiative.”
Same moment.
Different theories.
Watch how each one highlights a different layer of what’s happening.
HURIER Model
HURIER asks:
Where did the internal breakdown occur?
In this scenario, the likely breakdown happened at:
Interpreting — assigning negative intent to Maya’s emotional statement
Evaluating — judging her comment as unfair or accusatory
The issue wasn’t hearing or understanding vocabulary.
It was how meaning was interpreted and judged internally.
HURIER gives us cognitive precision.
Transactional Model
The Transactional Model asks:
How are we co-creating this interaction in real time?
Here, meaning wasn’t just inside your head.
It was shaped between you.
Your crossed arms influenced her tone.
Her tone influenced your defensiveness.
Internal and external noise intensified the exchange.
Relational history shaped expectations.
The breakdown was relational and dynamic.
Meaning evolved moment by moment.
Listening Fidelity
Listening Fidelity asks:
Did your constructed meaning match her intended meaning?
Maybe Maya meant:
“I’m overwhelmed and need help.”
But you heard:
“You’re not doing enough.”
That gap represents low fidelity.
The mismatch between intent and interpretation fueled the tension.
This theory helps us measure alignment.
Mindful Listening
Mindful Listening asks:
Were you aware of your internal reaction?
You may have felt defensiveness rising.
Mindfulness would involve noticing:
“I’m reacting strongly right now.”
That pause could create space before escalation.
This model helps regulate internal noise.
Empathic Listening
Empathic Listening asks:
What is Maya feeling?
Instead of focusing on whether she was right or wrong, you might ask:
“What might she be experiencing?”
If you interpret her statement as stress rather than accusation, your response shifts.
Empathy reduces defensiveness by reframing emotional meaning.
Constructivist Listening
Constructivist Listening asks:
What schemas shaped this interpretation?
If you associate feedback with personal criticism, your schema filters her message as
attack.
If Maya associates directness with efficiency, her schema frames her message as practical
problem-solving.
The breakdown may not be about intent.
It may be about schema collision.
This theory explains why the same words can produce different realities.
Social Cognitive Listening Theory
Social Cognitive theory asks:
What mental processes shaped your response?
Your attribution of intent (“She’s accusing me.”)
Your emotional appraisal (“This feels unfair.”)
Your expectations about group roles
All influenced your behavioral response.
This model connects thought patterns to listening behavior.
Supportive Listening
Supportive Listening asks:
Did your response provide emotional or informational support?
Instead of defending, you might say:
“It sounds like you’re feeling overwhelmed.”
That validation could help Maya feel heard.
Supportive listening strengthens relational satisfaction, especially in stress contexts.
The Big Insight
Same sentence.
Same people.
Same moment.
But each theory reveals a different layer:
Cognitive processing
Relational feedback loops
Meaning alignment
Emotional regulation
Perspective-taking
Schema construction
Attribution patterns
Support behaviors
No single theory explains everything.
But together, they show us something powerful:
Listening is multi-layered.
It is cognitive. It is emotional. It is relational. It is interpretive. It is behavioral.
And that’s why improving listening requires more than one tool.
Closing
As we wrap up Unit 3, here’s what I want you to carry with you:
Listening is not a single skill.
It’s layered.
Cognitive. Relational. Emotional. Interpretive. Behavioral.
Each theory we explored reveals something different happening beneath the surface of a
conversation.
HURIER helps you diagnose internal processing breakdowns.
The Transactional Model shows how meaning is co-created in real time.
Listening Fidelity helps you measure alignment between intention and interpretation.
Mindful and Empathic Listening help regulate emotion and build connection.
Constructivist theory explains how schemas shape interpretation.
The other models deepen our understanding of support, attribution, and behavioral response.
No single theory explains everything.
But together, they give you analytical power.
And that’s your task in this unit:
Not just to describe the theories.
Not just to define terms.
But to analyze them. Compare them. Apply them. Evaluate their strengths and limitations.
When you can take a real conversation — like the Maya scenario — and examine it through
multiple theoretical lenses, you begin to see communication differently.
You begin to see how meaning is constructed, negotiated, escalated, or repaired.
That’s when listening stops being automatic.
And starts becoming intentional.
Thanks for engaging deeply with Unit 3.
I’m excited to see how you apply these theories to your own listening scenarios.