INT J LANG COMMUN DISORD, MAY–JUNE VOL. 50, NO. 3, 347–357

2015,

Research Report Effects of video exposure to cluttering on undergraduate students’ perceptions of a person who clutters Lindsey M. Farrell†, Paul G. Blanchet‡ and Kim L. Tillery† †Department of Communication Disorders and Sciences, SUNY Fredonia, Fredonia, NY, USA ‡Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA

(Received May 2014; accepted September 2014) Abstract Background: Previous research suggests a negative stereotype toward people with fluency disorders (i.e. stuttering and/or cluttering), although recent findings suggest that exposure to an actual person who stutters (e.g. a live or video presentation) leads to more positive perceptions of some personality traits. However, there is a paucity of research examining perceptions of a person who clutters and whether these perceptions can be modified via video exposure to cluttering. Aims: To examine the effects of video exposure to cluttering on university students’ perceptions of a person who clutters. It was hypothesized that participants in the video condition would rate personality traits more positively than those who did not view the video clip. Methods & Procedures: A total of 105 undergraduate students served as participants; 54 were provided with written definition of cluttering, whereas 51 were provided with both a definition and short segment of an instructional DVD on cluttering. Students then rated a person who clutters on a variety of speech skills and personality scales. Outcomes & Results: Independent samples t-tests yielded no significant group differences in ratings of any speech skills or personality traits. However, a significantly greater number of students who viewed the video clip reported a reluctance to hire a person who clutters specifically because of the individual’s fluency disorder. Additionally, participants who did not view the video clip reported having more previous instructors who cluttered than those who did view the video clip; this increased familiarity with persons who clutter may have impacted perceptions of a person who clutters. Conclusions & Implications: The present results indicate that viewing the brief video clip did not significantly influence ratings towards more positive perceptions, but also did not influence ratings to be significantly more negative on any traits. Further research is needed to compare the differences in the perceptions of listeners who have had long-term exposure to cluttered speech with those of listeners who have had brief exposure. Implications discussed include the impact of prior exposure to fluency disorders, as well as potential confusion between cluttering and ‘fast speech’. These two factors may have influenced the identification rate of individuals with who clutter in the present study, which may have affected perceptions of a person who clutters. Keywords: cluttering, perceptions, survey, students.

What this paper adds? What is already known on the subject? Previous research suggests a negative stereotype toward people with fluency disorders. However, some investigators found that exposure to an actual person who stutters (e.g. a live or video presentation) yielded more positive perceptions of some personality traits. However, there is a paucity of research examining perceptions of a person who clutters; more specifically, whether these perceptions can be modified by video exposure to cluttering.

Address correspondence to: Paul G. Blanchet, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97332, Waco, TX 76798–7332, USA; e-mail: [email protected] International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders C 2014 Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists ISSN 1368-2822 print/ISSN 1460-6984 online  DOI: 10.1111/1460-6984.12139

348

Lindsey M. Farrell et al.

What this study adds? The results yielded no significant group differences in ratings of speech skills or personality traits. However, a significantly greater number of students who viewed the video clip reported a reluctance to hire a person who clutters specifically because of the individual’s fluency disorder. Further research is needed to compare the differences in the perceptions of listeners who have had long-term exposure to cluttered speech with those of listeners who have had brief exposure.

Introduction For many years, researchers have examined the role that perceptions play in social interaction (e.g. West 2012). If a person is perceived positively, then one’s desire to interact with that person will likely be greater than if the perception was negative. Unfortunately, the presence of a disability or disorder acts as a burden in social communication and influences social distance from others (Broberg 2010). This social distance directly impacts the amount of interaction with others, which affects the perceptions and attitudes towards those who are considered socially ‘abnormal’ (Allport 1954). Individuals with communication disorders are often perceived negatively (Allard and Williams 2008, Williams and Dietrich 1996, 2001), particularly those who stutter (Dorsey and Guenther 2000, Franck et al. 2003, Hughes et al. 2010, McGee et al. 1996, McKinnon et al. 1986). Numerous studies have examined the attitudes of different populations toward individuals who stutter. Previous research suggests the presence of a pervasive negative stereotype (e.g. Dorsey and Guenther 2000, Kalinowski et al. 1996, Woods and Williams 1976); however, some studies have identified a small number of ‘desirable’ personality traits (e.g. Burley and Rinaldi 1986, Turnbaugh et al. 1979, Yairi and Williams 1970). Researchers have examined the perceptions of the general population (e.g. Kalinowski et al. 1987), teachers (e.g. Silverman 1990, Yeakle and Cooper 1986), speech– language pathologists (SLPs) (e.g. Yairi and Williams 1970), and students (e.g. Ruscello et al. 1988). For example, perceptions of stuttering were investigated by Dorsey and Guenther (2000). Surveys were administered to assess the attitudes of professors and college students toward persons who stutter. Participants completed a questionnaire rating a hypothetical person who stutters (PWS), as well as a non-stuttering person, on personality traits. Results indicated that professors and students assigned more negative personality traits to the PWS and more positive traits to the nonstuttering person. These findings suggested that a negative stereotype may exist for those who stutter (Dorsey and Guenther 2000). Other researchers have examined specific factors that may contribute to the negative perception of PWS. For

example, Hughes et al. (2010) questioned how college students would feel if they, themselves, had a stuttering disorder. To do this, a written survey was administered to 146 students. Results indicated that students perceived stuttering to have a general negative impact on everyday life. The authors reported four themes that emerged from the participants’ qualitative comments. These themes were related to emotional and behavioural consequences of stuttering, negative listener reactions, life effects of stuttering (i.e. social, academic and occupational), and individual differences among PWS that may result in variations in life effects. Some participants commented that they felt that stuttering would limit job opportunities, especially jobs that involve oral communication; some even reportedly believed that PWS were likely to live in poverty and even be put in ‘special homes’ that support them, financially. Regarding the effects of familiarity with stuttering on perceptions, the ratio of life effects statements to the total number of statements made was significantly greater for participants who knew a PWS ‘very well’. Hughes et al. concluded that these additional comments reflect a generally negative perspective towards persons who stutter, and that some individuals appear to exaggerate the life effects of stuttering. Gabel et al. (2004) conducted a study to explore whether PWS experience vocational stereotyping. A group of 385 university students completed the Vocational Advice Scale (VAS) to indicate perceptions of appropriate career choices for a PWS and a person who does not stutter (PWDNS). Results revealed that 20 out of 43 careers were judged to be significantly less appropriate for PWS. In addition, mean VAS scores for a PWS were significantly lower than for a PWDNS (the lower the score, the less appropriate the career choice is perceived to be). Careers requiring a high degree of communication skill, guidance to others (including a SLP), and advocacy for others were judged to be inappropriate choices for PWS. The career of ‘attorney’ was given the weakest recommendation for a PWS, while ‘computer programmer’ was given the strongest recommendation. The authors astutely pointed out that the perceptions of university students are important because they are making decisions about future careers; therefore, attitudes of their peers will likely influence these choices. As they represent the attitudes of future individuals in the work

Perceptions of cluttering environments of PWS, the attitudes of students are important to PWS when making career choices (Gabel et al. 2004). Although a negative perception of stuttering seems to exist, some researchers questioned whether these perceptions could be altered with increased exposure to the PWS. For example, McGee et al. (1996) tested this hypothesis by utilizing a video presentation of a PWS prior to administering surveys. The investigators hypothesized that the influence of a video presentation would lessen the general negative stereotype of a PWS. High school students completed two semantic differential rating scales before and after viewing a documentary. The documentary featured two high school males: one speaking fluently and one speaking with a stuttering disorder. Before viewing the documentary, the students rated the disfluent speaker relatively negatively, assigning traits such as being more guarded, nervous, shy and tense. After viewing the documentary, students continued to hold the negative perception of the disfluent male, assigning additional traits such as self-derogatory, fearful and inflexible. These results suggested that viewing the video actually provided additional support for the negative stereotype. Mayo et al. (2008) conducted a similar study examining whether perceptions of stuttering could be modified by viewing an educational video on stuttering. Using a bipolar, seven-point scale, participants rated the PWS portrayed in a video entitled ‘Speaking of Courage’ before and after viewing the video. This video depicted the emotional struggle of a young girl who stutters, as well as the aetiology and treatment of her fluency disorder. Results revealed that after viewing a 20-min segment of the video, eight out of 25 semantic scale items were found to have significant positive rating shifts. Some of these changes included fairly cooperative to quite cooperative, fairly pleasant to quite pleasant, fairly intelligent to quite intelligent, and fairly emotional to quite emotional. No significant negative shifts in ratings were found. Wenker et al. (1996) also reported the assignment of some ‘positive’ traits towards a PWS. The primary purpose of their study was to investigate whether participants would assign different personality traits towards someone producing disfluent speech versus fluent speech. The researchers incorporated four conditions using both live and audiotaped presentations by an actor speaking with and without modelled, disfluent speech. After the lectures, participants rated personality traits for the actor. Results indicated that the speaker in the disfluent condition received more admirable trait assignments (e.g. sincere, friendly and trustworthy), than did the same speaker in the fluent condition. Interestingly, although participants rated the lecturer in the disfluent condition more positively on several personality traits, they rated this presentation less positively in terms of

349 speech skills. These results suggested that participants were keenly aware of the speaker’s disfluencies, but that this did not negatively impact perceptions of his personality traits. In a subsequent study incorporating using a live presentation of a PWS, Lake et al. (2009) measured university students’ ratings of personality traits and speech skills of a course instructor who stutters. A survey was administered at the beginning of the academic semester to 56 undergraduate and 24 graduate students enrolled in speech–language pathology courses. Results indicated that the instructor was rated more positively on most personality characteristics than on speech skills. These positive personality traits included calm, reliable, relaxed, intelligent, confident, outgoing, and approachable. Not surprisingly, the speech skills rated more negatively included fluency, rate, and ease of listening to the instructor’s speech. Panico et al. (2005) compared the effects of presentation mode (i.e. audio-only and audiovisual) and stuttering severity levels on perceptions of a PWS. The speaker produced four speech samples of varying severity levels of stimulated stuttering (i.e. 0%, 5%, 10% and 15% stuttering frequency). A group of 64 adult listeners completed a six-item Likert scale and four open-ended questions. The Likert-scale items related to the speaker’s competence, as well as the listeners’ levels of comfort, patience and understanding regarding the speaker’s speech. Results yielded a main effect for stuttering severity; listeners rated the mild stuttering (5%) significantly more positively than moderate stuttering (10%). Additionally, as severity increased, the number of negative comments made in response to the open-ended questions increased. No significant differences were found between the two modes of presentation (audio-only and audiovisual). Flynn and St. Louis (2011) compared the effects of a live presentation and a recorded video presentation of PWS on scores on the Public Opinion Survey of Human Attributes—Stuttering (POSHA-S); participants were 83 high school students. Results revealed that in the oral condition, 59 of 67 POSHA-S items changed in a positive direction from pre- to post-presentation; 22 of these changes were significant. In the video condition, 53 of 67 comparisons improved, with 19 improving significantly; however, changes pre- to post-video were not as large as changes in the oral condition. Lastly, in the video plus oral condition, adding a brief oral presentation following the video increased attitudes to the post-levels of the oral condition. From video to video plus oral, 37 of 67 comparisons showed improvement; eight of these comparisons were significant. The authors concluded that the live, oral presentation was more even effective than a professionally prepared video in altering high school students’ perceptions of people who stutter in a positive direction.

350 Healey et al. (2007) examined differences in listeners’ perceptions of specific personality characteristics of a PWS who did or did not disclose that he stuttered. Participants were 90 adults (students and faculty members). An adult, male PWS, using ‘simulated stuttering’, discussed a job he once had with an adult, female adult listener. The PWS spoke during three videotaped interactions: disclosure at the beginning; disclosure at the end; and no disclosure. Participants completed a sevenpoint Likert scale to indicate agreement with the following personality traits: sincere, likeable, trustworthy, friendly, shows character and emotionally well-adjusted. Results revealed that the only significantly different statement was ‘This person is friendly’ between no disclosure and disclosure at the end of the interaction. The majority of highest mean ratings (i.e. most positive) were during self-disclosure at the beginning; there was a gradual decrease in ratings from the first three conditions. However, all mean ratings were 5.37 or higher (out of 7), even for the no disclosure condition. In general, listeners were comfortable listening to the PWS whether or not he disclosed his stuttering. Hughes et al. (2011) explored the extent to which talking about stuttering with a known PWS affects perceptions of stuttering. Participants were 152 adults who reported knowing a PWS; they completed one semantic differential scale on the known PWS, and another scale regarding a hypothetical ‘average’ PWS. The independent variable was whether participants had talked about stuttering with the known PWS (n = 46); however, the majority of participants (n = 106) had not discussed stuttering with a PWS. Results revealed that talking about stuttering did not affect perceptions toward the known PWS or the average PWS. But, most participants reported relatively positive attitudes toward both PWS, whether or not that had discussed stuttering with the known PWS. St. Louis and Hinzman (1986) conducted one of the first studies examining SLPs perceptions of an individual who clutters. Cluttering is a fluency disorder wherein a person ‘clutters’ his or her speech, speaking at a fast rate, and often speaking unintelligibly. The person who clutters (PWC) may collapse words, omit syllables or slur sounds (Guitar 2014). However, the speaker’s rate is not necessarily continuously rapid; many PWC produce short bursts of rapid speech filled with misarticulations and disfluencies. These disfluencies differ from those typically heard in stuttering (e.g. interjections, incomplete phrases, multi-syllable word and phrase repetitions, revisions). Also, such disfluencies are usually devoid of the physical tension often observed in stuttering (Guitar 2014). To a greater degree than stutterers, clutterers often become more fluent, slower and more intelligible when they make an effort to control their speech. However,

Lindsey M. Farrell et al. also in contrast to stuttering, most PWC are not aware that they are cluttering unless a listener brings it to their attention (Guitar 2014). In addition to speech production deficits, cluttering often presents with concomitant problems such as language disorders, distractibility, hyperactivity, learning difficulties and auditory processing deficits (St. Louis 1996, St. Louis et al. 2007, Ward and Scaler Scott 2011). To complicate matters further, cluttering is often accompanied by stuttering, making differential diagnosis particularly challenging. Lastly, regarding a possible aetiology, cluttering may be related to abnormalities in the basal ganglia (Alm 2004). Limited evidence suggests that cluttering may yield similar perceptions from listeners as does stuttering (St. Louis and Hinzman 1986). In this study, 126 SLPs and special educators completed a survey soliciting their views on cluttering. Results indicated that most of the SLPs associated cluttering with other disorders including learning disabilities and behavioural disorders. In addition, the SLPs reportedly preferred to work with a client who stutters than a client who clutters. This preference was assumed to result from most SLPs’ limited knowledge of and experience in treating cluttering (St. Louis and Hinzman 1986). Having relatively little experience working with those who clutter may have resulted in an unfavourable perception by SLPs regarding treating this disorder. Although SLPs reported an unfavourable perception of treating a client with a cluttering disorder (St. Louis and Hinzman 1986), St. Louis et al. (2011) further explored whether a similarly negative perception exists in a larger population. Toward this end, they conducted a study examining public attitudes towards cluttering and stuttering in four countries (St. Louis et al. 2011). In order to measure perceptions, questionnaires and rating scales were distributed to the participants in the general public. Each questionnaire began with written definitions of cluttering and stuttering, followed by questions that asked the respondents to rate their ‘overall impression’, degree to which they would ‘want to have’ a cluttering and/or stuttering disorder and ‘amount known’ or the number people they had known to have a cluttering and/or stuttering disorder. In the second part of the survey, respondents rated their reactions to and opinions of a PWC and/or PWS. Results indicated that public attitudes towards cluttering and stuttering were similar. Participants rated both cluttering and stuttering relatively low in the categories of ‘overall impression’, degree to which they would ‘want to have’, and ‘amount known’. However, it is important to note that only written definitions of cluttering and stuttering were provided, rather than a speech sample of actual persons with fluency disorders. To summarize, the majority of previous findings in this area have suggested a general negative stereotype

Perceptions of cluttering assigned to a PWS and/or clutters. However, more recent research has yielded findings suggesting that increased exposure to a person with a fluency disorder (e.g. a live or video presentation) may increase the likelihood of an observer assigning more positive traits (e.g. Flynn and St. Louis 2011, Mayo et al. 2008). Some of these positive characteristics include honesty, intelligence, and approachability (Lake et al. 2009). Findings suggest that ongoing personal and informal contact with an individual who exhibits a fluency disorder may reduce negative perceptions (Klassen 2002). If individuals are exposed to a PWS or clutters through seeing or hearing them, they might rate them more positively on personality characteristics. Wenker et al. (1996) reported that after viewing a live presentation of an actor modelling a fluency disorder, students tended to rate the speaker with more favourable personality traits but less favourable speech skills. Mayo et al. (2008) found that viewing an educational video led to shifts in attitudes from negative to more positive. Conversely, St. Louis et al. (2011) found that providing only a written definition of the disorder resulted in individuals rating the disorder relatively negatively in their overall impression of a person with a fluency disorder. Thus, using only a written definition, as opposed to a live or video presentation, may affect the perceptual ratings of a PWS and/or clutters. However, there is a paucity of research examining perceptions of a PWC and whether these perceptions can be modified via video exposure to people who clutter. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to assess undergraduate students’ perceptions of a PWC; more specifically, to determine whether the presence of a written definition or actual video presentation has an impact on ratings. Based on recent research (e.g. Flynn and St. Louis 2011, Lake et al. 2009, Mayo et al. 2008), we hypothesized that participants who viewed a video segment would rate personality traits more positively than those who merely read a written definition of cluttering. In addition, we hypothesized that students in both groups (i.e. video and no video) would rate personality traits more positively than speech skills. Method Several university classes were selected to receive either the definition condition (DC) or definition/video condition (DVC). Prior to initiation of the study, a consent form was read aloud and students were asked to complete it in order to participate. Participants in both conditions were then provided with a questionnaire that included a written definition of cluttering (see appendix A). Before completing the survey, participants listened as the examiner read the definition aloud. Students in the DC group were instructed to complete the survey

351 after the examiner read the definition. For the DVC, the participants viewed a 5-min DVD segment, listened to definition presented verbally, and then completed the survey (see the Materials for a detailed description of the DVD). Upon completion of the study, the questionnaires were collected and placed in a separate folder from the consent forms. The study was conducted at the end of the class period; participation was voluntary, anonymous and confidential. The course instructors were not present during data collection. All students present for class participated and a total of 120 survey forms were collected (i.e. 100% return rate). Participants Participants were university students enrolled in undergraduate-level courses in history, statistics and public relations. A total of 105 surveys were included in the data analysis. This included surveys completed by 72 women and 32 men; one participant did not provide gender information. Additionally, 11 participants did not provide any demographic information whatsoever; these surveys were excluded from the analysis. In the DC, 54 surveys were analysed: 13 male and 40 female. In the DVC, 51 surveys were analysed: 19 male and 32 female. Out of the 120 surveys collected, four participants indicated that they were communication disorders and sciences (CDS) majors; their surveys were excluded from the analysis. Therefore, all 105 participants included in the analysis were non-CDS majors. The ages of the participants in ranged from 17 to 28 years (mean = 19.4 years). In the DC, ages ranged from 18 to 24 years (mean = 19 years). The racial background of these participants included 41 Caucasian, six nonCaucasian, six multiracial and one participant who did not respond to this question. Eighteen (33%) of these students were freshman, 13 (24%) were sophomores, 13 (24%) were juniors, seven (13%) were seniors and three participants did not indicate class rank. In the DVC, ages ranged from 17 to 28 years (mean = 19.6 years). Participants included 45 Caucasian, two nonCaucasian, two multiracial and two participants who did not respond to this question. Fourteen (28%) students were freshman, 17 (33%) were sophomores, 13 (26%) were juniors and 6 (12%) were seniors; one participant did not respond to this question. Additional questions pertaining to the participants’ exposure to cluttering were included in the demographic portion of the survey. Ten (19%) participants in the DC and three (6%) participants in the DVC reported having at least one immediate family member who clutters. Thirteen (24%) participants in the DC and five (10%) in the DVC indicated they had an extended member of their family that clutters. Twenty-seven (50%) students in the DC and 15 (30%) students in

352

Lindsey M. Farrell et al.

the DVC reported having one to four friends who clutter. Twenty-two (41%) students in the DC and five (10%) in the DVC indicated that they had one to three previous instructors who clutter.

experiences as PWCs, including difficulties in social situations resulting from listeners having difficulty understanding their speech. Data analysis

Materials The instrument, based on previous research (Lake et al. 2009, Woods and Williams 1976), was adapted to assess students’ perceptions of a PWC. The first section of the instrument (see appendix A) consisted of five questions that asked the participant to rate a PWC (in general) on speech skills that are useful for communication. Participants were asked to rate each item along a seven-point scale. In addition, the questions ‘Given the opportunity, would you hire this person as an employee?’ and ‘Was your reluctance to hire this person related to their fluency disorder?’ were included in the instrument. According to St. Louis et al. (2011), having a cluttering disorder is perceived to affect the others’ desire to interact and work with that individual. Therefore, these two questions were added in order ascertain whether or not participants in the present study would hold a similar view. In other words, they were included as a more ‘ecologically valid’ indication of respondents’ attitudes toward people who clutter. As asserted by Gabel et al. (2004), the perceptions of university students are important because they represent the attitudes of future individuals in the work environments of persons with fluency disorders. The second half of the questionnaire consisted of a list of 10 bipolar personality traits (see appendix A). Again, using a seven-point scale, participants were asked to rate a PWC on each characteristic. The final section of the survey included (optional) demographic information; participants were asked to provide information such as gender, age, race, class rank and number of individuals they know who clutter. In addition to reading and hearing the definition of cluttering, students in the DVC watched a 5-min segment of a video entitled ‘Cluttering’. This DVD is commercially available through the Stuttering Foundation of America. Written and narrated by Florence Myers, PhD and Kenneth St. Louis, PhD, the video provides information about cluttering such as symptoms, coexisting problems, evaluation, and treatment. It also depicts several individuals (male and female) of different ages diagnosed with cluttering. Participants in the DVC were shown the ‘What is Cluttering?’ chapter of the DVD. In addition to the narrators describing the nature and symptoms of cluttering, this segment features several written, audio and video samples of cluttered speech. These samples were produced by several different speakers, most of whom were adolescents or young adults who cluttered. These individuals also described their

Mean, standard deviation and standard error values for speech skills and personality characteristics were computed. In order to compare the mean ratings between the DC and DVC participants’ responses, two-tailed, independent-samples t-tests were performed. The significance level for each comparison was adjusted to p < 0.003 (0.05/16) to compensate for the 16 t-tests calculated and to reduce the likelihood of a Type I error. In order to compare the mode responses to item 7 (‘Given the opportunity, would you choose to hire this person as an employee?’) and the follow-up, item 8 (‘Is your reluctance to hire this person related to the person’s fluency disorder?’) between the two groups of participants, two cross-tabulation procedures with chisquare tests (χ 2 ) were performed. The alpha level was set at p < 0.05. Results Mean, standard deviation and standard error values for ratings of speech skills and personality traits by both groups of participants are presented in tables 1 and 2, respectively. The results of the independent samples t-tests revealed that DC and DVC students’ responses were not significantly different on any of the scales presented (tables 1 and 2). That is, with a preset alpha level of p < 0.003, DC and DVC participants did not rate a PWC significantly differently on any of the speech skills or personality characteristics. The mean ratings for all speech skills were slightly higher (i.e. more negative) for those in the DVC group than the DC group, although not to a significant degree. For both groups, the speech skill of difficulty listening yielded the highest mean rating (DVC = 5.29; DC = 4.67). Fluency and rate also elicited similarly high mean ratings from both groups (i.e. 4.0 and above). The speech skill that yielded the lowest (i.e. most positive) rating was handicapped (DC = 3.07). With the exception of fearfulness and outgoingness (DC = 4.54, DVC = 4.51; DC = 4.02, DVC = 3.90) slightly higher ratings (i.e. more negative) were also assigned to the personality traits by the DVC participants than those in the DC group. Nervousness (DVC = 5.31, DC = 5.22) and tenseness (DVC = 5.31, DC = 5.17) elicited the highest mean ratings for personality traits from both groups. Similarly high values were also assigned to insecurity and fearfulness (i.e. 4.50 and above) by both groups. Personality traits that yielded lower (i.e. more positive) ratings included intelligence

Perceptions of cluttering

353

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, standard errors and results of t-tests for each of six bipolar speech scales reported for a person who clutters by DC (n = 54) and DVC (n = 51) DC

DVC

Scale item

Mean

SD

SE

Mean

SD

SE

Intelligible/unintelligible Fluent/disfluent Appropriate/inappropriate rate Appropriate/inappropriate volume Easy listening/difficult listening Not handicapped/handicapped

3.89 4.37 4.61 3.53 4.67 3.07

1.30 1.50 1.32 1.51 1.38 1.44

0.18 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.19 0.20

3.92 4.98 4.89 3.71 5.29 3.73

1.29 1.33 1.24 1.20 1.38 1.47

0.18 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.21

t

p

−0.129 −2.2 −1.1 −0.663 −2.5 −2.92

0.898 0.030 0.282 0.509 0.014 0.024

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, standard errors and results of t-tests for each of 10 bipolar personality scales reported for a person who clutters by DC (n = 54) and DVC (n = 51) DC

DVC

Scale item

Mean

SD

SE

Mean

SD

SE

Calm/nervous Reliable/unreliable Relaxed/tense Unafraid/fearful Intelligent/unintelligent Confident/insecure Friendly/unfriendly Outgoing/shy Competent/incompetent Approachable/unapproachable

5.22 3.28 5.17 4.54 3.15 4.67 2.98 4.02 3.22 3.24

1.34 1.41 1.60 1.38 1.42 1.43 1.27 1.49 1.37 1.49

.18 0.19 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.20

5.31 3.53 5.31 4.51 3.31 4.76 3.04 3.90 3.72 3.60

.93 1.24 0.91 1.10 1.05 1.26 1.26 1.44 1.22 1.55

.13 0.17 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.22

(DVC = 3.31, DC = 3.15) and friendliness (DVC = 3.04, DC = 2.98), indicating a more ‘positive’ view compared to other personality traits rated. In both groups, no ratings fell below 2.98, suggesting an absence of extremely positive perceptions of speech skills and personality traits towards a PWC. The results of two cross-tabulation procedures with chi-square tests yielded no significant difference between the two groups with regards to the number of students who would reportedly choose to hire a PWC, Pearson χ 2 (1, N = 103) = 0.402, p = 0.702. One hundred and three participants out of 105 answered this question. Thirty-six students out of 53 (68%) from the DC group and 30 of the 50 (60%) from the DVC group reported that they would choose to hire a PWC as an employee. However, there was a significant difference between the two groups’ responses to whether any reluctance to hire a PWC was related to his/her fluency disorder, Pearson χ 2 (1, N = 38) = 0.000, p = 20.442. Nineteen out of 21 (90%) in the DVC but only 3 out of 17 (17%) in the DC indicated that their reluctance to employ a PWC was related to the person’s fluency disorder. Discussion In the present study, undergraduate students rated a PWC on several speech and personality scales. In

t

p

−0.404 −0.974 −0.584 0.112 −0.667 −0.374 −0.234 0.407 −1.993 −1.169

0.687 0.332 0.561 0.911 0.500 0.709 0.816 0.685 0.107 0.245

general, previous research suggested a negative stereotype that exists toward those who exhibit stuttering (Dorsey and Guenther 2000, Franck et al. 2003, Hughes et al. 2010, McGee et al. 1996, McKinnon et al. 1986) and similarly, cluttering (St. Louis et al., 2011). However, other investigators found that exposure to an actual person with a fluency disorder through a live or video presentation yielded more positive perceptions of some personality traits (Flynn and St. Louis 2011, Lake et al. 2009, Mayo et al. 2008, Wenker et al. 1996). Results of the present study revealed that participants in both groups (i.e. video and no video) rated a PWC at least somewhat negatively on most speech skills and personality traits. However, some personality trait ratings were more positive than those of speech skills, consistent with our hypothesis. These findings are also consistent with results from the Lake et al. (2009) study, which found a more positive assignment of ratings of personality traits than speech skills. Personality traits that yielded the most ‘positive’ perceptions (i.e. below 3.50) were intelligence, friendliness, competence and approachability. The assignment of relatively positive ratings for intelligence and friendliness is consistent with findings of Wenker et al. (1996). The personality traits that yielded more ‘negative’ perceptions (i.e. above 3.50) were nervousness, tenseness, insecurity and fearfulness. The trait of outgoingness was also rated closer to the negative end of the scale,

354 but only slightly so. These findings are consistent with those of McGee et al. (1996), who found that traits such as guarded, nervousness, shyness, tenseness, fearfulness, and insecurity tend to be assigned towards persons who stutter. The only speech skill rating that fell into the more positive range (i.e. 3.50 or below) was handicapped (DC only), as most ratings of speech skills were above 3.50 for both groups. Speech skills with the most negative ratings included fluency, speech rate and ease of listening. The two speech skills that were rated only slightly negatively were speech volume and intelligibility. Although not to a significant degree, the mean ratings were higher (i.e. more negative) for all speech skills in the DVC than the DC. Similarly, Lake et al. (2009) found that the instructor who stuttered was rated less favourably on speech skills including ease of listening, speech fluency, and speech rate. Likewise, in the present study, these three speech skills yielded the highest mean ratings (i.e. most negative) for both the DC and DVC group, although slightly higher in the DVC group. This finding is also consistent with the results from McGee et al. (1996), who found the video presentation to provide additional support for a negative stereotype. Similar to the results of Lake et al. (2009), the degree of handicap in the present study was rated slightly negatively by the participants who actually saw and heard disfluent speech (DVC = 3.73). However, it was one of the lowest rated (i.e. least negative) speech skills in both the DC and DVC; this may suggest a neutral or uncertain view regarding whether or not a PWC would be considered ‘handicapped’. In general, the present results indicate that viewing the brief video clip did not significantly influence ratings towards a more positive perception, but also did not influence ratings to be significantly more negative on any traits. In other words, there were no significant differences in ratings of speech skills and personality ratings regardless of whether a participant watched the 5-min video clip about cluttering. These results are similar to those of the Mayo et al. (2008) study in that the video exposure in both studies did not significantly impact ratings to become more negative. In fact, in the present study, two personality traits (unafraid and outgoing) were rated slightly more positively (albeit, not significantly so) by the students who viewed the video than by those who did not. Although the present findings do not support the idea of others assigning significantly more positive ratings for speech skills and personality traits with brief exposure to cluttering, it is important to consider the differences in ‘exposure’ to fluency disorders utilized in the various studies. In the Wenker et al. (1996) and Lake et al. (2009) studies, perceptions were based on a live presentation of a PWS. The actual presence of a

Lindsey M. Farrell et al. person with a fluency disorder may have led to more positive perceptions than the 5-min video clip shown in the present study. In the Mayo et al. (2008) study, a 20-min video documentary segment, featuring only one PWS, was utilized. The brief video segment used in the present study depicted multiple PWC and did not focus on the daily struggles of one particular PWC. If a longer segment of the video had been shown, perhaps including the treatment section, ratings might have shifted as they did in the Mayo et al. (2008) study. Findings from studies examining perceptions of stuttering (e.g. Collins and Blood 1990, Gabel 2006) suggest that a disfluent speaker mentioning participation in speech therapy during acknowledgment or self-disclosure of stuttering may impact listeners’ perceptions positively. In future studies, the use of a live or video presentation of one individual who clutters yield might more positive perceptions; this would afford listeners an opportunity to learn more about that specific person. Analysis of the demographic information in the present study revealed a higher number of identified PWC by the DC group compared to the DVC group, suggesting more prior exposure to people who clutter (see ‘Participants’ section). Speculatively, this might be the result of the participants in the DC group mislabelling ‘fast speech’ as cluttering, perhaps due to the lack of formal training in the area of communication disorders. It is certainly possible that this may have occurred because ‘fast’ speech was the first term used to describe cluttering in the definition provided. However, if these participants did have more family members, friends or instructors who cluttered, this would have increased the level of exposure to cluttering prior to participation in the study. As mentioned above, some of the ratings were found to be slightly more positive in the DC than in the DVC. If the participants in the DC had positive prior experiences with persons who clutter, this might explain why ratings were slightly closer to the positive end of the scale. However, it is important to note that the only ‘exposure-related’ variable that yielded a significant difference between the two groups was number of previous instructors who cluttered. That is, results of a post-hoc t-test indicated that the DC students reported having a significantly greater number of previous instructors who cluttered than did the DVC students (p = 0.001). As university students often ‘look up’ to their professors, positive interactions with a significantly greater number of instructors who clutter may have positively impacted the DC students’ perceptions of people who clutter. Similarly, most participants in the Hughes et al. (2011) study reported relatively positive attitudes toward a known PWS, whether or not that had discussed stuttering with that individual. Conversely, this might help explain findings from McGee et al. (1996), who

Perceptions of cluttering found that high school students perceived a disfluent male significantly more negatively after viewing a video documentary of an unfamiliar cohort who stuttered. In addition, there was no significant difference found between the two groups with regard to whether they would choose to hire this person as an employee. Despite the less than favourable perception of speech skills and some personality traits, 68% of students in the DC and 60% in the DVC reported that they would choose to hire a PWC as an employee. Thus, a PWC’s fluency disorder did not seem to impact participants’ overall perception of such a person’s ability to work effectively in his or her environment. However, results of the cross tabulation procedures did reveal a significant difference in the number of participants who were reluctant to hire a PWC specifically because he or she had a cluttering disorder. Out of those who answered ‘no’ to the previous question (‘Is your reluctance to hire this person related to the person’s fluency disorder?’), 90% of participants in the DVC, but only 17% of participants in the DC, reported that their reluctance to hire a PWC was due to that person’s fluency disorder. It is important to note that the video depicted several individuals diagnosed with cluttering, as well as multiple samples of cluttered speech. As the DC participants did not have an opportunity to hear ‘real’ cluttered speech, they might have been basing their perceptions on an erroneous assumption (i.e. simply fast speech). As the DVC participants had an opportunity to see and hear audio and video samples of cluttered speech, it is not surprising that they would be more reluctant to hire a PWC because he or she clutters. A participant in the DC may have not foreseen a PWC’s speech to be as much of a hindrance to successful employment as another in the DVC. As stated above, the DC participants reported a significantly higher number of instructors who cluttered than the DVC participants. If, in fact, they knew more individuals who truly cluttered, they could have based any reluctance to work with them on a previous interaction or experience with those individuals. As described above, Hughes et al. (2010) found that adults who reportedly knew a PWS ‘very well’ made a relatively high number of comments regarding the negative effects of stuttering on the life of a PWS. Thus, it is important to investigate both speech-related and non-speech-related factors that could contribute to the overall perceptions of a PWC. Future research in this area should also continue to focus on perceptions of actual persons who clutter and whether these judgments can be altered through different levels of education and exposure. For example, studies are needed to compare the relative effects of brief exposure and longer-term exposure to cluttered speech on listeners’ perceptions of persons who clutter. Lastly, in

355 the present study, we did not endeavour to examine the differences between cluttering and ‘fast speech’, which might have impacted the number of people identified as PWC by some respondents. In future studies, it would be beneficial to explore and explain the differences prior to administering perceptual rating scales.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to extend a note of gratitude to the undergraduate students and faculty for their participation in this study. They also thank Jane Frazier of the Stuttering Foundation of America for granting permission to display a segment of the DVD ‘Cluttering’. Lastly, they thank Sarah Falkenhagen, Rachel Spratta and April Fregoe for their assistance in administering and collecting the surveys. Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

References ALLARD, E. R. and WILLIAMS, D. F., 2008, Listeners’ perceptions of speech and language disorders. Journal of Communication Disorders, 41, 108–123. ALLPORT, G. W., 1954, The Nature of Prejudice (Worcester, MA: Clark University Press). ALM, P. A., 2004, Stuttering and the basal ganglia circuits: a critical review of possible relations. Journal of Communication Disorders, 37, 325–396. BROBERG, M., 2010, Expectations of and reactions to disability and normality experienced by parents of children with intellectual disability in Sweden. Child: Care, Health and Development, 37, 410–417. BURLEY, P. M. and 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. and 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. DORSEY, M. and GUENTHER, R. K., 2000, Attitudes of professors and students toward college students who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 25, 77–83. FLYNN, T. W. and ST. LOUIS, K. O., 2011, Changing adolescent attitudes toward stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 36, 110–121. FRANCK, A. L., JACKSON, R. A., PIMENTEL, J. T. and GREENWOOD, G. S., 2003, School-age children’s perceptions of a person who stutters. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 28, 1–15. GABEL, R. M., 2006, Effects of stuttering severity and therapy involvement on attitudes toward people who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 31, 216–227. GABEL, R. M., BLOOD, G. W., TELLIS, G. M. and ALTHOUSE, M. T., 2004, Measuring role entrapment of people who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 29, 27–49. GUITAR, B., 2014, Stuttering: An Integrated Approach to its Nature and Treatment, 4th edn (San Diego, CA: Singular). HEALEY, E. C., GABEL, R. M., DANIELS, D. E. and 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.

356 HUGHES, S., GABEL, R., IRANI, F. and SCHLAGHECK, A., 2010, University students’ perception of the life effects of stuttering. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43, 45–60. HUGHES, C., GABEL, R. and PALASIK, S., 2011, Talking about stuttering with a known person who stutters: impact on perceptions towards stuttering. Perspectives on Fluency and Fluency Disorders, 21, 50–58. KALINOWSKI, J. S., LERMAN, J. W. and WATT, J., 1987, A preliminary examination of the perceptions of self and others in stutterers and nonstutterers. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 12, 317–331. KALINOWSKI, J., STUART, A. and ARMSON, J., 1996, Perceptions of stutterers and nonstutterers during speaking and nonspeaking situations. American Journal of Speech–Language Pathology, 5, 61–67. KLASSEN, T. R., 2002, Social distance in the negative stereotype of people who stutter. Journal of Speech–Language Pathology and Audiology, 26, 90–99. LAKE, T. P., BLANCHET, P. G., LEVONYAN RADLOFF, T. and KLONSKY, B. G., 2009, Undergraduate and graduate students’ perceptions of an instructor who stutters. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 36, 26–35. MAYO, R., MAYO, C. M., GENTRY, A. and HILDEBRANDT, M., 2008, Can listeners’ attitudes towards a person who stutters be modified? Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech–Language–Hearing Association, Chicago, IL, USA. MCGEE, L., KALINOWSKI, J. and STUART, A., 1996, Effect of a videotape documentary on high school students’ perceptions of a high school male who stutters. Journal of Speech–Language Pathology and Audiology, 20, 240–246. MCKINNON, S. L., HESS, C. W. and LANDRY, R. G., 1986, Reactions of college students to speech disorders. Journal of Communication Disorders, 19, 75–82. PANICO, J., HEALEY, E. C., BROUWER, K. and SUSCA, M., 2005, Listener perceptions of stuttering across two presentation modes: a quantitative and qualitative approach. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 30, 65–85. RUSCELLO, D. M., LASS, N. J. and BROWN, J., 1988, College students’ perceptions of stutterers. NSSLHA Journal, 16, 115–120. SILVERMAN, F. H., 1990, Are professors likely to report having ‘beliefs’ about the intelligence and competence of students who stutter? Journal of Fluency Disorders, 15, 319–321. St. Louis, K. O. (ed.), 1996, Research and opinion on cluttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 21 [Special Issue]. ST. LOUIS, K. O., FILATOVA, Y., COSKUN, M., TOPBAS, S., OZEDEMIR, S., GEORGIEVA, D., MCCAFFREY, E. and GEORGE, R. D., 2011, Public attitudes toward cluttering and stuttering in four countries. In E. L. Simon (ed.), Psychology of Stereotypes (New York, NY: Nova), pp. 81–114. ST. LOUIS, K. O. and HINZMAN, A. R., 1986, Studies of cluttering: perceptions of speech–language pathologists and educators of cluttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 11, 131–149. ST. LOUIS, K., MYERS, F., BAKKER, K. and RAPHAEL, L. J., 2007, Understanding and treating cluttering. In E. Conture and R.

Lindsey M. Farrell et al. Curlee (eds), Stuttering and Related Disorders of Fluency, 3rd edn (New York, NY: Thieme), pp. 297–322. TURNBAUGH, K. R., GUITAR, B. E. and HOFFMAN, P. R., 1979, Speech clinicians’ attribution of personality traits as a function of stuttering severity. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 22, 37–45. Ward, D. and Scaler Scott, K. (eds), 2011, Cluttering: A Handbook of Research, Intervention and Education (Hove: Psychology Press). WENKER, R. B., WEGENER, J. G. and HART, K. J., 1996, The impact of presentation mode and disfluency on judgments about speakers. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 21, 147–159. WEST, T. V., 2012, Interpersonal perception in cross-group interactions: challenges and potential solutions. European Review of Social Psychology, 22, 364–601. WILLIAMS, D. F. and DIETRICH, S., 1996, Effects of speech and language disorders on raters’ perceptions. Journal of Communication Disorders, 29, 1–12. WILLIAMS, D. F. and DIETRICH, S., 2001, Perceptions of communicative disorders: verification and specification of rater variables. Journal of Communication Disorders, 7, 355–266. WOODS, C. L. and WILLIAMS, D. E., 1976, Traits attributed to stuttering and normally fluent males. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 19, 267–278. YAIRI, E. and WILLIAMS, D. E., 1970, Speech clinicians’ stereotypes of elementary-school boys who stutter. Journal of Communication Disorders, 3, 161–170. YEAKLE, M. K. and COOPER, E. B., 1986, Teacher perceptions of stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 11, 345–359.

Appendix SURVEY OF STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF A PERSON WHO CLUTTERS DEFINITION: Cluttering is a speech problem in which a person’s speech is either too fast, too jerky, or both. Most people who clutter seem to run their words or sentences together, and they often have many more fillers, hesitations, revisions, or other breaks in their speech than normal speakers do. Their speech sounds “cluttered” as though they do not have a clear idea of what they want to say, and they are often not aware that they have a speech problem. I. SPEECH SKILLS: Please circle one number on each line to show your rating on how you would perceive a person who clutters’ speech skills along each dimension. For example, for “Speech Intelligibility,” a rating of “1” would indicate completely intelligible speech, and “7” would indicate completely unintelligible speech.

Perceptions of cluttering

357

1. Speech Intelligibility: Intelligible

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Unintelligible

2. Speech Fluency: Fluent

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Disfluent

3. Speech Rate: Appropriate Rate

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Inappropriate Rate

If you judged speech rate to be “inappropriate” (i.e., “4” or higher), please circle one of the two choices below that most closely describes the mperson who clutters’ speech rate: a) too slow 4. Speech Volume: Appropriate Volume

1

b) too fast 2

3

4

5

6

7

Inappropriate Volume

If you judged speech volume to be “inappropriate” (i.e., “4” or higher), please circle one of the two choices below that most closely describes the person who clutters’ speech volume: a) too soft

b) too loud

5. Ease of Listening (i.e., how easy it is to listen to this person’s speech): Easy 1 2 3 4

5

6

7

Difficult

6. Degree to which the person who clutters is handicapped by the fluency disorder: Not Handicapped 1 2 3 4 5

6

7

Handicapped

7. Given the opportunity, would you choose to hire this person as an employee? Please circle one: YES NO If you answered NO to Question 7, please answer Question 8. 8. Is your reluctance to hire this person related to the person’s fluency disorder? Please circle one: YES NO

a rating of “1” would indicate that the person who clutters is judged to be extremely calm, and “7” would indicate that the person who clutters is judged to be extremely nervous.

II. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS: Please circle one number on each line to show how you would rate the person who clutters along each of the following personal characteristics. For example, for “Calm/Nervous,” 1. Calm 2. Reliable 3. Relaxed 4. Unafraid 5. Intelligent 6. Confident 7. Friendly 8. Out-going 9. Competent 10. Approachable

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

III. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: The following questions are OPTIONAL. 1. Gender: _________ 2. Age: _________ 3. Race (please circle one): Caucasian Non-Caucasian Multi-Racial 4. Communication Disorders and Sciences Major (i.e., Speech-Language Pathology) Major (please circle one): YES NO

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Nervous Unreliable Tense Fearful Unintelligent Insecure Unfriendly Shy Incompetent Unapproachable

5. Class Rank (i.e., freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior): _________ 6. Number of immediate family members who clutter: _________ 7. Number of extended family members who clutter: _________ 8. Number of friends or acquaintances who clutter: _________ 9. Number of your previous instructors who clutter: _________

Copyright of International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Effects of video exposure to cluttering on undergraduate students' perceptions of a person who clutters.

Previous research suggests a negative stereotype toward people with fluency disorders (i.e. stuttering and/or cluttering), although recent findings su...
157KB Sizes 0 Downloads 3 Views