University students’ explanations for their descriptions of people who stutter: An exploratory...

Journal of Fluency Disorders 35 (2010) 280–298

University students’ explanations for their descriptions of peoplewho stutter: An exploratory mixed model study

Stephanie Hughes a,∗, Rodney Gabel b, Farzan Irani c, Adam Schlagheck b

a Department of Communication Disorders, Governors State University, 1 University Parkway, University Park, IL 60484, United Statesb Department of Communication Disorders, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, United Statesc Department of Communication Disorders, Texas State University San Marcos, San Marcos, TX 78666, United States

Received 9 December 2008; received in revised form 13 May 2010; accepted 13 May 2010

Abstract

Semantic differential instruments are often used to assess fluent speakers’ attitudes toward people who stutter (PWS). Suchinstruments are prone to response bias and often lack the power to explain respondents’ general impressions of PWS. To addressthese concerns 149 fluent university students completed an open-ended questionnaire in which they described PWS and providedan explanation for their descriptions. A mixed model design with a qualitative emphasis allowed for thematic as well as quantitativedata analysis. The results suggest that individuals may have simultaneously positive and negative attitudes toward PWS regardlessof gender or familiarity with PWS. Multiple explanations were provided and took into account personal and societal reactions tostuttering. Fluent speakers appear to perceive PWS as being likeable individuals who are poor communicators, a combination ofhigh-warmth and low-competence that elicits pity and passive harm from listeners according to social psychologists (Cuddy et al.,2008). The implications of these findings and future research directions are discussed.

Educational objectives: After reading this article, the reader will be able to: (1) describe issues of concern related to themeasurement of attitudes toward PWS; (2) describe how mixed (qualitative and quantitative) designs can contribute to a deeperunderstanding of fluent speakers’ attitudes toward PWS; and (3) discuss how the ways in which fluent speakers’ thoughts aboutstuttering and PWS can influence their emotions and behaviors when in the presence of someone who stutters.© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Stuttering; Stereotyping; Attitude measurement; Mixed methods research

1. Introduction

Most groups of fluent speakers appear to hold negative attitudes toward people who stutter (PWS). Thesegroups include a variety of professionals such as speech-language pathologists (Lass, Ruscello, Pannbacker,Schmitt, & Everly-Myers, 1989; Turnbaugh, Guitar, & Hoffman, 1979; Woods & Williams, 1971; Yairi &Williams, 1970), educators (Crowe & Walton, 1981; Dorsey & Guenther, 2000; Lass et al., 1992, 1994; Ruscello,Lass, Schmitt, & Pannbacker, 1994), and members of the general public (Doody, Kalinowski, Armson, &Stuart, 1993; Ham, 1990; Hulit & Wirtz, 1994). These studies have concluded that although PWS are per-ceived as having some positive personality traits such as friendliness and cooperativeness, as compared to

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 708 534 4594; fax: +1 708 235 2195.E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (S. Hughes).

0094-730X/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2010.05.006

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2010.05.006

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2010.05.006

S. Hughes et al. / Journal of Fluency Disorders 35 (2010) 280–298 281

fluent speakers PWS are considered to be more shy, anxious, withdrawn, and guarded among other negativetraits.

In the current study the findings of previous investigations of fluent speakers’ attitudes toward PWS are examined,followed by a critical review of the methodologies that have been used in these studies. Research methods which maybe helpful in better understanding attitudes toward PWS are then proposed in relation to the present investigation.

1.1. Overview of the measurement of attitudes toward PWS

A series of seminal studies that explored speech clinicians’ attitudes toward PWS were conducted by Yairi andWilliams (1970) and Woods and Williams (1971). These studies have served as a foundation for most of the existingresearch on this topic. Yairi and Williams (1970) asked school-based speech clinicians in the state of Iowa to completean open-ended questionnaire in which they provided a written list of traits that could be used to describe elementaryschool-age boys who stutter. Participants most frequently provided a total of 26 traits to describe boys who stutter.Seventeen of these traits were judged by the researchers to be negative or undesirable, and only nine of the traitswere judged to be positive or desirable. Most of these characteristics were related to personality traits rather than tophysical or intelligence traits. The ten most cited traits, in order of the most frequently occurring, were nervous, shy,withdrawn, tense, anxious, self-conscious, insecure, sensitive, quiet, and intelligent. Similar adjectives were providedin a follow-up study in which respondents were asked to list traits that described men who stutter, leading Woods andWilliams (1971) to conclude that speech clinicians tend to believe that “a stutterer is a stutterer is a stutterer” (p. 232).

The adjectives that speech clinicians provided to describe boys and men who stutter were arranged as semanticdifferential (SD) scales by Woods and Williams (1976). The SD method (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957) allowsresearchers to measure attitudes via bipolar Likert scales in which contrasting adjectives are placed at opposite ends ofeach scale. The Woods and Williams SD scales consisted of 25 paired items (e.g., open-guarded, friendly–unfriendly,fearful–fearless, etc.). These scales were administered to groups of respondents which included college students,teachers, speech clinicians, parents of PWS, and PWS. Participants used the scales to rate each of four hypotheticalpeople, including a typical eight-year-old male, a typical eight-year-old male who stutters, a typical adult male, anda typical adult male who stutters. The results of this study indicated that 95% of traits that were judged as negativewere applied to males who stutter versus typical males who do not stutter. Significant differences in ratings were notobserved based on the age of the hypothetical person who stutters (child versus adult). Woods and Williams (1976)concluded that these negative attitudes indicated the presence of a pervasive negative stereotype towards PWS by mostgroups of listeners. Decades of research in which SD scales have been used to investigate attitudes toward PWS havesupported this conclusion (e.g., Collins & Blood, 1990; Dorsey & Guenther, 2000; Doody et al., 1993; Gabel, 2006;Kalinowski, Armson, Stuart, & Lerman, 1993; White & Collins, 1984).

1.2. Effects of diverse variables on attitudes toward PWS

Numerous researchers have used the SD method to investigate variables associated with stuttering, PWS, and fluentspeakers. For example, SD scales have been administered to a variety of fluent speakers to assess the degree to whichseverity of stuttering influences positive or negative reactions from fluent speakers. In general, as stuttering severityincreases, so too does the rating of negative traits assigned to the person who stutters (e.g., Collins & Blood, 1990;Turnbaugh et al., 1979). And while most fluent speakers report that they want PWS to use therapeutic techniques, SDratings are actually less positive when these techniques are employed (Gabel, 2006; Manning, Burlison, & Thaxton,1999). Conversely, increased eye contact (Atkins, 1988; Tatchell, van den Berg, & Lerman, 1983) and acknowledgementof stuttering (e.g., Collins & Blood, 1990; Healey, Gabel, Daniels, & Kawai, 2007) have been found to promote morepositive SD ratings in some contexts. Consideration of other factors, such as gender and familiarity with PWS, hasresulted in less conclusive findings which are considered below.

1.2.1. GenderSemantic differential scales have been used to assess how the gender of PWS and fluent speakers affects ratings of

personality and other traits. Burley and Rinaldi (1986) asked ten male and ten female naïve listeners who ranged in agefrom 15 to 35 years to rate recorded speech samples of both male and female PWS on a variety of traits. Significantdifferences were found for male and female listener ratings, with men tending to rate speech samples of PWS more

282 S. Hughes et al. / Journal of Fluency Disorders 35 (2010) 280–298

negatively than women. The gender of the person who stutters did not have an effect on the ratings by the male orfemale listeners. Patterson and Pring (1991) replicated this study but included a control group of fluent speech samplesfor the 20 male and 20 female naïve listeners. The results indicated that male and female listeners did not providesignificantly different SD ratings, nor did they rate males versus females who stutter differently. Other studies have alsoreported conflicting findings when the SD ratings of male and female listeners were considered. Weisel and Spektor(1998) found that male adolescents tended to rate PWS more negatively than female adolescents, but this differencehas not been observed for younger children (Hartford & Leahy, 2007; Langevin & Hagler, 2004). In total these studiessuggest that while the gender of the person who stutters probably does not contribute to stereotypical perceptions ofPWS, it is unclear to what extent, if any, the gender of fluent speakers influences attitudes toward stuttering and PWS.

1.2.2. Familiarity with PWSLike gender, the degree to which familiarity with stuttering and PWS influences fluent speakers’ attitudes is not

precisely known. For example, Crowe and Cooper (1977) and Fowlie and Cooper (1978) found that children who stutterwere negatively stereotyped by their parents. Similarly, Doody et al. (1993) administered SD scales to 106 members ofthe general public in three small, rural communities in Newfoundland, Canada. Eighty-five percent of the respondentsknew at least one person who stutters and 39% reported a familial relationship with someone who stutters. Statisticalanalysis indicated that there were not significant differences between members of the three communities or betweenrespondents with a family member who stutters versus those who did not have a family member who stutters. PWSwere perceived as being significantly different from people who do not stutter on 20 of the 25 scale items and wereperceived as being more guarded, nervous, shy, self-conscious, tense, sensitive, anxious, withdrawn, quiet, avoiding,fearful, passive, afraid, introverted, insecure, emotional, self-derogatory and inflexible. The five items that were notsignificantly different included such traits as being friendly, cooperative, pleasant, intelligent and perfectionistic. Whileit is unclear why some traits are more likely than others to be attributed to PWS, the Doody et al. study indicates thatfamiliarity with PWS may not prevent the formation of stereotypes about PWS.

In contrast, Klassen (2001, 2002) conducted a series of studies to determine whether diverse groups of people mayinterpret and understand stuttering differently. In the first study, 114 friends and colleagues of PWS were given a writtenquestionnaire that included SD scales. The first part of the questionnaire assessed participants’ attitudes toward PWS ingeneral whereas the second part assessed participants’ attitudes toward a particular individual who stutters with whomparticipants were familiar. Participants reported less stereotypical beliefs about PWS in general, suggesting that theincreased social closeness of some people to PWS had a positive effect on their attitudes toward PWS in general. In asubsequent study, Klassen (2002) identified six PWS and surveyed their close acquaintances (including friends, family,teachers, fellow students, and colleagues) to see if these significant others held the same negative stereotypes towardPWS that have been pervasive throughout the literature. The results indicated that the people who were personallyacquainted with at least one person who stutters rated PWS more favorably on personality dimensions than has beenreported for members of the general public. As a whole, the Klassen (2001) and Klassen (2002) studies suggest thatongoing contact with someone who stutters may lead to increased positive attitudes toward PWS; conversely, peoplewho have little or no contact with someone who stutters may be more likely to hold negative stereotypes about PWS.

Gabel, Blood, Tellis, and Althouse (2004) also investigated the effects of familiarity on perceptions of PWS. Collegestudents who had varying degrees of familiarity with PWS completed a 25-item SD questionnaire. Unlike Klassen’sfindings, no significant differences were noted based on level of familiarity with PWS. Gabel et al. (2004) suggestedthat future studies should investigate both the quality and the quantity of relationships that participants have withindividuals who stutter, as the nature of the relationship(s) and the number of PWS that one knows may influenceattitudes toward PWS. Thus, more research is needed before the effects of familiarity with PWS can be definitivelystated to impact or not impact fluent speakers’ perceptions of stuttering and PWS.

1.3. Methodological implications

Attitudes toward PWS have been measured using a limited number of research methodologies. The most commonof these methods has been the use of the Woods and Williams (1976) SD scales, whether in the original or a mod-ified form. Semantic differential scales in general are practical because they can be administered relatively quicklyand inexpensively to large numbers of participants (Schneider, 2005); however, there are several limitations to thismethod of attitude assessment. One limitation is that the bipolar scale items that comprise SD instruments, such as


introverted–extroverted and open-guarded are assumed to hold the same meaning for all respondents. If the scale itemshave different connotations and implications for respondents, it may be difficult to establish meaningful group trendsamong participants’ responses (Schneider, 2005). Another limitation is that participants tend to give socially desirableor moderate responses to scale items, which may lessen the validity of data obtained via SD instruments (Baron,1996). It may also be difficult to assess the subtle nuances of participants’ beliefs when their responses consist onlyof numerical values (Snyder, 2001). Accordingly, updated and more varied methodologies appear necessary to gain amore thorough understanding of fluent speakers’ attitudes toward PWS.

1.3.1. Qualitative versus quantiative methodsNot all of the research related to attitudes toward PWS has been quantitative, and so it seems appropriate to contrast

quantitative methods, most often applied via semantic differential scales, with qualitative research. Qualitative researchdesigns allow researchers to ask questions that assess participants’ subjective understanding of the phenomena underinvestigation (Creswell, 1998). Interviews, focus groups, and open-ended written surveys are all types of qualitativeresearch. Collecting qualitative data about participants’ experiences and opinions allows researchers to generate newtheories that explain how participants understand the world around them and the ways in which their attitudes, thoughts,and behaviors are shaped by this understanding.

According to Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), the qualitative paradigm is quite distinct from the quantitativeone in several aspects. Whereas quantitative studies are generally experimental in nature and involve large numbers ofparticipants, qualitative studies are the opposite and rely on descriptive data gathered from small numbers of particpants.As such the results of qualitative studies cannot be generalized to the larger population. Qualitative researchers cannotrely on statistical output and so data analysis may be more subjective and prone to researcher bias. In contrast,quantitative researchers may assume that they are already aware of the major issues that form the basis of participants’thoughts, emotions, or behaviors, and may define variables and create categories that result in forced-choice responsesthat do not take into account more nuanced aspects of participants’ responses.

The repeated use of quantiative SD scales has produced results that appear to be highly reliable, as the majority ofthese studies have found that fluent speakers stereotype PWS in similar ways. Purely qualitative studies, which mayhave more validity and provide more information about the basis for fluent speakers’ attitudes toward PWS, have beenrare. In one exception, Susca and Healey (2002) asked participants to respond orally to five questions about disfluentspeech samples and found that a number of issues impact fluent listeners’ attitudes toward PWS. In addition to aspectsrelated to the topic of converation and the speaker who stutters (e.g., speech production and personality characteristics),the comfort level of fluent listeners also influences their attitudes toward PWS and stuttered speech. Perceived listenereffort and distraction, as well as the effects of listening context and content familiarity were all found to contribute tothe reactions of fluent speakers to PWS. Thus, while there is a lack of qualitative research related to attitudes towardPWS, incorporating qualitative designs appears to be a helpful way to obtain more information about the nature andmeaning of fluent speakers’ attitudes toward PWS.

1.3.2. Mixed methods researchIf quantitative methods provide breadth of understanding and qualitative methods provide depth of understanding,

mixed methods research that combines both paradigms may contribute more fully to what is known of fluent speakers’perceptions of PWS. Teddlie and Tashakkori (2003) suggest that stronger inferences can be made based on moredivergent viewpoints when mixed methods are used, and that some research questions simply cannot be answered by asingle approach. While most research methodologists now believe that blending quantitative and qualitative approachesis methodologically sound, there is still some debate over precisely how the mixing of methods should occur. The nextparagraph discusses how reseachers have used mixed methods to study fluent speakers’ perceptions of stuttering andbuilds support for the use of mixed methods in the present study.

There are myriad ways in which researchers may choose to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches, andsome of these methods have been used by researchers who have investigated stuttering stereotypes. For example,researchers may opt to gather qualitative data and analyze it quantitatively. This method has been used in studiesin which relatively large numbers of participants were asked to list adjectives that describe PWS (Lass et al., 1989,1992, 1994; Ruscello et al., 1994; Woods & Williams, 1971; Yairi & Williams, 1970). The adjectives that participantsprovided in these studies were analyzed for frequency counts, thus “quantitizing” the qualitative data, a term coinedby Miles and Huberman (1994). This example of a mixed method study conforms to the complementary strengths


thesis, in which both qualitative and quantitative methods are employed but are kept relatively separate, preservingthe strengths and adhering to the paradigmatic “rules” of each method (Brewer & Hunter, 1989). These studies haveshown that large groups of fluent speakers appear to describe PWS the same way when given the opportunity to do soin an open-ended format; however, because the emphasis was on quantitative methods these studies contribute little toour understanding of why respondents provided these descriptions.

Another type of mixed method study commonly employed in stuttering research is to ask participants to provideopen-ended statements along with their quantitatively-driven responses (e.g., Healey et al., 2007; Manning et al., 1999;Panico, Healey, Brouwer, & Susca, 2005). Most of these studies have tended to quantitize the qualitative data so thatparticipants’ open-ended responses are categorized as positive or negative statements and reported as percentage data.Studies of this nature which provide in-depth analysis of both the qualitative and quantitative data are relatively rare,perhaps due to the discipline’s traditional emphasis on quantitative methods and restictions to publication length.

The preceding discussion indicates that there has been a quantitative emphasis in the mixed methods investigationsof attitudes toward PWS, perhaps reflecting researcher comfort with the quantitative paradigm and the desirability ofresults that can be generalized to the larger population of fluent speakers. To date relatively simple mixed methodsdesigns have been employed but there are many advanced designs that may allow the data to be analyzed from aqualitative perspective before the results are quantitized and generalized to the larger population. While the specifictype of mixed method design used in this study is discussed in the methods section, the reader is directed to Creswell,Plano Clark, Gutmann, and Hanson (2003) and Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) for more information about the manytypes of advanced mixed methods that may be used depending on one’s research purpose.

1.4. Need for the present study

Most of the research related to fluent speakers’ attitudes toward PWS has focused quantitatively on the descriptionsof PWS obtained via semantic differential scales. The present study attempted to explore the deeper meanings of fluentspeakers’ descriptions of PWS, and, by extension, fluent speakers’ attitudes toward PWS. To that end, the purposeof this study was to gather data regarding not only fluent speakers’ descriptions of PWS, but also to obtain a betterunderstanding of the factors which contributed to these descriptions. The effects of gender and familiarity with PWSwere examined due to conflicting results in previous studies. Thus, the three research questions that guided this studywere:

1. What descriptions of PWS do fluent speakers provide when asked to provide an open-ended response?2. What rationale or explanations do fluent speakers provide for these descriptions?3. Are quantitative differences observed on the basis of gender and level of familiarity with PWS?

2. Method

2.1. Design

As the review of the literature indicated that both qualitative and quantitative approaches are useful in addressingattitudes toward PWS, a mixed approach was taken in the development of the current study. Mixed research designshave been defined as “the incorporation of various qualitative or quantitative strategies within a single project thatmay have either a qualitative or quantitative theoretical drive” (Morse, 2003, p. 190). In this study the theoretical drivewas qualitative in nature; however, the relatively large number of participants who provided data made it possible toincorporate quantitative research questions, data analysis, and inferences into the research process. Thus, the mixeddesign allowed the researchers to gain an in-depth understanding of participants’ responses while simultaneouslyframing these responses in the context of participants’ gender and familiarity with PWS. The design also allowed theresearchers to collect information about the frequency and percentages of participants’ responses, as is typical of paststudies that have examined fluent speakers’ descriptions of PWS.

Specifically, this study used a multistrand conversion mixed model design (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). This typeof design integrates both qualitative and quantitative approaches into various phases of the research study, includingdevelopment of research questions, data collection, data analysis, and synthesis of the qualitative and quantitativeresults to form conclusions. In many ways this design is similar to the sequential exploratory design (Creswell et al.,


Table 1Familiarity with PWS by number of PWS known (n = 149).

Familiarity level with PWS Number PWS known at level of familiarity Number of participants

None 0 38

Not very well 0 911 382 73 84–7 5

Well 0 991 382 83 34–7 1

Very well 0 1141 262 9

2003), in which data is gathered and analyzed first qualitatively and then quantitatively to gain more insights from theinitial qualitative results. The multistrand mixed model design, however, integrates qualitative and quantitative researchprinciples into the entire study, not simply its methods.

2.2. Participants

A total of 149 students from a medium-sized university in the Midwest served as participants. The 101 women(68%) and 48 men (32%) were recruited from a variety of academic majors and were generally representative of theuniversity in terms of gender, ethnicity, and academic status (e.g., undergraduate and graduate students). The averageage of participants was 22.5 years (SD = 6.18) with a range of 18–58 years. Students were required to be at least 18years of age to participate and could not have a history of stuttering. Students who majored in communication disorderswere excluded from the data set.

Participants varied in terms of their familiarity with PWS and ranged from knowing no one who stutters to knowingnine PWS (M = 1.43, SD = 1.51). Thirty-eight participants (25.5%) reported not knowing anyone who stutters. Theremaining 111 participants (74.5%) reported knowing a combined total of 214 PWS. Participants also indicated howwell they knew their acquaintances who stutter (e.g., not very well, well, and very well). Participants sometimes knewmultiple PWS with varying levels of familiarity for each as is demonstrated in Table 1. When the highest level offamiliarity with at least one person who stutters was considered, 37 participants (24.8%) knew someone who stuttersbut not very well, 44 (29.5%) knew someone who stutters well, and 30 (20.1%) knew someone who stutters very well.The ways in which participants knew PWS included (a) professional/working relationships (e.g., customer service,military, and babysitting), (b) school or university acquaintances (e.g., classmates, teachers, and coaches), (c) closefriendships or romantic relationships, (d) social acquaintances (e.g., church members and teammates), and (d) familymembers, often younger siblings or nieces/nephews. In addition, 34 participants (22.8%) reported taking some type ofclass that mentioned communication disorders in general, but only four of these participants had ever taken a formalcommunication disorders class (e.g., Introduction to Communication Disorders).

2.3. Instrumentation

A written survey was administered to participants and consisted of a demographic questionnaire and two open-ended questions. The demographic portion of the survey asked participants to provide such information as age, gender,ethnicity, and academic major. Participants were also asked to indicate whether they considered themselves to be aperson who stutters (either currently or in the past), and if they ever had a class that discussed communication problems.In addition, participants were asked if they know/knew someone who stutters, and if so, how well they know/knew


that person and in what context. The second part of the survey consisted of two open-ended questions that askedparticipants to describe PWS (“How would you describe someone who stutters?”) and was similar to other studies thathave asked participants this question (Lass et al., 1989, 1992, 1994; Ruscello et al., 1994; Yairi & Williams, 1970;Woods & Williams, 1971). Unlike other studies, the present study also asked participants to provide a rationale fortheir description (“Why did you choose these words?”). The questionnaire provided ample space for participants torespond. The written instructions that preceded the questions asked participants to be as honest as possible with theiranswers and assured participants that their responses would not be judged as right or wrong.

2.4. Procedure

The first author personally invited students to participate in the study by visiting a number of university classrooms.Every effort was made to visit a variety of courses with students of diverse majors and academic grade levels. Duringthese classroom visits, the author emphasized that one could complete the survey even if one did not know a person whostutters, and that students’ responses would remain confidential. Students who decided to participate completed thesurvey outside of class and mailed the survey to the researchers at their convenience. Follow-up procedures, includingmultiple e-mail reminder notices, were conducted as described by Dillman (2007) and a response rate of 35.8% wasobtained. While the response rate seems low according to the standards for quantitative research, a review of the generalqualitative and mixed methods literature does not provide any indication of the expected response rate for written,open-ended surveys of large numbers of participants. In addition, while it is impossible to be completely certain thatthere was not a sampling bias, (i.e., students who knew someone who stutters were more likely to respond to the surveythan those who did not), the familiarity characteristics of the participants seem to be similar to those in previous studies(e.g., Ham, 1990; Doody et al., 1993; Swartz, Gabel, Hughes, & Irani, 2009).

Interviews with a subset of the larger sample population were also conducted to engage in member checking.Member checking can play an important role in qualitative research, as it allows researchers to ask participants if theirresponses have been validly interpreted (Glesne, 2005). In the present study the written survey included a form forparticipants to complete if they were willing to meet with the first author for an interview. Of the 149 participants, 56indicated they would consider participating in an interview. Everyone who expressed an interest in being interviewedreceived an e-mail asking for a meeting but some participants had scheduling conflicts and others never responded.In total, 18 participants who completed the written survey also completed a 10–20 min face-to-face interview withthe first author. Of these interviewees, 6 knew someone who stutters and 12 did not, a ratio that is largely consistentwith the larger sample (e.g., 25% of participants did not know someone who stutters and 75% did). Accordingly, theparticipants who were interviewed seemed to be representative of the larger sample.

The main purpose of these interviews was to ask questions that helped to clarify not only individual participantresponses but to ensure that the larger conclusions that the researchers were drawing from the ongoing written dataanalysis were valid. For example, an interviewee was asked, “I noticed that you, like many other participants, seemedto think that PWS are shy and nervous. Do I have that right?. . .You also gave some examples that made me thinkthat perhaps this shyness and nervousness develops because of how people in society respond to stuttering. Is that afair statement or would you put it another way?” Participants’ responses to these types of semi-structured interviewquestions were transcribed verbatim and provided an extra safeguard against bias.

In addition, interviewees were asked to imitate or describe stuttering. They were asked to do so to give the researchersa general impression about how participants may have perceived the core and/or secondary effects of stuttering, as thisquestion was not asked on the written survey. Most of the interviewees described or imitated stuttering as part-wordrepetitions or prolongations. While this finding is not meant to suggest that all of the participants who took the writtensurvey perceived stuttering in the same way, it does suggest that participants in general were able to differentiatebetween the core characteristics of stuttered speech and the more typical disfluencies associated with the speech ofpeople who do not stutter (e.g., interjections, phrase repetitions, etc.).

2.5. Data analysis

Procedures for qualitative data analysis as described by Bogdan and Biklen (1992) and Miles and Huberman (1994)were used to analyze participants’ written responses to the survey questions. The decision to use computer softwareor to analyze data manually is an individual one dependent on the inclination and expertise of the researchers and the


time and funds available (Basit, 2003). As either method has been found to be equally valid, manual data analysis wasperformed in this study.

In the first step of the analysis process the first, third, and fourth authors individually read through the writtenresponses several times, making reflective notes in the margins of the transcripts. The authors then combined theirrespective ideas about the nature of participants’ responses and considered how the responses could be categorizedand organized. A coding system began to emerge as a result of this process. After the data set had been examinedas a whole for context and a consensus was reached regarding the major codes, the authors were in agreement thatit was appropriate to sub-code the descriptions of the personal traits of PWS into positive and negative traits. Thisdecision was prompted by the nature of participants’ responses and the precedence for doing so in previous studies ofthis nature. The procedure for coding traits as positive or negative followed the procedures as set forth by Healey et al.(2007), Lass et al. (1989, 1992, 1994), and Manning et al. (1999).

As part of the manual coding process an Excel spreadsheet was created in which participants’ numbers and responsesto the questions were placed in the left side of the spreadsheet, and a list of the major and sub codes as agreed uponby the authors were placed on the right side. The first author then coded all of the data by circling the codes whichwere associated with the participants’ responses. A tally was kept of the number of statements assigned to each code.A subset of the data was subsequently coded by the third and fourth authors to ensure credibility and reliability (seeSection 2.6). Finally, the major and minor codes were contextualized into larger thematic units.

Quantitative data analysis took place after the qualitative analysis was complete. Participants’ responses wereanalyzed for frequency counts and percentage data as a means of helping to make broader inferences from the data.The total number of statements related to each major code was used in the calculation of Multivariate Analysis ofVariance (MANOVA) statistics for gender, level of familiarity with PWS, and gender/familiarity interaction. It shouldbe noted that these parametric statistics were conducted after the qualitative data was analyzed as a means of obtaininga more holistic view of fluent speakers’ descriptions of PWS. As such, the rigid controls employed in experimentalquantitative studies were not feasible in the present study due to the nature of mixed methods research.

2.6. Credibility and reliability

As this study was primarily qualitative in nature, the assumptions for credible and reliable qualitative researchwere met as set forth by Creswell (1998). A number of techniques were employed to help ensure that the resultsand conclusions drawn from the qualitative data were not biased. Triangulation was employed by comparing multipledata sources (e.g., written and interview data) as well as the use of the mixed qualitative-quantitative design. Twopeer reviewers (the third and fourth authors) had backgrounds in fluency disorders and qualitative research methods.They, along with the first author, developed the codes that ultimately became the themes in the results section. Inter-rater reliability was established by using a randomly selected subset of the larger data set (approximately 25% ofresponses). These data were analyzed by the peer reviewers and the first author. Inter-rater percent agreement was94.1% and Cohen’s Kappa, a more stringent measure of agreement, was calculated to be .93. Measures of intra-rater reliability were obtained as the first author re-coded the data subset approximately two weeks after the inter-rater reliability measures were obtained. Intra-rater percent agreement was 96.9% and Cohen’s Kappa was .96. Inaddition, the authors employed two “devil’s advocates” to help ensure that their conclusions were as free from biasas possible. The first devil’s advocate was a recognized fluency specialist who had no interest in the outcome of thestudy, and the second was an individual with qualitative research expertise whose content area was not communicationdisorders in order to facilitate a broader interpretation of the data. These individuals confirmed that the themes wereappropriate.

3. Results

3.1. Qualitative findings

Participants’ responses generally consisted of two parts: their answers to the first survey question, “How would youdescribe someone who stutters?” and to the follow-up question, “Why did you choose these words?” Thus, themesemerged which were associated with the descriptive responses and the explanatory responses. The major themes whichaccounted for the majority of participants’ responses are presented below. The responses are quoted in their entirety


Table 2Participants’ statements related to descriptions of PWS.

Descriptive themes Examples/quotes

Personal characteristics (D1) Positive descriptions:• Normal, just like anybody else• Caring, patient, kind, accepting, understanding• Smart, as intelligent as anyone elseNegative descriptions:• Frustrated/frustrating, impatient, angry, annoying• Shy, quiet, reserved• Someone with a learning disability, mentally impaired

Stuttering-related communication difficulties (D2) Generic speech issues:• Someone who has a hard time saying words• People with a minor speech problemCore stuttering behaviors:• Someone who repeats the first letter of words• One who experiences prolonged or frequent repetition of wordsPerceived communication failures:• Hard to understand• Have a hard time getting a clear message across• Have a flaw that makes [them] seem very incapable of effectivecommunication

for additional context. The personal characteristics of the participants, including gender and familiarity with PWS aregiven to provide readers with the level of rich detail that is associated with qualitative research.

Two major themes were associated with participants’ descriptions of PWS: (1) personal characteristics (referencedas Theme D1) including emotional traits and intelligence, later coded as positive and negative, and (2) perceivedcommunication difficulties of PWS (referenced as Theme D2) including (a) general speaking difficulties and corestuttering behaviors as well as (b) communication failures such as unintelligibility and listener incomprehension. Theexplanatory statements associated with participants’ descriptions of PWS consisted of three major themes: (1) beliefsabout the emotional effects of stuttering on PWS (referenced as Theme E1), (2) concerns related to listener difficulty,usually emotional or mental, when interacting with PWS (referenced as Theme E2), and (3) observations of PWS andself (referenced as Theme E3) characterized by personal experiences with PWS, observations of PWS in the media,and inferences based on participants’ speaking experiences/disfluencies. Tables 2 and 3 provide examples taken fromparticipants’ responses for the descriptive and explanatory themes, respectively.

3.1.1. Descriptions of personal characteristics of PWSIn general participants seemed to present diverse opinions on the personality, emotional, or intelligence traits of

PWS (Theme D1). These characteristics were classified as positive and negative traits. The various explanations thatparticipants gave for these traits are cited in the text according to theme (e.g., E1, E2, or E3).

3.1.1.1. Positive characteristics. Some participants described PWS as developing certain types of characteristics suchas patience and compassion. These characteristics seemed to stem from the perceived consequences of stutteringwhich included the disrupted communication PWS experience as a result of negative listener reactions (Theme E1).One female participant with a friend who stutters from church that she knew very well described someone who stuttersas:

“Smart, understanding, and patient, because it takes patience to be the one who stutters and they tend to understandeveryone’s situation when it comes down to having a conversation with others. Stuttering also does not make aperson stupid.”

While this participant’s response is somewhat vague in terms of explaining how PWS “tend to understand everyone’ssituation” when conversing, an undergraduate female participant who knew one person who stutters well (a collegefriend who lived in the same dormitory) wrote:


Table 3Participants’ statements related to explanations for descriptions of PWS.

Explanatory Themes Examples/Quotes

Emotional effects of stuttering onPWS (E1)

Due to experiences with or fear negative listener responses:• They have most likely been teased and stereotyped all their life and probably do not want todo it to others.• They feel people will either judge them or laugh at them.• They try to avoid speaking so that they are not singled out by people for ridicule.Related to communication difficulties:• You can see the frustration in their faces when they can’t get out what they are trying to say.• They are patient because it takes more time for them to talk.

Listener difficulty with PWS (E2) Emotional/Mental Effort:• Stuttering makes it difficult or frustrating for the listener.• The stutter itself is obnoxious and causes me to become increasingly agitated.• Stuttering can make it difficult to actually care what the person is saying as the listener isfocused more on the stuttering.

Observations of PWS and self (E3) Personal experiences with PWS:• I am sure many other people that stutter are just like my friend.• Two of the three people I know who stutter have a mental disorder.• Inferences based on participants’ own speaking experiences:• I have stuttered before when I am nervous, and so maybe people who stutter are nervous aswell.• I get frustrated when I cannot express myself–anyone would.Observations of PWS in the media:• There are those who eliminate stuttering and/or overcome stuttering as a barrier and havegreat success, like James Earl Jones.

“I think they are patient because it takes more time for them to talk. I also think they are more compassionateand accepting. They have most likely been teased and stereotyped all their life and probably don’t want to do itto others.”

Similarly, a female participant who had only “experienced a conversation between someone who does and someonewho doesn’t [stutter],” reported that she believes PWS to be patient because

“It’s not very easy living with a communication problem because that’s the main aspect of today’s world. Theyhave a lot of patience dealing with their problem, and forming their words, even though it may take time to getwhat they’re saying out.”

A number of participants indicated that they perceived PWS to be no different than fluent speakers. This emphasison how normal PWS are seemed to indicate positive perceptions of PWS. In some instances, the participants who madethese types of statements did not personally know anyone who stutters. A female undergraduate student who had neverinteracted with someone who stutters wrote that PWS are “normal” because “everyone is unique and different.” Inother cases participants who described PWS as being no different from fluent speakers had close familial relationshipsor friendships with PWS (Theme E3). They used these factors as the sole explanation for their description, e.g., “[PWSare] normal. My friend stutters.” Other participants remarked on their experiences with PWS in social or academicsettings. A male graduate student who knew two people who stutter very well, including a Boy Scout leader in hisyouth and a member of his church, wrote,

“I believe they are people just like anyone else. People are people that have similar wants, needs, desires, andfeelings.”

Similarly, a female undergraduate who reported casual interactions with a college classmate who stutters wrote:

“The person I talked to that stuttered seemed like a normal person. By normal, I mean he seemed to not noticethe stutter and went about like someone with no stutter does. This person was actually very talkative also. Hewas in the same speech class as me and he gave some of the better speeches.”


Other students responded in much the same way but qualified that the only way that PWS are not just like anyoneelse is because of their communication disorder. A female undergraduate student who was well acquainted with a highschool classmate who stuttered stated:

“Someone who stutters is equal to anyone else, except they are challenged in communication. But some peoplewho don’t have a stutter can also be bad communicators.”

It is worthy to note that some participants who described PWS as no different from anyone else believed that itis difficult or impossible to describe PWS based on their shared characteristics. A male undergraduate student whorecalled only brief interactions with a few PWS wrote:

“A person who stutters is no different than any other person. They should be described by their overall character,not have their overall character described by stuttering.”

On a related note, some participants were careful to indicate that their response was not meant to describe PWS, butrather the condition of stuttering. For example, a female undergraduate who knew one person who stutters well wrote:

“I wouldn’t describe the person who stutters with attributes about the stutter. People who stutter are just likeeverybody else. However, the stutter itself is obnoxious and causes me to become increasingly agitated whentrying to engage in a conversation with someone who stutters. The person themself cannot be described basedon their impediment.”

This statement and others like it seem to associate stuttering with the difficulties fluent listeners experience wheninteracting with PWS (Theme E2).

3.1.1.2. Negative characteristics. Other traits that were associated with PWS and the consequences of stuttering wereseemingly less desirable, such as being frustrated, shy, or embarrassed. In many cases the negative characteristicsassigned to PWS came from participants who knew PWS (Theme E3). For example, a male graduate student whoreported knowing four PWS (two well and two very well, both socially and in the workplace) wrote that “some [PWS]always seem insecure, apologetic, wanting acceptance, introverted, and shy” and stated that he chose these words basedon his perceptions of his interactions with PWS. One female participant wrote that a person who stutters is “someonewho already has a mental handicap, and that is what impairs their speech.” In this case, the participant reported thattwo of the three PWS she knew were mentally handicapped.

The amount of listener effort required to converse with PWS (Theme E2) was also mentioned. A male undergraduatestudent who knew three PWS, (two very well and one well), wrote:

“I would describe a person who stutters as being slightly confusing and annoying. I know most can’t help withthe stuttering but it gets annoying after awhile trying to decipher what they are trying to say. I feel they are alsoconfusing because many times they have to repeat themselves.”

Similarly, another male undergraduate student whose brother stutters wrote,

“I would describe someone who stutters as annoying and funny. I chose annoying because stuttering can makeit difficult to actually care what the person is saying as the listener is focused more on the stuttering. I also saidit can be funny because I have had had experiences where someone is trying to tell me a story and they stutterwhen they start going too fast and it can honestly be a bit humorous.”

Interestingly, a number of participants who did not know anyone who stutters attributed similar negative charac-teristics to PWS, though for different reasons. For example, an undergraduate female who did not know anyone whostutters seemed to relate the condition of stuttering to her own experiences with speaking (Theme E3) in addition toassumptions about how PWS react to their stuttering (Theme E1):

“I would probably say [PWS are] nervous, uncomfortable, and frustrated. I use these words because I’ve stutteredbefore when I’m nervous and so maybe people who stutter are nervous as well. Maybe they have anxiety issues.I used uncomfortable because I imagine they are aware that they stutter and do not like talking to people becauseof it. And finally, I used frustrated because they are unable to communicate what they want to say and beingunable to say what you want to say is very frustrating.”


3.1.2. Descriptions of PWS based on communication difficultiesSome participants described PWS according to what they perceived to be the core characteristics of stuttering, or

the ways in which the speech of PWS may differ from that of typically fluent speakers (Theme D2). Some of thesedescriptions were fairly simple, e.g., “Someone who knows what they want to say, but has trouble getting words out,”or “They have an improper or different speech pattern.” Other participants elaborated on their answers and stated thatthe basis for their descriptions of PWS was either direct (personal) or indirect (media) experiences with PWS (ThemeE3). For example, a female undergraduate student who knew two PWS (one well and one not very well) wrote:

“I would describe someone who stutters as a person who repeats syllables as he/she tries to pronounce words,much like a scratch on a CD as he/she speaks. I chose these words because this is how I personally envision aperson stuttering.”

Another female undergraduate student who did not know anyone who stutters made a similar statement:

“Someone that stutters repeats the beginning sounds of words several times before saying the word completely.I chose these words based mostly on what I’ve seen in TV or movies.”

Other participants who described PWS according to their communication difficulties explained their responses interms of the perceived emotional effects of stuttering on PWS (Theme E1). For example, a male undergraduate studentwho did not know anyone who stutters wrote:

“Someone who stutters habitually most likely suffers from a speech impediment or communication disorder. Thereason I use “sufferers” to describe their condition is that a speech impediment probably hinders the developmentof their communication skills and, therefore, the development of a thriving social life. These effects may alsolead to a substandard sense of self-esteem.”

Similarly, a female undergraduate who had multiple interactions with PWS in a variety of settings wrote:

“I would describe them as hard to understand. I say this only because it becomes frustrating to them when theycannot get the words out, so it makes it difficult or frustrating for the listener.”

This statement also relates to how some participants believed that stuttering causes difficulties for listeners, whethermentally or emotionally (Theme E2). Another female undergraduate who reported being around only a few PWS andstated that these interactions were “short and uncomfortable” also emphasized the difficulty that PWS have in beingunderstood due to their stuttering disorder:

“I believe they are loud because they think they need to repeat themselves for understanding purposes and becomeloud. I believe they shake because they realize they are stuttering and shake because they are trying to get thewords out.”

3.2. Quantitative results

The number of statements made by participants (n = 409, M = 2.75, SD = 1.63) were analyzed quantitativelyafter the qualitative data were coded and themes established. The responses consisted of statements that describedthe characteristics or traits associated with PWS (n = 252, M = 1.69, SD = .96) and explanatory statements inwhich participants provided a rationale for their descriptions of PWS (n = 157, M = 1.05, SD = 1.04). Descrip-tive statistics for the thematic data can be found in Table 4. Participants frequently provided responses thatrepresented more than one descriptive or explanatory theme. For example, participants sometimes providedboth positive and negative descriptions of PWS and gave multiple types of explanations for these descrip-tions.

Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine whether gender, level of familiarity withPWS, or interaction between gender and familiarity influenced the total number of responses related to each of the majorthemes. The unequal number of male and female participants necessitated the interpretation of the Pillai’s Trace statisticas this measure has been found to be resistant to unequal variances (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006). MANOVAresults indicated that there were no significant differences for gender: Pillai’s Trace = .87, (F[7, 135] = 1.84, p = .08,η2 = .09), level of familiarity with PWS: Pillai’s Trace = .16, (F(15, 411 = 1.10, p = .35, η2 = .05), or the interaction


Table 4Descriptive statistics for participant responses.

Type of response Total M SD

Total statements 409 2.75 1.63Descriptive statements 252 1.69 .96

Positive personal characteristics (D1) 82 .55 .73Negative personal characteristics (D1) 92 .62 1.02Stuttering/communication difficulties (D2) 78 .51 .61

Explanatory statements 157 1.05 1.04Emotional effects of stuttering on PWS (E1) 61 .41 .74Listener difficulty (E2) 53 .36 .57Observations of PWS and self (E3) 43 .29 .50

between gender and familiarity: Pillai’s Trace = .13, (F[21, 411] = .91, p = .58, η2 = .04). Table 5 provides the meansand standard deviations for this analysis.

In addition, because the review of the literature suggested that PWS are attributed with more negative than positivecharacteristics, paired samples t-tests were conducted for the number of positive and negative traits provided byparticipants. There was no significant difference (t = −.59, p = .56) between the total number of positive (n = 82,M = .55, SD = .73) and negative statements (n = 92, M = .62, SD = 1.02).

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary of findings

The purpose of this study was to investigate the attitudes of typically fluent speakers toward PWS in a manner thatavoids the limitations which may result from a wholly quantitative or qualitative approach. The results of previousstudies have reliably indicated that fluent speakers hold pervasively negative attitudes toward PWS and stuttering;however, relatively few studies have asked fluent speakers to provide an explanation for their attitudes. Thus, the goalof this discussion is to gain more knowledge of fluent speakers’ attitudes toward PWS by comparing and integrating(also known as triangulating) the qualitative and quantitative results.

The first two research questions posed by this study examined fluent speakers’ descriptions of PWS and theirexplanations for these descriptions. It should be noted that the personality or emotional traits listed by participantswere not dissimilar from those found in previous studies (Lass et al., 1989, 1992, 1994; Ruscello et al., 1994; Woods& Williams, 1971; Yairi & Williams, 1970); however, the open-ended nature of the study’s design allowed for anin-depth qualitative analysis of the data which took into account the context of participants’ responses. In general,although many decades of research have suggested that PWS are stereotyped negatively, there was not a statisticallysignificant difference between the number of positive and negative responses. The participants provided multipletypes of descriptive and explanatory statements, indicating that if PWS are stereotyped by fluent speakers, then thesestereotypes are rarely entirely positive or entirely negative. For example, as a whole, participants provided mixedimpressions of the intelligence of PWS but generally acknowledged that PWS only appear to be unintelligent becauseof their speaking difficulties. Other statements described PWS according to their general communication difficultiesor core stuttering behaviors. These descriptions were largely free from any positive or negative connotations related tothe personalities of PWS. Participants’ responses also lend support to the findings of White and Collins (1984), whoreported that fluent university students make inferences about PWS based on their own public speaking experiences,typically represented by anxiety, self-consciousness, or embarrassment.

The attitudes of the fluent speakers in this study seemed to be complex and took into account the many factorsthat may affect individuals who stutter, including adverse listener reactions. Listeners’ reactions, which includedthe inability to understand the speech of someone who stutters, teasing, ignorance, and rudeness, were perceived asoccurring on a regular basis throughout the lives of PWS. Thus, participants did not seem to believe that PWS areinherently shy, anxious, or frustrated. It would appear instead that PWS are perceived as normal or typical individualswho have difficulty communicating and who may gradually come to acquire negative emotional or personality traits as


Table 5Participants’ responses by theme according to gender and familiarity with PWS (n = 149).

Theme Gender Familiarity M SD Statements

Theme D1: characteristics of PWSPositive descriptions Male None 0.14 0.38 7

Not very well 0.60 0.97 10Well 0.65 0.70 17Very well 0.64 0.50 14Total 0.56 0.68 48

Female None 0.39 0.56 31Not very well 0.70 0.87 27Well 0.52 0.70 27Very well 0.63 0.96 16Total 0.54 0.76 101

Negative descriptions Male None 0.57 0.53 7Not very well 0.80 1.32 10Well 0.41 0.62 17Very well 0.50 1.40 14Total 0.54 1.03 48


Theme D2: descriptions related tostuttering or communicationdifficulties

Male None 0.57 0.79 7Not very well 0.50 0.53 10Well 0.35 0.49 17Very well 0.21 0.43 14Total 0.38 0.53 48


Theme E1: explanations based onperceived emotional effects ofstuttering on PWS



Theme E2: explanations based onlisteners’ mental/emotional difficultywith PWS




Table 5 ( Continued ).

Theme Gender Familiarity M SD Statements

Theme E3: explanations based onobservations of PWS and self



a consequence of repeated negative responses from society in general. This finding suggests that some fluent speakerswho participate in attitudinal research studies may be responding to the perceived emotional effects of stuttering uponPWS rather than describing the inherent emotional or personality traits of PWS. Positive stereotypes of PWS may alsobe explained by this phenomenon, as the perceived compassion and tolerance of PWS reportedly develops over time inresponse to repeated negative interactions with listeners. Such considerations have been raised by Yaruss and Quesal(2004), who place stuttering within the World Health Organization’s framework for the International Classification ofFunctioning, Disability, and Health. This framework, much like the responses of participants in this study, examines theeffects of stuttering on the lives of PWS from multiple perspectives, including communication difficulties and societalreactions to stuttering. Fluent speakers do seem to provide similar descriptions of PWS, but the explanations that theyprovide for these descriptions can vary and may help to provide more context than the data obtained from semanticdifferential instruments alone.

The third research question examined the effects of gender and familiarity with PWS on the types of descriptions andexplanations provided by fluent speakers. Quantitative analysis did not reveal significant differences in the responsesof male and female respondents. This finding compliments those of Patterson and Pring (1991) but conflicts with thoseof Burley and Rinaldi (1986), who found that men tended to rate PWS more negatively than women. Like gender,participants’ responses when analyzed quantitatively did not appear to differ significantly according to familiarity withPWS. In particular, participants who had more familiarity with PWS were not more likely to report positive descriptionsthan those participants who did not know any PWS or did not know them very well. Qualitative analysis of the responsesindicated that a small number of participants who reported knowing one or two PWS very well had overtly negativeperceptions and appeared to feel personally inconvenienced by stuttering. In general though, participants who knewPWS well or very well reported combinations of positive and negative descriptions, as did participants who knew noPWS or who did not know them very well.

Klassen (2002) suggested that social distance is a factor in fluent speakers’ attitudes toward PWS. The findingsof this study do not necessarily support Klassen’s conclusions. A number of factors may influence why friends andfamily members of PWS do not report more positive descriptions than people who do not have close relationshipswith PWS. Social scientists have found that familiarity creates homogeneous impressions of out-groups (such as PWS)rather than promoting heterogeneous impressions of group members based on their individual characteristics (Oakes,Haslam, Alexander, Morrison, & Grace, 1995; Smith et al., 2006). In other words, familiarity with one person whostutters may cause fluent speakers to generalize their impressions to all PWS. Stigma by association (Smart, 2001),in which individuals experience negative effects from their relationships with people with disabilities, may explainwhy friends and family members of PWS do not have wholly positive impressions of stuttering and PWS. In anycase, it would appear that the lack of significant quantitative differences among participants related to familiaritywith PWS and even gender may be related to the varied and somewhat conflicted impression of stuttering and PWSthat appeared in participants’ qualitative responses. The ability to interpret fluent speakers’ attitudes toward PWS asmeasured quantitatively seems very limited in light of the nuanced qualitative responses participants may provide whengiven the opportunity to do so.


4.2. Inferring emotional and behavioral reactions from descriptions of PWS

We may surmise from the literature that a wide variety of people hold similar stereotypes, both positive and negative,of PWS and that these stereotypes are resistant to change and may serve to isolate PWS from others. The preponderanceof investigations which have attempted to measure or otherwise define the attributes of PWS have not, in general, leadto any conclusive findings on how these descriptions relate to emotional or behavioral reactions to stuttering and PWS.Thus, it seems appropriate to turn to the social psychology literature to provide insights into the greater meaning ofthe descriptions of PWS provided by participants in this and many other studies.

The work of Cuddy, Fiske, and Glick (2008) seem especially relevant to this discussion. Cuddy et al. (2008) believethat people make judgments about other groups of people based on perceptions of the group’s warmth and competence.The dimension of warmth encompasses traits that relate to perceived intent, particularly whether or not members ofa given group are judged to harm or to help others. Groups who are assigned high-warmth attributes are generallybelieved to be friendly, helpful, trustworthy, nice, etc. Groups who are perceived as low-warmth are described asunhelpful, uncooperative, immoral, threatening, etc. The second dimension, competence, also falls into high and lowcategories. Groups with high-competence attributes are considered capable and efficient individuals; low-competenceattributes emphasize the incompetence and inabilities of the group.

The warmth/competence perspective explains why individuals may assign both positive and negative traits tostereotyped groups, as has certainly been the case in the stuttering literature. In the present study descriptions of PWSas nice, patient, accepting, compassionate, and even normal indicate that PWS can be categorized as a high-warmthgroup: they are perceived as non-threatening and generally facilitative. But often even the most positive descriptionsof PWS were qualified by statements about the inability of PWS to communicate easily or well. PWS appear to becategorized as poor communicators and thus are perceived as having low competence. This finding also explains whymany semantic differential studies have reported that PWS are perceived as friendly, trustworthy, and cooperative whileat the same time shy, nervous, incompetent, and unemployable.

Cuddy et al. (2008) further propose that the cognitive judgments that are made on the basis of warmth and competencecan be applied to group members in four distinct combinations, each of which result in various emotional reactionsfrom individuals outside of the group. Groups perceived as having low-warmth and low-competence elicit feelings ofcontempt whereas the low-warmth/high-competence combination elicits envy. Admiration results from perceptions ofboth high-warmth and high-competence whereas feelings of pity result when members of a group are perceived as havinghigh warmth but low competence. PWS, who are perceived as warm individuals but incompetent communicators, aremost likely to invoke emotions of pity versus disgust, envy, or admiration. Cuddy et al. note that behavioral tendenciesare associated with each of these broad types of emotion. Specifically, pity is likely to result in active facilitation but alsopassive harm. It is probable that some fluent speakers try to actively help PWS by speaking for them or giving advice onhow to stutter less. Passive harm may involve behaviors like avoiding interactions with PWS, failure to employ PWS, orminimizing or not giving PWS opportunities to speak on the supposition that PWS prefer not to express themselves if itmeans that they will stutter in front of others. Behaviors which result in passive harm tend to require less effort and maynot be recognized as discriminatory or paternalistic by the people who employ these behaviors (Cuddy et al., 2008).

4.3. Limitations and suggestions for future research

The use of mixed methods is thought to minimize the respective weaknesses of an entirely qualitative or quantitativeapproach to a research study. It should be noted, however, that the quantitization and subsequent statistical analysis ofqualitative data may result in paradigmatic violations for readers who prefer the more rigorous controls of quantitativeresearch or the more subjective nature of qualitative research. In addition, a more diverse population of fluent speakersis necessary to confirm the study’s findings, as the sample population was relatively young university students of whomthere were more women than men. While the descriptions of PWS provided by the participants seemed to closely mirrorthose found in other studies of this type, it is unclear whether their education renders university students more insightfulabout and/or less biased toward PWS than the general population. It is also necessary to obtain data representing theattitudes of speech-language pathologists, educators, medical professionals, family and friends of PWS, and membersof the general population before generalizations can be made about the attitudes of fluent speakers toward PWS withconfidence.


Another consideration is that while obtaining the honest opinions of any group of survey respondents is sometimesdifficult, a number of participants in this study suggested that by describing PWS they would engage in stereotyping.Participants who reported such objections often went on to describe PWS solely on the basis of their communicationdifficulties or noted positive descriptions of PWS. This finding may help to explain why there is a tendency for researchparticipants to provide answers that range from neutral to positive on Likert-type scales while excluding more negativeresponses (Baron, 1996; Gabel, 2006; Healey et al., 2007). More indirect methods are needed to assess fluent speakers’attitudes toward PWS, as some survey respondents clearly recognize that researchers are indeed attempting to measurestereotypes of PWS. Survey methods that are accompanied by direct observation of the interactions between PWSand their fluent listeners may help to provide more information about the ways in which attitudes toward PWS maycorrespond with prejudicial and discriminatory behaviors. In addition, the lack of non-significant quantitative findingsdoes not necessarily mean that there are no measurable differences between the attitudes of men and women towardPWS or those fluent speakers who have more or less familiarity with PWS. It may simply mean that better measureshave yet to be developed in this regard, and that more highly controlled studies that are more experimental in naturecould be implemented in the future.

Finally, the concept of active facilitation and passive harm as applied by fluent speakers to PWS is an interestingone and seems worthy of future study. A better understanding of the ways in which fluent speakers believe they mayhelp PWS and their rationale for such behavior would provide further information on the ways in which PWS may beaffected by the attitudes of fluent speakers, and how fluent speakers and PWS may be counseled in this regard.

CONTINUING EDUCATION

University students’ explanations for their descriptions of people who stutter: An exploratory mixed modelstudy.

QUESTIONS

1. What are some disadvantages of using semantic differential instruments to measure attitudes toward PWS?A. The instrument is too costly to administer to large groups of participantsB. The instrument is generally difficult to administerC. Participants are likely to provide positively skewed responsesD. Scale items may hold different connotations for individual participantsE. Both C and D

2. Familiarity with someone who stutters is likely to:A. Increase stereotypes of PWS in generalB. Decrease stereotypes of PWS in generalC. Promote passive harmD. Either A or B depending on the interactionE. None of the above

3. PWS are likely to be pitied because they are perceived as havingA. High-warmth/high-competenceB. High-warmth/low-competenceC. Low-warmth/high-competenceD. Low-warmth/low-competenceE. Any of the above depending on temperament

4. Participants who expressed negative personality or emotional traits of PWS appeared to do so on the basis of:A. Observations of PWS in the mediaB. Unpleasant reactions of fluent listenersC. Self-inferences during public speakingD. Personal interactions with PWSE. All of the above

5. What do the authors conclude in terms of the relationship between fluent speakers’ responses and their gender andfamiliarity with PWS?


A. Gender may influence participants’ responsesB. Familiarity with PWS may influence participants’ responsesC. Type of relationship with PWS may influence participants’ responsesD. Neither gender nor familiarity influences participants’ responsesE. There is inconclusive evidence related to the effects of gender and familiarity

References

Atkins, C. P. (1988). Perceptions of speakers with minimal eye contact: implications for stutterers. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 13, 439-436.Baron, H. (1996). Strengths and limitations of ipsative measurement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 49–56.Basit, T. N. (2003). Manual or electronic: The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educational Research, 45, 143–154.Bogdan, R., & Biklen, R. C. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn-Bacon.Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Burley, P. M., & Rinaldi, W. (1986). Effects of sex of listener and of stutterer on ratings of stuttering speakers. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 17,

329–333.Collins, C. R., & Blood, G. W. (1990). Acknowledgment and severity of stuttering as factors influencing nonstutterers’ perceptions of stutterers.

Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 75–81.Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori, & C.

Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Crowe, T. A., & Cooper, E. B. (1977). Parental attitudes toward and knowledge of stuttering. Journal of Communication Disorders, 10, 343–357.Crowe, T. A., & Walton, J. H. (1981). Teacher attitudes toward stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 6, 163–174.Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content

model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–150.Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Doody, I., Kalinowski, J., Armson, J., & Stuart, A. (1993). Stereotypes of stutterers and nonstutterers in three rural communities in Newfoundland.

Journal of Fluency Disorders, 18, 363–373.Dorsey, M., & Guenther, R. K. (2000). Attitudes of professors and students toward college students who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 25,

77–83.Fowlie, G. M., & Cooper, E. B. (1978). Traits attributed to stuttering and nonstuttering children by their mothers. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 3,

233–246.Gabel, R. M. (2006). Effects of stuttering severity and therapy involvement on attitudes towards people who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders,

31, 216–227.Gabel, R. M., Blood, G. W., Tellis, G. M., & Althouse, M. T. (2004). Measuring role entrapment of people who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders,

29, 27–49.Glesne, C. (2005). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed). New York: Longman.Ham, R. E. (1990). What is stuttering: Variations and stereotypes. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 15, 259–273.Hartford, E., & Leahy, M. M. (2007). The perceptions of primary school children of a person who stutters. In J. Au-Yeung, & M. M. Leahy (Eds.),

Proceedings of the 5th world congress on fluency disorders (pp. 223–229). Dublin, Ireland: The International Fluency Association.Healey, E. C., Gabel, R. M., Daniels, D. E., & Kawai, N. (2007). The effects of self-disclosure and non self-disclosure of stuttering on listeners’

perceptions of a person who stutters. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 32, 51–69.Hulit, L. M., & Wirtz, L. (1994). The association of attitudes toward stuttering with selected variables. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 19, 247–267.Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33,

14–26.Kalinowski, J., Armson, J., Stuart, A., & Lerman, J. W. (1993). Speech clinicians’ and the general public’s perceptions of self and stutterers. Journal

of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 17, 79–85.Klassen, T. R. (2001). Perceptions of people who stutter: Re-assessing the negative stereotype. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92, 551–559.Klassen, T. R. (2002). Social distance and the negative stereotype of people who stutter. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 26,

90–99.Langevin, M., & Hagler, P. (2004). Development of a scale to measure peer attitudes toward children who stutter. In A. K. Bothe (Ed.), Evidence-based

treatment of stuttering: Empirical bases and clinical applications (pp. 139–177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Lass, N. J., Ruscello, D. M., Pannbacker, M., Schmitt, J. F., & Everly-Myers, D. S. (1989). Speech-language pathologists’ perceptions of child and

adult female and male stutterers. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 14, 127–134.Lass, N. J., Ruscello, D. M., Pannbacker, M., Schmitt, J. F., Kiser, A. M., Mussa, A. M., et al. (1994). School administrators’ perceptions of people

who stutter. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 90–93.Lass, N. J., Ruscello, D. M., Schmitt, J. F., Pannbacker, M. D., Orlando, M. B., Dean, K. A., et al. (1992). Teachers’ perceptions of stutterers.

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 78–81.Manning, W. H., Burlison, A. E., & Thaxton, D. (1999). Listener response to stuttering modification techniques. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 24,

267–280.Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed

methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 189–208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S., Alexander, Morrison, B., & Grace, D. (1995). Becoming an in-group: Reexamining the impact of familiarity on perceptions

of group homogeneity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 52–61.Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Panico, J., Healey, E. C., Brouwer, K., & Susca, M. (2005). Listener perceptions of stuttering across two presentation modes: A quantitative and

qualitative approach. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 30, 65–85.Patterson, J., & Pring, T. (1991). Listener attitudes to stuttering speakers: No evidence for a gender difference. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 16,

201–205.Ruscello, D. M., Lass, N. J., Schmitt, J. F., & Pannbacker, M. D. (1994). Special educators’ perceptions of stutterers. Journal of Fluency Disorders,

19, 125–132.Schneider, D. J. (2005). The psychology of stereotyping. New York: Guilford Press.Smart, J. (2001). Disability, society, and the individual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Smith, E. R., Miller, D. A., Maitner, A. T., Crump, S. A., Garcia-Marques, T., & Mackie, D. (2006). Familiarity can increase stereotyping. Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 471–478.Snyder, G. J. (2001). Exploratory research in the measurement and modification of attitudes toward stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 26,

149–160.Susca, M., & Healey, E. C. (2002). Listener perceptions along a fluency–disfluency continuum: A phenomenological analysis. Journal of Fluency

Disorders, 27, 135–161.Swartz, E., Gabel, R., Hughes, S., & Irani, F. (2009). Speech-language pathologists’ responses on surveys on vocational stereotyping (role entrapment)

regarding people who stutter. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 36, 157–165.Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). The past and the future of mixed model research: From “methodological triangulation” to “mixed model

designs”. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 671–701). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

Tatchell, R. H., van den Berg, S., & Lerman, J. W. (1983). Fluency and eye contact as factors influencing observers’ perceptions of stutterers. Journalof Fluency Disorders, 8, 221–231.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. InA. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Turnbaugh, K., Guitar, B., & Hoffman, P. (1979). Speech clinicians’ attribution of personality traits as a function of stuttering severity. Journal ofSpeech and Hearing Research, 22, 37–45.

Weisel, A., & Spektor, G. (1998). A possible explanation of the “stutterer” stereotype. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 23, 157–172.White, P. A., & Collins, S. R. C. (1984). Stereotype formation by inference: A possible explanation for the “stutterer” stereotype. Journal of Speech

and Hearing Research, 27, 567–570.Woods, C. L., & Williams, D. E. (1971). Speech clinicians’ conceptions of boys and men who stutter. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,

36, 225–234.Woods, C. L., & Williams, D. E. (1976). Traits attributed to stuttering and normally fluent males. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 19,

267–278.Yairi, E., & Williams, D. E. (1970). Speech clinicians’ stereotypes of elementary-school boys who stutter. Journal of Communication Disorders, 3,

161–170.Yaruss, J. S., & Quesal, R. W. (2004). Stuttering and the international classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF): An update. Journal

of Communication Disorders, 37, 35–52.

Stephanie Hughes, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, is an assistant professor at Governors State University. She teaches courses in fluency, research methods,and voice. Dr. Hughes’ research interests are in psychosocial aspects of stuttering, including factors that influence communicative success betweenpeople who stutter and people who do not stutter.

Rodney Gabel, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, BRS-FD, is an associate professor at Bowling Green State University. Dr. Gabel has developed the VocationalAdvice Scale which measures occupational stereotyping of people who stutter and has published numerous articles related to stereotypes of peoplewho stutter.

Farzan Irani, M.S., CCC-SLP, has successfully defended his doctoral dissertation at Bowling Green State University and has accepted a positionas an assistant professor at Texas State University at San Marcos. His research interests are in fluency.

Adam Schlagheck, M.S., completed his Master’s degree in speech-language pathology at Bowling Green State University. His article, A MixedMethod Study of Stereotypes of People Who Stutter, was published in 2009 in Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders.

Date post:	05-Sep-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	stephanie-hughes
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

University students’ explanations for their descriptions of people who stutter: An exploratory...

Documents