Abstract
This paper examines stuttering— defined as “the fluency of verbal expression characterized by involuntary, audible or silent, repetitions or prolongations of sounds or syllables” (Büchel & Sommer, 2004). Society’s negative reaction to people who stutter (PWS), specifically, society’s implication of public stigmas and discrimination will be analyzed throughout this paper. This research paper will explore the effects and reactions that PWS suffer in a social setting due to societies’ negative reaction. Research by Marilyn Langevin, Ann Packman, and Mark Onslow will be used as support for this investigation.
People Who Stutter Versus Society:
How Reactions from Society Affect
Psychological Well-Being
Society is unaware of the truth behind stuttering, “the disruption in the fluency of verbal expression by an interruption of involuntary and uncontrolled repetitions or prolongations of sounds or syllables” (Büchel & Sommer, 2004). Due to the lack of advocacy on this issue, many people tend to form misconceptions for people who stutter, otherwise known as PWS. Consequently, stereotypes are formed and people who stutter may experience social and emotional pressures in response to these inappropriate stereotypes. These social and emotional pressures tend to lead to harmful ramifications towards crucial aspects of their life development, specifically, education, employment, and social interaction.
Considering the fact that there is a misunderstanding of the disorder of stuttering, the definition of what stuttering is and what it is not must be first stated. Julie Mazzuca-Peter, a Speech-Language Pathologist for the Metropolitan Separate School Board, provided different examples of stuttering in her article, The Students Who Stutter-Teachers Guide. In her article, she lists several examples of stammering such as:
Audible or silent blocking part or whole-word repetitions (e.g. pa-pa-paper), broken words (e.g. ha-ppy), phrase repetitions (e.g. what is-what is- your name?), sound prolongations (e.g. f-f-f-flower), interjections (e.g. um, uh, like, you know), or even when someone’s conversation revolves around a single, exclusive topic (Mazzuca-Peter, 1989).
It has long been believed that stuttering was a disorder onset by psychological factors like anxiety. This psychosomatic belief for the origin of stuttering has not been accepted because it raises disagreement in its validity. For instance, when taken into account that the majority of people who stutter are children, one would therefore assume or expect to see abnormally higher levels of anxiety in children. Yet, Craig’s research has found that children who stutter do not exhibit significant variances in their anxiety levels about life than children who do not stutter (as cited in Starkweather & Givens-Ackerman, 2000).
Public speaking suffices as another example to refute the belief that stuttering is the result of psychosomatic origin. Oftentimes, during a public presentation, people find themselves stuttering and claim that it was a reaction of their feelings of nervousness or anxiety. While this is partly true, because social and emotional pressures do contribute to fluency, there are people who stutter that do not have speech-related anxiety. People who stutter report that they fear their speech fluency will prompt a negative response from society. Their fear is of the possible humiliation or embarrassment that their stuttering will have on their listener’s perception of them (Starkweather & Givens-Ackerman, 1997).
Another example that disproves the theory that speech-related anxiety is the cause of stuttering is through the observation of people who experience conditional stuttering when engaging in conversation between someone of high authority. In the book, Stuttering by C. Woodruff Starkweather and Janet Givens-Ackerman, it is stated that when a person is comfortable with their listener the outcome is either a less severe impediment on speech fluency or the absence of the stutter entirely.
The other general trend in stuttering development essentially reveals that the child is in control of the disappearance or the progression of severity in their early stages of stuttering. The tendency for children to encounter a stutter that increases in severity seems to be a result of how the child reacts to the problem; each reaction can either make the stuttering worse or subdue the severity (Starkweather & Givens-Ackerman, 1997).
Taking things from a different perspective, research by Hulstijn and Peter’s contradicts the theory that emotion affects stuttering. Through their research they found a minimal difference in anxiety levels prior to talking between people who stutter and those without a speech fluency disorder (Hulstijn & Peters, 1984).
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, states that whether during the hiring, promotion, or firing steps of employment, discrimination in the workplace is against the law there is still documented discrimination towards people who stutter (Starkweather & Givens-Ackerman, 1997). For example, employers may not hire a person if they notice they stutter during an interview because they will assume that the person is incapable of handling social situations. Eighty-five percent of employers claim in one study, "stuttering decreases a person's employability and opportunities for promotion” (Hurst & Cooper, 1983). This is a detrimental misguided stigma because although people who stutter may take a little longer to communicate, they do have the capability of performing job tasks.
One misconception people tend to effortlessly believe is that stuttering is a behavior related to personality, when in it is actually a combination of underlying cognitive and emotional responses to one’s environment. Shockingly, The Stuttering Foundation, a non-profit organization helping those who stutter, reports that stuttering affects 68 million people worldwide, what is more appalling is the fact that 80% of this population is comprised of children between the ages of 3 and 8 years old. According to Jake Cunnigham, the root cause of stuttering is formed from a child’s psychological reaction to their environment. He believes that the overwhelming expectations and stimulus that a child goes through between the ages of 3 and 8 years old results in a subconscious insecurity and anxiety. This socio-emotional reaction can affect many aspects of their life, verbal expression being one of them (Cunningham, 2012).
As children grow, the demands and capacities are naturally meant to progress simultaneously with their developmental stages. The demands can be considered environmental events and internal environments that thwart fluency. The capacities can be thought of as the qualities of the individual that aid in the development of speech fluidity. The aforementioned is a confirmation of why an individual’s ability to speak fluently is dependent on their environment’s demands for their fluency (Starkweather & Givens-Ackerman, 1997).
Relatively, family relationships closely impact a child’s development of speech. The expectations that parents may place on a child’s speech performance influence an emotional response. The emotional response may ultimately lead the child to associate feelings of fear or anger towards the rigorous demands of their family. This emotional response becomes a factor that can negatively impact their fluency and can create a vicious cycle of frustration for both the person who stutters and the family of that individual. Mazzuca-Peter explains her opinion on the high expectations of family members for speech fluency. She states:
Some children are expected to perform on a level above their ability. Perhaps it is from the desire to acquire adult speech, to talk in phrases and sentences before the skill of talking has had time to mature, that most stuttering starts. Fluent speech is very important in our society and the struggle to obtain fluency may be too great for some children in an environment complicated by busy parents, talkative brothers and sisters, and the new experience of school (Mazzuca-Peter, 1989).
The home environment may be disturbing to the normal development of speech; a home consistently involving parents who quarrel, or homes in which discipline is too strict, or too lenient and tolerant are homes that are susceptible to insufficient satisfaction for basic insecurity. Negligence to fulfill this human need may be reflected in the child's speech (Mazzuca-Peter, 1984)
H.F.M Peters and Starkweather studied the development of stuttering further and classified the phases according to the development of capacities and demands for fluency. Their research parallels Erik Erikson’s Theory of Socioemotional Development in the way that like Erikson’s view, whether the preceding stage was successfully accomplished or not, what is experienced is carried forward to the next stage of development. In other words, the stages of development lay a foundation for the succeeding stage. For this reason, the socio-emotional development of children who stutter raises alarm because early childhood education is a foundation for growth
H.F.M Peters and Starkweather identify the time period of two-years old to six-years-old as Phase 1 of development, which doesn’t characterize a compromise in social or emotional development. A study by Marilyn Langevin, Ann Packman, and Mark Onslow, evaluated the responses of preschool children between the ages of three-years old to four-years-old to their classmates who stutter and found results that compliment Peters and Starkweather’s phase of development.
The results of the study conducted by Lanegvin, Packman, and Onslow are represented as follows. Aaron, one of the children observed in the case study, encountered trouble with cooperative play when he tried to direct his classmates in a game of Simon Says. His stuttering resulted in lack of attention to his instruction by his classmates. Another child, David, didn’t experience difficulty in participating in play with his classmates but his stammering did impede his ability to engage in a problem solving discussion. The response of the classmates to the child’s utterances was dependent on the severity of the stuttering. Although it is difficult to measure the direct impact on emotion that the reactions from peers imposed, through the results displayed from this observational study, the stutterers did demonstrate either social penalty or ineffectiveness in their communication due to their disrupted speech.
Although there was no direct evidence from the study on the impact that the social penalty has on these children who stutter now, the withdrawal of social interaction and play raises alarm for the impact that it can have on the children’s future development. The fear lies in the fact that the developmental stages of play in conjunction with the developmental stages of language throughout early childhood foster a child’s language development. As early as infancy, when children engage in play they learn the relation of cause and effect. With this newly found discovery, infants begin to contribute non-verbal communication responses to their play partner and then in attempt to obtain attention they transition into communicating through babble (Oddo & Castleberry, 2013). According to Oddo, by the toddler stage of play, they will imitate the communication of their peers through pretend and parallel play. Thus at this stage if a child is experiencing a disruption in their speech fluency they may potentially experience an ineffectiveness in their attempt to verbally contribute to the pretend play. Limitations in the school setting may be encountered at Phase 2 of development (the phase of children ages six through twelve years old).