Display options
Cite
Brundage SB, Winters KL, Armendariz K, et al. Comparing evaluations of social situations for adults who do and do not stutter. J Commun Disord. 2021;95:106161doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2021.106161.
Brundage, S. B., Winters, K. L., Armendariz, K., Sabat, R., & Beilby, J. M. (2021). Comparing evaluations of social situations for adults who do and do not stutter. Journal of communication disorders, 95106161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2021.106161
Brundage, Shelley B, et al. "Comparing evaluations of social situations for adults who do and do not stutter." Journal of communication disorders vol. 95 (2021): 106161. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2021.106161
Brundage SB, Winters KL, Armendariz K, Sabat R, Beilby JM. Comparing evaluations of social situations for adults who do and do not stutter. J Commun Disord. 2021 Nov 02;95:106161. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2021.106161. Epub 2021 Nov 02. PMID: 34872018.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Commun Disord. 2021 Nov 02;95:106161. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2021.106161. Epub 2021 Nov 02.

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

Journal of communication disorders

Shelley B Brundage, Katherine L Winters, Karla Armendariz, Ruchi Sabat, Janet M Beilby

Affiliations

  1. Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, George Washington University, 2115G Street NW, Suite 226, Washington DC 20052, 202-994-5008, United States. Electronic address: [email protected].
  2. Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, George Washington University, 2115G Street NW, Suite 226, Washington DC 20052, 202-994-5008, United States; Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, 2405A Whitis Ave, Stop A1100, Austin, TX, 78712, United States.
  3. Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, George Washington University, 2115G Street NW, Suite 226, Washington DC 20052, 202-994-5008, United States.
  4. Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, George Washington University, 2115G Street NW, Suite 226, Washington DC 20052, 202-994-5008, United States; KIPP NorCal Public Schools, 1000 Broadway #460, Oakland, CA, 94607, United States.
  5. Curtin School of Allied Health, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, Perth, 6102, Western Australia.

PMID: 34872018 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2021.106161

Abstract

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.

Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Adults; Cognitive bias; Interpretation bias; Social situations; Stuttering

Publication Types