Search

Purpose: This study examined whether people who stutter would associate biological and non-biological explanations of stuttering with the endorsement of stereotypes about people who stutter, prognostic expectations for the reduction of stuttering, feelings of guilt, self-blame, and shame about stuttering, and agency for speech modification. Method: This was a cross-sectional study including 372 adults who stutter. Participants completed a web survey with scales that measured their agreement with biological and non-biological models of stuttering; their endorsement of common stereotypes for people who stutter; prognostic expectations for reduced stuttering; feelings of guilt, self-blame, and shame about stuttering; and feelings of agency in their ability to modify their speech. Result: Biological explanations for stuttering were significantly correlated with reduced stereotype endorsement about people who stutter, lower prognostic expectations for reducing stuttering, and reduced feelings of guilt and self-blame regarding stuttering. Non-biological explanations for stuttering were significantly correlated with increased endorsement of negative stereotypes about people who stutter, increased prognostic expectations for reducing stuttering, and increased feelings of guilt, self-blame, and shame about stuttering. Conclusion: It is concluded that the implications of biological framing of stuttering among people who stutter are complex and should be well thought out by professionals. Explaining stuttering as biological, but responsive to personal and environmental influences, may lead to reduced guilt and self-blame, while at the same time fostering feelings of agency for speech modification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research examined the relationship between the nature of newspaper coverage of social protests and the level of deviance and type of protest. A content analysis of 280 protest news stories from the Milwaukee Journal. Wisconsin State Journal. Sauk Prairie Star. Watertown Times, and Park Falls Herald from, 1960 to 1499 was conducted to compare indicators of the protest paradigm between protests that either support the status quo, endorse moderate reform, or seek radical reform. Additional analyses looked at the role that the type of protest played in adherence to the protest paradigm. Results of analyses indicate that moderate reform and radical reform protests were more likely to be treated critically in both the headline and main body of the article as well as have greater emphasis plated on specific events rather than themes end goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]