Introduction: Research reveals the clinical efficacy of both verbal and written stuttering disclosure statements provided by a child who stutters (CWS) and his advocates (i.e., mother or teacher) [Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2020 Jul;51(3):745–60 and Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2021 Aug;52(4):1031–1048]. Although existing data reveal that both the source (i.e., self- vs. advocate disclosure) and modality (i.e., verbal or written) of stuttering disclosure yields significant improvements in the perceptions of speech skills and personality characteristics of CWS, there is a paucity of research directly comparing the modality (verbal vs. written) and source (self, mother, teacher) of disclosure statements. Accordingly, this study analyzes listeners’ perceptions of a 12-year-old male CWS’ speech skills and personal characteristics, as a function of both the source and modality of factual stuttering disclosure statements [Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2020 Jul;51(3):745–60 and Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2021 Aug;52(4):1031–1048]. Methods: A total of 641 college-aged adults participated in this analysis; study participants reported their perceptions of speech skills and personality characteristics of a 12-year-old CWS as a function of stuttering disclosure. Participants were randomly assigned to view one video containing one of two disclosure modalities (verbal or written), one of three stuttering disclosure source conditions (self-disclosure, mother disclosure, and teacher disclosure), or a no-disclosure control condition. Participants in the control group viewed a brief video of a 12-year-old CWS reciting a short reading passage; participants in the experimental groups viewed their assigned disclosure statement followed by the same video used in the control condition. Immediately following the video, all participants completed a survey quantifying their perceptions of the CWSs relative to his speech skills and personal characteristics. Results: Results reveal optimal results via verbal self-disclosure and verbal teacher disclosure. A limited number of nominally positive perceptual differences were noted within the written mother disclosure group, while written CWS self-disclosure yielded significantly negative perceptions of the CWS. Overall, verbal disclosures yield far more significant and desirable perceptions of CWS’ speech skills and personal characteristics when compared to written stuttering disclosure. Discussion: Results of this analysis reveal that verbal stuttering disclosure is significantly more effective in improving listeners’ perceptions of a CWS, when compared to written stuttering disclosures. Despite the widespread adoption of written communication over digital media (e.g., email and text messages), these data support the notion that face-to-face or video verbal stuttering disclosure provides the most desirable perceptual benefits for CWS. Within verbal stuttering disclosure, verbal self-disclosure appears to be the single best overall disclosure methodology relative to clinical application.

Journal Section:
Research Article
Keywords:
Stuttering, Stammering, Advocate, Disclosure, Quality of life
1.
Craig A, Blumgart E, Tran Y. The impact of stuttering on the quality of life in adults who stutter. J Fluency Disord. 2009 Jun;34(2):61–71.
2.
Conture EG. Stuttering: its nature, diagnosis, and treatment. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 2001.
3.
Bloodstein O, Ratner NB. A handbook on stuttering. 6th ed. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson/Delmar Learning; 2008.
4.
Betz IR, Blood GW, Blood IM. University students’ perceptions of pre-school and kindergarten children who stutter. J Commun Disord. 2008 May;41(3):259–73.
5.
Craig A, Tran Y, Craig M. Stereotypes towards stuttering for those who have never had direct contact with people who stutter: a randomized and stratified study. Percept Mot Skills. 2003 Aug;97(1):235–45.
6.
Dorsey M, Guenther RK. Attitudes of professors and students toward college students who stutter. J Fluency Disord. 2000 Mar;25(1):77–83.
7.
Franck AL, Jackson RA, Pimentel JT, Greenwood GS. School-age children’s perceptions of a person who stutters. J Fluency Disord. 2003 Mar;28(1):1–15.
8.
Lass NJ, Ruscello DM, Pannbacker MD, Schmitt JF, Everly-Myers DS. Speech-language pathologists’ perceptions of child and adult female and male stutterers. J Fluency Disord. 1989;14(2):127–34.
9.
Lass NJ, Ruscello DM, Schmitt JF, Pannbacker MD, Orlando MB, Dean KA, et al. Teachers’ perceptions of stutterers. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 1992 Jan;23(1):78–81.
10.
Lass NJ, Ruscello DM, Pannbacker M, Schmitt JF, Kiser AM, Mussa AM, et al. School administrators’ perceptions of people who stutter. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 1994 Apr;25(2):90–3.
11.
Ruscello DM, Lass N, Brown J. College students’ perceptions of stutterers. NSSLHA J. 1988;16:115–20.
12.
Byrd CT, McGill M, Gkalitsiou Z, Cappellini C. The effects of self-disclosure on male and female perceptions of individuals who stutter. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2017 Feb;26(1):69–80.
13.
Collins CR, Blood GW. Acknowledgment and severity of stuttering as factors influencing nonstutterers’ perceptions of stutterers. J Speech Hear Disord. 1990 Feb;55(1):75–81.
14.
Gabel RM, Blood GW, Tellis GM, Althouse MT. Measuring role entrapment of people who stutter. J Fluency Disord. 2004 Jan;29(1):27–49.
15.
Lake TP, Blanchet PG, Radloff TL, Klonsky BG. Undergraduate and graduate students’ perceptions of an instructor who stutters. Contemp Issues Commun Sci Disord. 2009;36(Spring):26–35.
16.
Yaruss JS, Quesal RW, Reeves L, Molt LF, Kluetz B, Caruso AJ, et al. Speech treatment and support group experiences of people who participate in the National Stuttering Association. J Fluency Disord. 2002 Apr;27(2):115–33; quiz 133-4.
17.
Dayalu VN, Kalinowski J. Pseudofluency in adults who stutter: the illusory outcome of therapy. Percept Mot Skills. 2002 Feb;94(1):87–96.
18.
Snyder G, Williams MG, Adams C, Blanchet P. The effects of different sources of stuttering disclosure on the perceptions of a child who stutters. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2020 Jul;51(3):745–60.
19.
Snyder G, Manahan A, McKnight P, Kornisch M. The effects of written stuttering disclosure on the perceptions of a child who stutters. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2021 Aug;52(4):1031–48.
20.
Healey EC, Gabel RM, Daniels DE, Kawai N. The effects of self-disclosure and non self-disclosure of stuttering on listeners’ perceptions of a person who stutters. J Fluency Disord. 2007 Jan;32(1):51–69.
21.
Byrd CT, Croft R, Gkalitsiou Z, Hampton E. Clinical utility of self-disclosure for adults who stutter: apologetic versus informative statements. J Fluency Disord. 2017 Dec;54:1–13.
22.
Blanchet P, Snyder G. The effects of factual and apologetic modes of self-disclosure on university students’ perceptions of a speaker who stutters. Oxford, UK: St. Catherine’s College; 2017.
23.
Boyle MP, Milewski KM, Beita-Ell C. Disclosure of stuttering and quality of life in people who stutter. J Fluency Disord. 2018 Dec;58:1–10.
24.
Corrigan PW, Michaels PJ, Powell K, Bink A, Sheehan L, Schmidt A, et al. Who comes out with their mental illness and how does it help? J Nerv Ment Dis. 2016 Mar;204(3):163–8.
25.
Byrd CT, Gkalitsiou Z. The influence of self-disclosure on school-age children’s perceptions of children who stutter. J Child Adolesc Behav. 2016;4(3).
26.
Allen WT. Read my lips: it’s my choice; 1989.
27.
Martin JE, Huber Marshall L, Maxson LL. Transition policy: infusing self-determination and self-advocacy into transition programs. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals. 1993 Apr;16(1):53–61.
28.
McGill M, Siegel J, Nguyen D, Rodriguez S. Self-report of self-disclosure statements for stuttering. J Fluency Disord. 2018 Dec;58:22–34.
29.
Blanchet PG, Snyder G. Perceptions of cluttering among communication sciences and disorders and non communication sciences and disorders students. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups. 2017 Oct;2(4):43–53.
30.
Woods CL, Williams DE. Traits attributed to stuttering and normally fluent males. J Speech Hear Res. 1976 Jun;19(2):267–78.
31.
Byron K. Carrying too heavy a load? The communication and miscommunication of emotion by email. Acad Manage Rev. 2008 Apr;33(2):309–27.
32.
High AC, Caplan SE. Social anxiety and computer-mediated communication during initial interactions: implications for the hyperpersonal perspective. Comput Human Behav. 2009 Mar;25(2):475–82.
33.
Leary MR, Kowalski RM. Social anxiety. New York: Guilford Press; 1995.
34.
Riordan MA, Kreuz RJ. Cues in computer-mediated communication: a corpus analysis. Comput Human Behav. 2010 Nov;26(6):1806–17.
35.
Shepherd R-M, Edelmann RJ. Reasons for internet use and social anxiety. Pers Individ Dif. 2005 Oct;39(5):949–58.
36.
Tanis M, Postmes T. Social cues and impression formation in CMC. Journal of Communication. 2003 Dec;53(4):676–93.
37.
The Radicati Group. Email statistics report; 2019, 2023. Available from: https://www.radicati.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Email-Statistics-Report-2019-2023-Executive-Summary.pdf.
38.
Kiesler S, Siegel J, McGuire TW. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. Am Psychol. 1984;39(10):1123–34.
39.
Weidman AC, Levinson CA. I’m still socially anxious online: offline relationship impairment characterizing social anxiety manifests and is accurately perceived in online social networking profiles. Comput Human Behav. 2015 Aug;49:12–9.
40.
Min J-A, Jung Y-E, Kim D-J, Yim H-W, Kim J-J, Kim T-S, et al. Characteristics associated with low resilience in patients with depression and/or anxiety disorders. Qual Life Res. 2013 Mar;22(2):231–41.
41.
Turner SM, Beidel DC, Townsley RM. Social phobia: relationship to shyness. Behav Res Ther. 1990;28(6):497–505.
© 2023 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2023
You do not currently have access to this content.