A Qualitative Study of Attitudes Towards People Who Stutter Adam Schlagheck Rodney Gabel, Ph.D. Denise Eyestone Jaqueline Emch Department of Communication Disorders Bowling Green State University Bowling Green Ohio Yuker (1988) stated that stereotyping occurs when attitudes towards a specific characteristic of groups of people tend to cluster and form a specific pattern of beliefs about that group. People who stutter (PWS) are often described in negative stereotypical ways by many groups of people including teachers, SLPs, and the general population. The effects of stereotyping can be explained by two theories. First, stigma theory, suggests that the stereotyped person will have a spoiled identity (Goffman, 1963). Consequently these individuals can be perceived as deficient in every aspect of their being. Second, the spread phenomenon suggests that perceptions of individuals with a disability form a fundamental negative bias (Wright, 1983). For example, if a person can not perform a specific activity due to their disability, the negative perception will generalize or spread to the perception of the whole person. 1 2 Both stigma theory and the spread phenomenon explain how a single negative characteristic, such as stuttering, can generalize to perceptions of the person. One way in which individuals who stutter may be affected by stigma and spread is role entrapment. Smart (2001) described role entrapment as occurring when a group in power defines those roles that the minority group can fulfill. The roles are generally limited to those that are undesirable. Gabel, Blood, Tellis, and Althouse (2004) studied role entrapment of PWS by exploring university students perceptions of appropriate career choices for people who stutter. The findings suggested that there were 23 careers judged to be less advisable or less appropriate choices for people who stutter. Conversely, there were 20 careers that were judged to be more advisable or appropriate choices for people who stutter. This study provided initial evidence that PWS may experience role entrapment. Other research exploring stereotyping of PWS has been interested in discovering ways to improve perceptions that individuals report toward PWS. For example, Klassen (2001; 2002) found that having a close relationship with an individual who stutters may improved attitudes toward PWS. In addition, Gabel, Tellis, & Althouse (2004) found that familiarity with PWS led PWDS to be less likely to report role entrapment related to occupational choices. The objective of the current study was to contribute to the existing data related to stereotypes of PWS and perceptions of appropriate career choices for PWS. In addition, the study sought to investigate the effect of familiarity on stereotyping of PWS and perceptions of appropriate career choices for PWS.Unlike other studies exploring stereotyping and role entrapment, the present research employed a mixed methods approach using both qualitative and quantitative procedures. 3 4 1
Methods - Participants Methods - Instrumentation One-hundred and ten individuals from Bowling Green State University and Northwest Ohio area. Sixty two participants were university students and forty eight were not. The students represented a variety of majors and the non-students represented a variety of careers. All of the participants were over 18 years old, did not stutter and were not communication disorders majors or speech-language pathologists. The mean age of the participants was 25 (sd=9.72). Ninety one of the participants were female and eighteen were male. Finally, 100 of the participants were Caucasian, four were African- American, and six were from other minority groups. Each participant completed a questionnaire that utilized an openended format in which the following questions were asked: 1. Do you know anyone who stutters? 2. Did you work with this person? 3. What were some characteristics you would use to describe people who stutter? 4. If you know someone who stutters, what characteristics would you use to describe this person who stutters that you know? 5. Do you think people who stutter may have difficulties related to employment such as performing well in specific tasks, performing well in certain careers, etc. 6. Provide your reason for your answer to question number five 7. In your option what types of careers or vocational choices are well suited for people who stutter 8. In your option what types of careers or vocational choices are not well suited for people who stutter 5 6 Methods Procedures and Analysis Methods - Analysis Student and non-student participants were recruited using a standard script. The primary researcher and two assistants met with the participants and administered the questionnaire. When the participants were finished they gave the completed questionnaire back the primary researcher or one of the other participants.the responses were analyzed the following way: Item number 1, 2, and 5 were explored quantitative, in that the data was analyzed using frequency counts. Items 3, 4 were initially explored qualitatively, with responses coded as either positive, negative, or neutral characteristics. This data was then analyzed quantitatively using frequency counts. The responses for item 6 were analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis. Items 7 and 8 were analyzed using frequency counts, representing each time the career appeared in a participants report. For comparisons of responses for items 3 and 4, the participants were divided into two groups based on whether they reported knowing or not knowing a person who stutters (item 5). The responses to items 3 and 4 reported by these two groups of participants were compared using t-tests. 7 8 2
Item 1: Do you know anyone who stutters Yes: 65 No: 45 Item 2: Did you work with this person Yes: 17 No: 47 Item 3: What are some characteristics you would use to describe people who stutter Knows a person who Doesn t know a person stutters who stutters positive: 83 positive: 29 negative: 58 negative: 3 neutral: 8 neutral: 3 Item 4: If you know someone who stutters, what characteristics would you use to describe this person that you know Positive: 117 Negative: 23 Neutral: 3 Item 5: Do you think people who stutter may have difficulties related to employment Yes: 49 Yes: 39 No: 16 No: 6 9 10 Item 7: In your option what types of careers or vocational choices are well suited for people who stutter The reports provided for item 6 (Provide you reason for you answer to question five) were analyzed thematically. Five major themes emerged: Know a PWS Does Not know a PWS 1. Communication disability 21 12 2. Stressful situation 1 0 3. Difficulty with certain tasks 13 11 4. Avoid certain careers 14 16 5. No limitations 14 7 Any career 29 Non-speaking oriented 11 Computer 8 Office worker 5 Anything presented written 4 Accountant 3 Book keeping 2 Construction 2 Doctor 2 Mechanics 2 Physical labor 2 Any career 14 Computer 13 Non-speaking 7 Accountant 3 Architecture 2 Artist 2 Construction 2 Finance 2 Mechanical work 2 Office worker 2 Photographer 2 Science researcher 2 Speech pathology 2 Writer 2 11 12 3
Item 8: In your option what types of careers or vocational choices are not well suited for people who stutter Any uncomfortable 14 Public speaking 11 Speaking oriented 9 Teacher 9 Business work 4 Customer service 4 News anchor 4 Telephone anchor 4 Public relations 3 Sales 3 Telemarketing 3 Lawyer 2 Public speaking 12 Teacher 10 Public relations 5 Salesman 5 Telemarketing 5 Any uncomfortable 4 News anchor 4 Speaking oriented 4 Administrative assistant 3 Customer service 3 Doctor 3 Lawyer 3 Marketing and Nursing 2 each 13 Comparison of the reports of attitudes reported by participants who knew a PWS to those who did not know a PWS Total Descriptions of PWS Total Positive Positive to total ratio Total Negative Negative to total ratio Total Neutral Neutral to total ratio not not not not not not not Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Error F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper 10.721.001 -.669 128.505 -.15385.23013 -.60919.30150 -.669 111.545.505 -.15385.23013 -.60983.30214 12.936.000 1.873 128.063.44615.23820 -.02516.91747 1.873 110.478.064.44615.23820 -.02588.91818 1.556.215 1.336 128.184.10000.07482 -.04805.24805 1.336 127.334.184.10000.07482 -.04806.24806 12.417.001.065 127.949.00626.09701 -.18570.19823.065 102.207.948.00626.09663 -.18539.19792 47.352.000-5.559 128.000 -.80062.14403-1.08560 -.51563-5.559 74.115.000 -.80062.14403-1.08759 -.51364.218.641.170 128.865.00662.03883 -.07022.08346.170 123.232.865.00662.03883 -.07025.08348 4.547.035-1.033 128.304 -.05385.05214 -.15701.04931-1.033 105.765.304 -.05385.05214 -.15721.04952 14 Comparison of attitudes reported toward a PWS that was familiar and to a PWS in general Total Descriptions of PWS Total Positive Positive to total ratio Negative to total ratio not not not Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Mean Std. Error F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper 1.179.280.409 108.684.08547.20915 -.32910.50004.401 88.024.690.08547.21328 -.33838.50932 3.677.058 3.254 108.002.61026.18755.23850.98201 3.400 106.264.001.61026.17951.25438.96613.445.506 2.614 108.010.20441.07819.04943.35939 2.637 97.611.010.20441.07751.05059.35823.117.733-3.069 107.003 -.23614.07695 -.38869 -.08359 A t-test was used to compare the total comments, total positive, proportion of positive to total, total negative, proportion of negative to total, total neutral, and proportion of neutral to total using knowing and not knowing a stutter as the grouping variable. Significance (p<.05) was found for the total positive, proportion of positive to total, total negative, and proportion of negative to total columns. The same comparison was completed for general characteristic of PWS and the characteristics of the known person who stutters. No differences were noted. not -3.039 91.506.003 -.23614.07770 -.39048 -.08181 Total Negative 1.979.162-2.183 108.031 -.49744.22789 -.94914 -.04573 not -2.137 87.500.035 -.49744.23273 -.95998 -.03489 Neutral to total ratio.512.476.347 108.729.01248.03599 -.05885.08381 not.359 104.298.721.01248.03481 -.05654.08150 Total Neutral.392.532.292 108.771.01880.06435 -.10874.14635 not.304 105.600.762.01880.06183 -.10378.14139 15 16 4
Discussion Discussion The data in this study suggests that knowing a person who stutters improves the perceptions that one has of PWS in general. In addition, over 50% of the sample knew a person who stutters. This data suggests that exposure to a person who stutters appears to improve attitudes towards stuttering in general. The group of participants that were familiar with PWS did not view the person they knew differently than PWS in general. But, this study did not explore whether the quality or type of relationship (for example, equal status) affected attitudes towards PWS. Future research might explore these issues. Both groups of participants (familiar and unfamiliar with PWS) agreed that people who stutter will have difficulties with employment. Although the reasons behind this belief differed, the number one reason for people who know a PWS was communication disability, or their stuttering. People who were unfamiliar listed avoiding certain careers as their number one choice. It appears that stuttering may be viewed as a potential barrier for the group that was familiar, but that these participants did not view that any specific job should be avoided. For the unfamiliar group, the type of career appeared to be seen as a potential barrier. 17 18 Discussion The participants who know a stutter listed any career and nonspeaking oriented career as the top two careers that are well suited. Any that makes them uncomfortable and public speaking as careers that are not well suited for a stutter. The participants that did not know a PWS listed any career and work involving a computer as the two most well suited. Public speaking and teaching as two most likely to be not well suited for PWS. There appears to be little differences between the two groups in that both listed any career as a well suited career and public speaking as careers that are not well suited. In general, it appears as if individuals who know a person who stutters and those who do not will report negative perceptions of PWS. In addition, there is some evidence that knowing a person who stutters will improve perceptions of PWS.Finally, the data from this study supports that PWS may experience role entrapment in the form of limited career options. This appears to be related to the perception of speaking difficulty. The presence of role entrapment and type of limitations appear to be related to knowing PWS. 19 5