Comparing evaluations of social situations for adults who do and do not stutter

被引:0
|
作者
Brundage, Shelley B. [1 ]
Winters, Katherine L. [1 ,2 ,5 ]
Armendariz, Karla [1 ]
Sabat, Ruchi [1 ,3 ]
Beilby, Janet M. [4 ]
机构
[1] George Washington Univ, Dept Speech Language & Hearing Sci, 2115G St NW,Suite 226, Washington, DC 20052 USA
[2] Univ Texas Austin, Dept Speech Language & Hearing Sci, 2405A Whitis Ave,Stop A1100, Austin, TX 78712 USA
[3] KIPP NorCal Publ Sch, 1000 Broadway 460, Oakland, CA 94607 USA
[4] Curtin Univ, Curtin Sch Allied Hlth, Kent St, Perth, WA 6102, Australia
[5] Univ Texas Austin, Arthur M Blank Ctr Stuttering Educ & Res, Austin, TX 78712 USA
关键词
Adults; Stuttering; Interpretation bias; Cognitive bias; Social situations; ANXIETY DISORDER; INTERPRETATION BIAS; JUDGMENTAL BIASES; RESOLVING AMBIGUITY; NEGATIVE EVALUATION; COGNITIVE-PROCESSES; ATTENTIONAL BIAS; AVOIDANCE; SPEAKING; PHOBIA;
D O I
10.1016/j.jcomdis.2021.106161
中图分类号
R36 [病理学]; R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100104 ; 100213 ;
摘要
Purpose: Numerous research studies indicate that stuttering is associated with increased risk for social anxiety disorder (SAD). Interpretation bias is one of four cognitive biases thought to maintain symptoms associated with SAD. Interpretation bias occurs when one evaluates social situations as more negative than they actually are. The purpose of this study was to investigate if adults who do and do not stutter interpret positive, ambiguous, mildly negative, and profoundly negative social situations similarly, or-if like individuals with SAD-adults who stutter exhibit negative interpretation biases. Method: Forty-eight adults who stutter and 42 age-and gender-matched adults who do not stutter participated. Participants completed the Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE) and were assigned to one of four groups: adults who stutter with high FNE (AWS-High), adults who stutter with low FNE (AWS-Low), adults who do not stutter with high FNE (AWNS-High), and adults who do not stutter with low FNE (AWNS-Low). All participants completed the trait scale of the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the Interpretation and Judgmental Questionnaire (IJQ). The IJQ contains descriptions of four types of social situations: positive, mildly negative, profoundly negative, and ambiguous. Within each situation type there are five different scenarios, for a total of 20 scenarios across the four situation types. Participants provided written responses to these 20 social scenarios. Qualitative analyses were used to understand how members of each group interpreted the different social scenarios. Results: Thematic analysis revealed that each group responded in similar ways to each of the social scenarios, regardless of the type of situation. Adults who do and do not stutter with low and high FNE agreed on many themes related to the 20 social scenarios, and they agreed across all four types of social situations. Somewhat surprisingly, the theme "stuttering" was mentioned infrequently by the adults who stutter. Conclusions: Results suggested that adults who do and do not stutter with low and high FNE interpret social situations similarly, and that no group demonstrated a negative interpretation bias consistent with what is observed in adults with SAD. The interpretations provided by each group were appropriate to the specific scenarios being evaluated.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Measurement of Speech Effort During Fluency-Inducing Conditions in Adults Who Do and Do Not Stutter
    Ingham, Roger J.
    Bothe, Anne K.
    Jang, Erin
    Yates, Lauren
    Cotton, John
    Seybold, Irene
    JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH, 2009, 52 (05): : 1286 - 1301
  • [42] The Impact of Self-Disclosure and Strategies for Communication Competence on Professors' Perceptions and Evaluations of Students Who Do and Do Not Stutter
    Werle, Danielle
    Byrd, Courtney T.
    JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH, 2022, 65 (09): : 3405 - 3419
  • [43] Recurrent involuntary imagery in people who stutter and people who do not stutter
    Tudor, Helen
    Davis, Stephen
    Brewin, Chris R.
    Howell, Peter
    JOURNAL OF FLUENCY DISORDERS, 2013, 38 (03) : 247 - 259
  • [44] Factors affecting occupational advice for speakers who do and do not stutter
    Logan, Kenneth J.
    O'Connor, Elizabeth M.
    JOURNAL OF FLUENCY DISORDERS, 2012, 37 (01) : 25 - 41
  • [45] The role of selected lexical factors on confrontation naming accuracy, speed, and fluency in adults who do and do not stutter
    Newman, Rochelle S.
    Ratner, Nan Bernstein
    JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH, 2007, 50 (01): : 196 - 213
  • [46] Influences of Attentional Focus on Across- and Within-Sentence Variability in Adults Who Do and Do Not Stutter
    Bauerly, Kim R.
    Jackson, Eric S.
    JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH, 2024, 67 (12): : 4676 - 4688
  • [47] Delay frustration in children who do and do not stutter: A preliminary study
    Eggers, Kurt
    Heselmans, Iris
    JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION DISORDERS, 2024, 107
  • [48] Backward masking of tones and speech in people who do and do not stutter
    Basu, Shriya
    Schlauch, Robert S.
    Sasisekaran, Jayanthi
    JOURNAL OF FLUENCY DISORDERS, 2018, 57 : 11 - 21
  • [49] Nonword repetition and phoneme elision in adults who do and do not stutter: Vocal versus nonvocal performance differences
    Byrd, Courtney T.
    McGill, Megann
    Usler, Evan
    JOURNAL OF FLUENCY DISORDERS, 2015, 44 : 17 - 31
  • [50] Explicit benefits: Motor sequence acquisition and short-term retention in adults who do and do not stutter
    Hobler, Fiona
    Bitan, Tali
    Tremblay, Luc
    de Nil, Luc
    JOURNAL OF FLUENCY DISORDERS, 2023, 75