Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, George Washington University, 2115G Street NW, Suite 226, Washington DC 20052, 202-994-5008, United States.
Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, George Washington University, 2115G Street NW, Suite 226, Washington DC 20052, 202-994-5008, United States; Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, 2405A Whitis Ave, Stop A1100, Austin, TX, 78712, United States.
J Commun Disord. 2022 Jan-Feb;95:106161. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2021.106161. Epub 2021 Nov 2.
Numerous research studies indicate that stuttering is associated with increased risk for social anxiety disorder (SAD). Interpretation bias is one of four cognitive biases thought to maintain symptoms associated with SAD. Interpretation bias occurs when one evaluates social situations as more negative than they actually are. The purpose of this study was to investigate if adults who do and do not stutter interpret positive, ambiguous, mildly negative, and profoundly negative social situations similarly, or-if like individuals with SAD-adults who stutter exhibit negative interpretation biases.
Forty-eight adults who stutter and 42 age-and gender-matched adults who do not stutter participated. Participants completed the Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE) and were assigned to one of four groups: adults who stutter with high FNE (AWS-High), adults who stutter with low FNE (AWS-Low), adults who do not stutter with high FNE (AWNS-High), and adults who do not stutter with low FNE (AWNS-Low). All participants completed the trait scale of the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the Interpretation and Judgmental Questionnaire (IJQ). The IJQ contains descriptions of four types of social situations: positive, mildly negative, profoundly negative, and ambiguous. Within each situation type there are five different scenarios, for a total of 20 scenarios across the four situation types. Participants provided written responses to these 20 social scenarios. Qualitative analyses were used to understand how members of each group interpreted the different social scenarios.
Thematic analysis revealed that each group responded in similar ways to each of the social scenarios, regardless of the type of situation. Adults who do and do not stutter with low and high FNE agreed on many themes related to the 20 social scenarios, and they agreed across all four types of social situations. Somewhat surprisingly, the theme "stuttering" was mentioned infrequently by the adults who stutter.
Results suggested that adults who do and do not stutter with low and high FNE interpret social situations similarly, and that no group demonstrated a negative interpretation bias consistent with what is observed in adults with SAD. The interpretations provided by each group were appropriate to the specific scenarios being evaluated.
许多研究表明口吃与社交焦虑障碍(SAD)的风险增加有关。解释偏差是维持与 SAD 相关症状的四种认知偏差之一。当一个人将社交情境评估为比实际更负面时,就会发生解释偏差。本研究的目的是调查口吃和不口吃的成年人是否以相似的方式解释积极、模糊、轻度负面和深度负面的社交情境,或者——如果像 SAD 患者一样——口吃的成年人是否表现出负面的解释偏差。
48 名口吃成年人和 42 名年龄和性别匹配的不口吃成年人参加了研究。参与者完成了害怕否定评价量表(FNE),并被分配到四个组之一:高 FNE 的口吃者(AWS-High)、低 FNE 的口吃者(AWS-Low)、高 FNE 的不口吃者(AWNS-High)和低 FNE 的不口吃者(AWNS-Low)。所有参与者都完成了状态特质焦虑量表(STAI)和解释与判断问卷(IJQ)的特质量表。IJQ 包含四种类型的社交情境的描述:积极、轻度负面、深度负面和模糊。在每种情境类型中都有五个不同的场景,四个情境类型共有 20 个场景。参与者对这 20 个社交场景提供了书面回答。定性分析用于了解每个组如何解释不同的社交场景。
主题分析显示,无论情境类型如何,每个组对每个社交场景的反应方式都相似。低 FNE 和高 FNE 的口吃和不口吃成年人对 20 个社交场景的许多主题都有相似的看法,并且他们在所有四种社交情境类型中都达成了一致。有点令人惊讶的是,口吃成年人很少提到“口吃”这个主题。
结果表明,低 FNE 和高 FNE 的口吃和不口吃成年人对社交情境的解释相似,并且没有一个组表现出与 SAD 患者观察到的一致的负面解释偏差。每个组提供的解释与正在评估的特定场景相符。