Elsevier

Journal of Fluency Disorders

Volume 50, December 2016, Pages 44-58
Journal of Fluency Disorders

A comparison of three strategies for reducing the public stigma associated with stuttering

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2016.09.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Three anti-stigma approaches (contact, education, and protest) were examined.

  • Education and protest reduced negative attitudes about people who stutter.

  • Contact increased affirming attitudes about people who stutter.

  • Advocates can use contact, education, and protest to reduce stuttering stigma.

Abstract

Purpose

The effects of three anti-stigma strategies for stuttering—contact (hearing personal stories from an individual who stutters), education (replacing myths about stuttering with facts), and protest (condemning negative attitudes toward people who stutter)—were examined on attitudes, emotions, and behavioral intentions toward people who stutter.

Method

Two hundred and twelve adults recruited from a nationwide survey in the United States were randomly assigned to one of the three anti-stigma conditions or a control condition. Participants completed questionnaires about stereotypes, negative emotional reactions, social distance, discriminatory intentions, and empowerment regarding people who stutter prior to and after watching a video for the assigned condition, and reported their attitude changes about people who stutter. Some participants completed follow-up questionnaires on the same measures one week later.

Results

All three anti-stigma strategies were more effective than the control condition for reducing stereotypes, negative emotions, and discriminatory intentions from pretest to posttest. Education and protest effects for reducing negative stereotypes were maintained at one-week follow-up. Contact had the most positive effect for increasing affirming attitudes about people who stutter from pretest to posttest and pretest to follow-up. Participants in the contact and education groups, but not protest, self-reported significantly more positive attitude change about people who stutter as a result of watching the video compared to the control group.

Conclusion

Advocates in the field of stuttering can use education and protest strategies to reduce negative attitudes about people who stutter, and people who stutter can increase affirming attitudes through interpersonal contact with others.

Introduction

Stuttering is a disorder that is often misunderstood and stigmatized by society (St. Louis, 2015). People who stutter (PWS) are often stereotyped as possessing undesirable personality traits (St. Louis, 2012), reacted to with discomfort (Guntupalli, Kalinowski, Nanjudeswaran, Saltuklaroglu, & Everhart, 2006), and discriminated against for jobs that require speaking (Gabel, Blood, Tellis, & Althouse, 2004). PWS are highly aware of these stigmatizing views of the public, and sometimes endorse these negative views and internalize them (Boyle and Blood, 2015, Boyle, 2013). Mere awareness of stigmatizing public attitudes is related to significantly higher levels of anxiety and depression among adults who stutter (Boyle, 2015). The anticipation of negative societal reactions is a well-known aspect of the stuttering disorder and is hypothesized to be related to the substantially elevated levels of trait and social anxiety found in many PWS (Craig and Tran, 2014, Iverach and Rapee, 2014). Anticipation of negative reactions due to stuttering can result in avoidance of speaking in certain situations, and therefore negatively affect quality of life and the ability to achieve life goals (Butler, 2013; Plexico, Manning, & Levitt, 2009a). Therefore, stigmatizing attitudes and reactions from the public represent environmental barriers to the communicative participation of PWS (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2016, World Health Organization, 2014).

Many professional and self-help organizations across the world include in their mission statement objectives of influencing the environmental barriers faced by PWS through education, outreach, and advocacy efforts at various levels from local to international (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2016, British Stammering Association, 2014, International Fluency Association, 2016, International Stuttering Association, 2016). Organizations often focus on improving public awareness, dispelling common myths, and protesting against unfair treatment of PWS in society through press releases and public service advertisements (e.g., National Stuttering Association, 2016; Stuttering Foundation, 2016).

Although professional and self-help organizations worldwide implement education and stigma reduction efforts to improve attitudes toward PWS, very little empirical evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of these efforts. If organizations are spending time and resources on education and advocacy programs, it will be optimal to focus those efforts on anti-stigma strategies that are empirically validated. This study attempted to document evidence for some of the most common anti-stigma strategies currently used. The following sections will briefly review evidence of benefits of certain anti-stigma strategies from the field of psychology, stigma reduction studies that have been conducted in the area of stuttering, and the purpose of the current study.

The psychology literature provides a thorough discussion and classification system for various stigma reduction strategies. One of the most extensively researched areas related to stigma is mental illness (Corrigan & Kosyluk, 2013). Although mental illness is certainly different from stuttering, individuals with mental illness and PWS have been documented as experiencing public stigma that can be internalized and applied to the self (Boyle, 2013; Corrigan, Rafacz, & Rüsch, 2011). The public also often misunderstands the causes of both of these conditions, particularly through underestimating the extent to which biological factors play an important role in onset (Kvaale, Gottdiener, & Haslam, 2013; Van Borsel, Verniers, & Bouvry, 1999). In addition, the public stigma that both groups face includes similar features (e.g., assumptions of negative personality attributes, prejudiced emotional reactions, discriminatory intentions) (Link & Phelan, 2006). Therefore, even though the disorders are distinct, it is useful to review the literature in mental illness to provide a framework for classifying and operationalizing anti-stigma strategies in the area of stuttering.

A review by Corrigan and Kosyluk (2013) outlined three major anti-stigma strategies that have been used for individuals with mental illness. One method is interpersonal contact with a person with a stigmatized condition. In this approach, the individual tells a personal story about the lived experience of having that condition to members of the public. This strategy relies on a person disclosing the condition to others. The contact approach relies on grassroots efforts from people with disabilities to enact public attitude change. An example might be a PWS from a local self-help support group coming to speak to members of the public at an event or class in that individual’s town. The education approach focuses on separating myths from facts. In this strategy, inaccuracies or myths about a certain condition are presented and then contrasted with facts from current research. Some examples of the education approach are groups like the Stuttering Foundation producing and distributing brochures to the public (or specific groups such as pediatricians) that contrast myths with facts (e.g., “There is a common misconception that people who stutter are nervous. Nervousness does not cause stuttering, and people who stutter have the same full range of personality traits as everyone else”) (Stuttering Foundation, 2015). The protest approach responds to injustices and unfair treatment of individuals by society. There is a tone of righteous anger and moral indignation toward the offenders, who are chastised for their words or actions. An example of protest would be the Stuttering Foundation issuing a press release condemning the U.S. comedy show Saturday Night Live after a sketch aired that made light of stuttering, stating that “…they chose to overlook the pain felt by many who stutter and their families for just a cheap laugh... Not funny SNL. Not funny at all.” (Stuttering Foundation, 2012). The vehicles used to transmit these strategies to the public can be media-based (e.g., videos), or in vivo (Corrigan & Kosyluk, 2013).

Corrigan, Morris, Michaels, Rafacz, and Rüsch (2012) conducted a meta-analysis of 72 articles focusing on the effects of the anti-stigma approaches described above on public stigma related to mental illness. Outcomes of interest were categorized into areas of attitudes (e.g., stereotypes), affect (e.g., emotional reactions), and behavioral intentions (e.g., avoidance), representing the most common types of outcomes measures for anti-stigma research. The data reported came from over 38,000 research participants across 14 countries. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that, on average, education and contact both improved attitudes, affect, and behavioral intentions toward individual with mental illness (mean effect size for each strategy was significantly different from zero), and these effect sizes ranged from small to medium across different outcomes. Contact seemed to be more effective with adults, whereas education was more effective with adolescents. The results also suggested that contact led to greater effects for attitudes, whereas education led to greater effects for affect and behavioral intentions. However, when only randomized controlled trials were analyzed, contact yielded the largest effects for each outcome measure. The average effect size for protest was not significantly different from zero, and so there appears to be less support for that strategy.

Considering the recognized importance of modifying public perceptions of stuttering (National Stuttering Association, 2002), it is notable that there has been relatively little published research in this area. To date, only six peer-reviewed journal articles have focused on altering negative attitudes toward stuttering. Flynn and St. Louis (2011) compared 83 high-school student attitudes toward PWS before and after either watching a video of three PWS, or listening to an oral live presentation given by a PWS. Attitudes were measured using the Public Opinion Survey of Human Attributes–Stuttering (POSHA-S). Positive attitudes toward PWS increased following both conditions, but more so in the oral live condition. Furthermore, adding an oral live presentation to the video-only condition significantly improved perceptions of PWS. This indicates that contact with a PWS telling his or her own story can be a potentially effective way to reduce the stigma associated with stuttering. Positive attitude changes were also found by Abdalla and St. Louis (2014) after showing pre-service trainees in Kuwait an educational video discussing factual and emotional aspects of stuttering. These videos also included personal stories from two adolescents who stutter in which they described their experiences as PWS. Significant differences in attitudes were not found for a group of in-service public school teachers in that same study however. Langevin and Prasad (2012) utilized a pretest-posttest design to study changes in 608 school-age children’s attitudes about stuttering following implementation of an educational curriculum and bullying prevention program. The program resulted in significantly improved attitudes towards PWS and bullying. Others studies not published in peer-reviewed journals have found that fluency coursework for speech-language pathology students (Junuzović-Žunić et al., 2015), and interdisciplinary training and education programs for speech-language pathology and counseling students (Hughes, Gabel, Roseman, & Daniels, 2015) can improve attitudes and increase knowledge about stuttering.

Other studies have not been as effective in producing attitude change. Snyder (2001) documented little meaningful changes in the attitudes of 55 graduate students after showing them videos highlighting emotional issues related to stuttering, or information about auditory feedback. Similarly, Leahy (1994) found no significant changes in negative stereotypes, and some increased negative stereotypes, about PWS following a year-long program for 13 graduate student clinicians including contact, empathy building exercises, and simulated stuttering. Similarly, McGee, Kalinowski, and Stuart (1996) actually found more negative stereotypical attitudes about PWS after showing 36 high-school students a documentary about stuttering. In a recent literature review, Abdalla (2015) cited and summarized several other studies focusing on attitude change for stuttering that were conference papers not published in peer-reviewed journals. From this review, Abdalla concluded that results across studies varied and were overall inconclusive, and recommended more rigorous methods of data collection in future research.

The discrepancies in findings across previously published peer-reviewed studies can probably be accounted for by the use of different stimuli (i.e., content of the videos presented) and outcome measures employed by the researchers. Limitations of some of the previous studies include the fact that many of the scales employed (with exceptions such as the POSHA-S) were limited to perceptions of personality stereotypes that did not include socially valid measures of emotional reactions, discriminatory intentions, and affirming attitudes. Furthermore, the stimuli delivered to participants in many of the previous studies have included pre-existing videos (with the exception of Abdalla & St. Louis, 2014) containing very diverse content that is not clearly described in the research reports. For example, the psychology literature highlights the strategies of contact, education, and protest and outlines key ingredients necessary to include in those strategies for maximizing attitude change (Corrigan & Kosyluk, 2013), however this degree of specificity is lacking in the area of stuttering. Finally, most studies have lacked follow-up analysis to determine if attitude changes persist over time.

Given the limitations of previous research, the current study was the first to compare three popular approaches for attitude change that are empirically validated in the psychology literature (contact, education, and protest) and apply them to PWS, immediately after the intervention, and one week later. In the literature review above it was shown that not all anti-stigma strategies are effective, and some might even intensify negative attitudes. If advocates spend valuable time and resources fighting the public stigma of stuttering, they should take into account what types of programs are effective, and for what specific outcomes. Therefore, this study was intended to be a rigorous assessment of anti-stigma approaches for stuttering that could help guide advocates in their campaigns to reduce environmental barriers for PWS. The anti-stigma approaches used in this study were all media-based (web videos) because they can reach broad audiences, be shared online, and views can increase exponentially nationally and internationally, making their potential impact quite large (Corrigan & Kosyluk, 2013).

The specific research questions for this study focused on whether the strategies of contact, education, and protest, when compared to a control condition, resulted in improvements in negative stereotypes, negative emotional reactions, social distance, discriminatory intentions, and empowerment toward PWS from pretest to posttest (before and immediately after watching an anti-stigma video), and one week later. Furthermore, it was of interest to examine which particular anti-stigma approaches would yield the largest benefits for attitudes, emotions, and behavioral intentions. Based on previous research on stigma reduction approaches, it was hypothesized that all three anti-stigma strategies would lead to more positive change compared to a control group, but that contact and education would be the most effective in improving outcomes.

Section snippets

Participants

Survey participants were recruited using Qualtrics. Qualtrics recruited participants from traditional, actively managed market research panels (i.e., they work with other companies that recruit online panelists). Qualtrics also employs social media to gather respondents. This web survey methodology was chosen because it allowed for a wide range of potential participants across the United States. In addition, it is an effective method for studying personal opinions discreetly in a confidential

Preliminary analyses

The majority of the respondents were Caucasian and female with an age range of 18–78. There was a roughly equal division between participants who personally knew someone who stutters and those who did not. Additional respondent characteristics and descriptive statistics for questions related to familiarity with stuttering are presented in Table 1. Before the primary analysis could proceed, analyses were conducted on the items making up certain variables. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was

Discussion

The hypotheses for this study were that all three anti-stigma strategies would lead to more positive attitude changes compared to a control group, but that contact and education would be the most effective in improving outcomes. The hypotheses of the study were mostly supported as it was shown that contact, education, and protest led to significantly greater improvements in attitudes (reduced stereotypes), affect (reduced negative emotions), and behavioral intentions (reduced discriminatory

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the National Stuttering Association awarded to the first author. Thanks to Mark Thomas for providing voice-overs for the education, protest, and control videos.

Michael P. Boyle, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, is an Assistant Professor and Director of the Fluency Disorders Laboratory in the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders at Montclair State University. His research focuses on understanding public and self-stigma experienced by people who stutter and identifying strategies for reducing stigma and increasing empowerment.

References (66)

  • E.P. Kvaale et al.

    Biogenetic explanations and stigma: A meta-analytic review of associations among laypeople

    Social Science & Medicine

    (2013)
  • K. Lee et al.

    Listener responses according to stuttering self-acknowledgment and modification

    Journal of Fluency Disorders

    (2010)
  • B.G. Link et al.

    Stigma and its public health implications

    The Lancet

    (2006)
  • L.W. Plexico et al.

    Coping responses by adults who stutter: Part I: Protecting the self and others

    Journal of Fluency Disorders

    (2009)
  • L. Plexico et al.

    Coping responses by adults who stutter: Part II. Approaching the problem and achieving agency

    Journal of Fluency Disorders

    (2009)
  • G. Schomerus et al.

    Continuum beliefs and stigmatizing attitudes towards persons with schizophrenia, depression and alcohol dependence

    Psychiatry Research

    (2013)
  • C. Sikorski et al.

    The association of BMI and social distance towards obese individuals is mediated by sympathy and understanding

    Social Science & Medicine

    (2015)
  • G.J. Snyder

    Exploratory research in the measurement and modification of attitudes toward stuttering

    Journal of Fluency Disorders

    (2001)
  • K.O. St. Louis

    Research and development on a public attitude instrument for stuttering

    Journal of Communication Disorders

    (2012)
  • F. Abdalla et al.

    Modifying attitudes of Arab school teachers toward stuttering

    Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools

    (2014)
  • F. Abdalla

    Changing attitudes toward stuttering

  • J.M. Allen et al.

    Retrospective pretest: A practical technique for professional development evaluation

    Journal of Industrial Teacher Education

    (2007)
  • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

    Scope of practice in speech-language pathology [Scope of Practice]

    (2016)
  • M.P. Boyle et al.

    Stigma and stuttering: Conceptualizations, applications, and coping

  • M.P. Boyle

    Assessment of stigma associated with stuttering: Development and evaluation of the self-stigma of stuttering scale (4S)

    Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

    (2013)
  • G.A. Boysen et al.

    Education and mental health stigma: The effects of attribution, biased assimilation, and attitude polarization

    Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology

    (2008)
  • British Stammering Association

    What we do

    (2014)
  • C. Butler

    Identity and stammering: Negotiating hesitation, side-stepping repetition: And sometimes avoiding deviation

    Sociology of Health & Illness

    (2013)
  • J. Cohen

    Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences

    (1988)
  • P.W. Corrigan et al.

    Erasing the stigma: Where science meets advocacy

    Basic and Applied Social Psychology

    (2013)
  • P.W. Corrigan et al.

    Three strategies for changing attributions about severe mental illness

    Schizophrenia Bulletin

    (2001)
  • P.W. Corrigan et al.

    Challenging the public stigma of mental illness: A meta-analysis of outcome studies

    Psychiatric Services

    (2012)
  • P.W. Corrigan et al.

    The california schedule of key ingredients for contact-Based antistigma programs

    Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal

    (2013)
  • Cited by (36)

    • Public attitudes toward stuttering in Malaysia

      2022, Journal of Fluency Disorders
      Citation Excerpt :

      People who stutter have reported lower self-esteem and fewer employment opportunities than those who do not (Boyle, 2017). Understanding public perceptions of stuttering has the potential to improve the lives of PWS by elucidating and educating public misconceptions and prejudices about the condition (Boyle, Dioguardi, & Pate, 2016; St. Louis, Sønsterud, Junuzović-Žunić, Tomaiuoli, Del Gado, Caparelli et al., 2016; St. Louis et al., 2020). In order to effectively raise public awareness about a stigmatizing situation, it is necessary to first understand the current state of general knowledge about stuttering before developing strategies that foster a more accepting society (Iimura et al., 2018).

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Michael P. Boyle, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, is an Assistant Professor and Director of the Fluency Disorders Laboratory in the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders at Montclair State University. His research focuses on understanding public and self-stigma experienced by people who stutter and identifying strategies for reducing stigma and increasing empowerment.

    Lauren Dioguardi, M.A., is currently working on her master’s degree in Speech-Language Pathology at Montclair State University. She has a master’s degree in Education of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and Elementary Education, and bachelor’s degrees in Education of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and Psychology from the College of New Jersey.

    Julie E. Pate, B.A., is currently working on her master’s degree in Speech-Language Pathology at Montclair State University. She has a bachelor’s degree in Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences from Hofstra University.

    View full text