A STUDY Of M SELF CONCEPTS OF STUTTERERS AS MEASURED BY A. SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL TEST Thesis for the D‘QP‘BQ of M A. MICHIGAN smz Umnxsm 1 ~ R026? 1’; Hansen ' I' ' 1964 “W 3 mm“ M “W“ 3123 x; Will Win w ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE SELF CONCEPTS OF STUTTERERS AS MEASURED BY A SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL TEST by Roger P. Hansen It is the purpose of this study to investigate the concepts Myself, Friends, My Happiest Self, Myself with a Speech Problem, Strangers, Myself in the Future, Myself and Failure and People of Authority to see if differences occur between stutterers and normal speakers when these concepts are compared. It is also the purpose of this study to investigate if people think of themselves and their friends in much the same way or differently. One hundred subjects (50 stutterers and 50 normal speakers) were included in this study. Each of the subjects had completed high school or college or at the time were attending college. None had any defects or abnormalities other than the stutterers whose only defect was their speech. The subjects were asked to complete a semantic differential test which contained the concepts for study on separate pages. The test also included the necessary control information and directions for completing the test. It was found that the stutterers and normal speakers did not differ significantly except for three dimensions. Roger P. Hansen Upon some occasions, however there is some room for doubt as to the accuracy of the stutterers reporting. It was also found that all subjects tended to rate themselves and their friends on equal dimensions much the same. From the findings of the first part of this study it may be concluded that stutterers conceive of them- selves as being more anxious and tense than normal speakers conceive of themselves. It may also be said that stutterers conceive of their Friends as being less sociable than nor- mal speakers conceive of their Friends. It may be said further that stutterers conceive of themselves when their happiest to be more excitatle than the normal speakers conceived of themselves. Finally, within the confines of the areas studied, it may be concluded that stutterers and normal Speakers do not conceive of themselves differently on the concepts Myself with a Speech Problem, Strangers, Myself in the Future, Myself and Failure and People of Authority. The findings from the second part of the study allows the conclusion that people tend to think of their friends much the same as they think of themselves. A STUDY OF THE SELF CONCEPTS OF STUTTERERS AS MEASURED BY A SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL TEST By Roger P. Hansen A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech 1961.L LIST OF TABLES LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES. CHAPTER I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. Introduction . . Statement of Problem and Purpose of Study . Questions Posed . . Importance of Study. Definition of Terms. . Organization of the Thesis II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. Research on Stutterers' Concept of Self . Opinions on Stutterers' Concept of Self . .III. SUBJECTS, TEST AND PROCEDURE Subjects Test. . Procedure . IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results. Discussion. V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY. APPENDICES ii Page iii iv H mm m watk H MIDI—J 00 mm |'\)‘l—-' 24 31 Al 41 A2 45 so Table LIST OF TABLES Page Probability Values from the Wilcoxon Matched— Pairs Signed—Ranks Test, When Stutterers and Normal Speakers are Compared on the Indepene dent Dimensions Which are Unique for Each Concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Probability Values from the Wilcoxon Matched- Pairs Signed—Ranks Test When Stutterers and Normal Speakers were Compared on the Three Universal Dimensions . . . . . . . . . 28 Probability Values from the Wilcoxon Matched- Pairs Signed—Ranks Test, When All Subject‘s Own Scores on the Three Universal Dimensions were Compared for the Concepts Myself and Friends . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 iii Graph II. III. LIST OF GRAPHS Number of Differences at Each Degree of Difference (d) When the Capability Dimension for Concepts I and II was Compared for the Same Subject Number of Differences at Each Degree of Difference when the Genuineness Dimension for Concepts I and II was Compared for the Same Subject . Number of Differences at Each Degree of Difference When the Toughness Dimension for Concepts I and II was Compared for the Same Subject. iv 38 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction The topics of self and self-concept are extremely important in understanding human behavior. One authority1 claims that "the self is the most important structure in the psychological field, and it is likely, under normal conditions, to be one of the strongest structures.” It is held that our basic purpose for communication is to affect others, which in turn has the purpose of gratifying 2 This would include the maintainence of self—esteem. self. Krech and Crutchfield3 also see this important need for self-esteem. They say that ”some of the most potent of all needs and the most effective of all goals have to do with the defense of the self, i.e. with the adjustment of the field in such a way as to enhance feelings of self- esteem and self-regard.” It is impossible to discuss the subject of the self-concept without thinking about its' 1David Krech and Richard s. Crutchfield, Theory and_ Problems of Social Psychology (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1948), p. 69. 2David Berlo, The Process of Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1960), p. ll. 3Krech and Crutchfield, loc. cit. l relationship to other people, groups, and society in general. There must be contact with other people before one can evaluate and compare himself with others to form his own self-concept. In fact, people are constantly in- fluencing the self-concepts of others. When we talk with children and tell them that they are smart, naughty, or 1 silly, we make our impression upon their self-concepts. If they are told these things enough times, they will adapt them to their concept of self. We do, however, help to make our self-concepts ourselves. We judge our own accomplishments and compare them with those of others. The result of such a comparison is very instrumental in forming self-concepts? Over the years our self-concepts also become influential in guiding our behavior. People often live up to their concepts of self.3 Many authorities on stuttering also seem to believe that self-concepts guide behavior, as evidenced by their theories, although not all of them put it in such definite 14 terms. Johnson, in his introduction to Eisenson's book 1Robert w. White, The Abnormal Personality (New York: Ronald Press Co., 1956), p. 158 21bid., p. 159. 3G. Murphy, Personality: A Biosocial Approach to Origins and Structure (New York: Harper & Bros., l9AT), pp. 505457 “Wendell Johnson, Stuttering: A Symposium, editor Jon Eisenson (New York: Harper & Bros., 1958), pp. xv, xvi. dwells at some length on the importance of referring to stuttering as something a person is doing and not as some- thing a person is or has. Bloodsteinl in the same book builds upon Johnson's belief and discusses the Diagnosogenic theory of stuttering. He quotes Johnson as saying ”that stuttering as a disorder develops not before the diagnosis (that one is a stutterer) but after it and is caused to a large extent by the diagnosis and the attitudes and reactions with which it tends to be associated." Van Riper2 believes that adults should react unemotionally to the child‘s stuttering blocks, because such reactions to ab- normalities will help to determine the stutterer‘s own reactions. The research devoted to the area of stutterers and their self-concepts has been very meager in proportion to the importance of the subject. The limited amount of re- search which has been completed is somewhat contradictory in its findings. It is hoped that this study will shed further light on this important subject of stutterers and their selfrconcepts. lOliver Bloodstein, Stuttering: A Symposium, editor Jon Eisenson (New York: Harper & Bros., 1958): p. 8. 2Charles Van Riper, Speech Correction; Principles ard Methods (2d ed.: Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1956). p- 355. Statement of Problem and Purppse of Study The problem with which this study is concerned is that of determining if there is a difference in the self- concepts of stutterers when compared with normal Speaking individuals. Also, it is concerned with determining if a prediction of one's self—concept can be made by one‘s concept of his friends. The purpose of this study is to determine if there are any differences between stutterers and normal speakers on predetermined concepts of self and related concepts. It is also the purpose of this study to determine if a similar concept of one’s self and his friends exists. Questions Posed Questions posed at the outset of this study were: 1. Will stutterers' and normal speakers‘ scores for the concept ”Myself” vary significantly? 2. Will stutterers' and normal speakers' scores for the concept ”Friends" vary significantly? 3. Will stutterers‘ and normal speakers' scores for the concept ”My Happiest Self” vary significantly? 4. Will stutterers' and normal speakers‘ scores for the concept ”Myself with a Speech Problem” vary significantly? 5. Will stutterers' and normal speakers‘ scores for the concept ”Strangers” vary significantly? 6. Will stutterers: and normal speakers’ scores " vary significantly? for the concept ”Myself in the Future 7. Will stutterers' and normal speakers‘ scores for the concept ”Myself and Failure” vary significantly? 8. Will stutterers’ and normal speakers? scores for the concept ”People of Authority” vary significantly? 9. Will all speakers, stutterers and normal speakers, score themselves on Concept I, Myself and their friends on Concept II similarly to allow a prediction stating that people think of themselves in much the same way as they think of their friends? Importance of Study It is believed by some who come in contact therapeu- tically with stutterers that the self-concepts of these people are low. This study will attempt to shed more light on this subject. It is hoped that this study can aid in drawing more definite conclusions about stutterers' person- alities and help toward a better understanding of the problem. The findings of this study should be of importance to speech therapists by providing helpful information to be used in structuring a therapy program. Definition of Terms Terms employed frequently in this study are defined as follows: Self-Concept.--The self-concept shall be defined syn- onymously with Murphy and Fitzsimons"l definition of the self-process: ”The self-process consists of consciously or unconsciously experienced feelings, thoughts, evaluations, and wishes which relate to the individualis present, past, n or future concept of me or mine. Stuttering.--Repetitions, hesitations, or prolonga» tions in speech which call attention to themselves because of their frequency or severity. Semantic Differential Test.--A measuring device of people's concepts which requires the subject to rate a given concept on a series of rating scales with words of opposite connotation, representing the extreme ends of the scales. Normal Speakipg Subjects.--Speakers who speak under normal conditions, without attention being drawn to their articulation patterns, voice patterns, or fluency of speech. Factors and Dimension§.-—Used interchangeably as referring to those arbitrarily labeled personality character— istics, composed of several scales, which have been proven through factor analysis to be independent in measuring the personality characteristic for a given concept. lAlbert T. Murphy and Ruth M. Fitzsimons, Stuttering and Personality Dynamics (New York: Ronald Press Co., 1960), p. 115. 7 Scale.--Two bipolar adjectives with a seven point continuum between the adjectives for the purpose of rating a given concept. Organization of the Thesis Chapter I contains the statement of the problem which has led to this study, and the purpose of the study. It also includes an introduction, the questions being investi~ gated, the importance of the study and definitions of the terms used. Chapter II contains a review of the research and philosophies of others on the self-concepts of stutterers as reported in the literature. Chapter III includes a discussion of the subjects, the test, and the testing procedures employed in this study. Chapter IV consists of a discussion of the results of the test. Chapter V contains a summary of the study, the con- clusions which can be made from this study, and recommenda- tions for further study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Research on Stutterers‘ Concept of Self There has not been a great deal of research reported on the self-concepts of stutterers, but the research reported suggests the use of a wide assortment of techni- ques. Zelen, Sheehan, and Bugental1 studied the scores of thirty stutterers compared to normal speakers on the W-A-Y (Who Are You) Technique. This technique requires the subject to write three answers to the question: Who are you? Five different dimensions were found: age, positive affect, sex, unit and group membership. The stutterers were found to describe themselves with signifi- cantly more positive feelings than did the normal speakers. The authors, however, felt that the stutterers tended ”to over-compensate for their feelings of inferiority and so protect themselves with a halo of positive feelings.H When stutterers for whom treatment was successful were compared with stutterers for whom treatment was not lSeymour L. Zelen, Joseph G. Sheehan, and James F. T. Bugental, "Self Perceptions in Stuttering,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, X (195A) p. 71. successful, it was found that the first group made fewer negative statements about themselves and mentioned incidents of social status more frequently than did the group for whom treatment had not been successful. Wepman and Fiedlerl investigated the self-concepts of ten stutterers by using the Q-Sort Technique. Seventy-six descriptive personality traits were written on individual cards. Each subject was then asked to sort the cards into eight piles so that there were piles of 1, 5, 12, 20, 20, 12, 5, and 1, with the first pile containing the best descriptive self-statement and the last pile the least descriptive. Thus, a forced normal distribution was made. When compared with six matched controls, there was no difference found between self-concepts of the two groups. The stutterers were also compared with a group of clinical psychologists and a group of mental hygiene clinic patients. It was found that the stutterers tended to rate themselves more like the psychologists than the patients. The authors offer two possible reasons for the lack of difference in self-concept: (1) The self—concept is formed before the onset of stuttering, or (2) that stuttering has less disruptive effects on personality than previously thought. 1F. E. Fiedler, and J. Wt Wepman,”An Explanatory Investigation of the Self-Concept of Stutterers,” Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, XVI (1951), pp. 110-113. lO Wallenl also used the Q-Sort Technique to investigate stutterers‘ self-concepts. He had thirty adolescent male stutterers sort lOO statements which belonged to one of six categories: self—acceptance, independence, self-re~ jection, dependence, lack of emotional control, and with- drawal. Each subject was asked to make three sorts. One sort for the actual self-concept, one for the ideal self- concept and one for the concept of ”How I think others see me." It was found that adolescent male stutterers show significantly lower actual self-concepts and ideal self- concepts when compared to adolescent male non-stutterers. 2 has also shown considerable interest in Bender stutterers self-concepts. He discusses the results of a test utilizing the Bernreuter Personality Inventory with 249 college male stutterers. One personality character- istic which he found was that stutterers are less confident in themselves than their controls, made up of 303 non- stuttering male college students. Elsewhere in the same book he discussHs a survey study which includes the replies from 48 leading college Speech clinicians about personality characteristics of stutterers3 Of the 48 lVincent Wallen, ”A Q-Technique Study of the Self-Con— cept of Adolescent Stutterers and Non-Suttterers” (unpublish- ed Ph.D. dissertation, School of Education, Boston Univer~ sity, 1959), Dissertation Abstracts, XX p. 3392. 2James Bender, The Personality Structure of Stutterers (New York: Pitman Publishing Corp., 1939). p. 105. 31bid., p. 132. 11 leading college Speech clinicians about personality characteristics of stutterers. Of the 48 replies, 36 "agreed to a greater or lesser degree that characteristic traits may be linked with stuttering in a causal, resultant or concomitant way.” The largest single personality characteristic described by the clinicians was inferiority feelings which was reported by 13 individuals. The next largest trait was self-consciousness which has described 12 times. Next were neuroticisms with 9 and shyness and introversion both being described 8 times. It follows from this study that although the clinicians did not have a large area of common agreement, the area in which they did agree most can be described as related to the stut- terer and his relationship to self. Walnutl has studied 38 junior and senior high school stutterers and compared them with normal speakers with no handicaps and to normal Speakers with cleft palates or with a crippling condition. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory was used in the study. It was found that the stuterers, the crippled and the cleft palate individuals were within the normal range for test norms. It was found, however, that stutterers gave slight signs of paranoiac and depressive tendencies and that they gave lFrances Walnut, ”A Personality Inventory Item Analy- sis of Individuals who Stutter and Individuals who have Other Handicaps,” Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, XIX (1954), pp. 220-227. 12 indications of reacting abnormally to speech and speaking situations. Finally, Johnsonl used the Woodworth-House Mental Hygiene Inventory to investigate the personalities of 80 stutterers. In this test 100 statements of personality problems were given. The subjects were to respond by labeling each statement as being an extreme problem, a moderate problem or the problem does not exist. He found that stutterers are essentially normal psychologically. The problems of stutterers, however, did increase with age. Also, 10 of the 80 stutterers reported feelings of inferior- ity. It was felt that these feelings were the result and not the cause of the stuttering. It can be seen from the foregoing research that no universal conclusions on stutterers and their self-concept can be made. Following is recorded the opinions of several men who have expressed their philosophy about stutterers‘ self-concepts, but these expressions were not backed by their originators with research. Opinions on Stutterers‘ Concept of Self Many writers have expressed in some way a belief that self-concepts are a problem to the stutterer. Some of the lWendell Johnson, ”Influence of Stuttering on Attitude and Adaptations,H Journal of Social Psychology, V (1934), pp. 415-420. 13 authors do not expressly use the words self-concept, but they are unmistakably referring to the self-concept. Several people have observed feelings of inferiority 1 views stuttering as a morbid among stutterers. Fletcher social response which includes fear, anxiety, and feelings of inferiority as elements. He suggests that all stutterers probably suffer from an inferiority complex and that it there is an actual inferiority, there is an increased liability to stutter.2 It was further suggested that authority figures are very instrumental in triggering J inferiority and its response, stuttering. This can be evidenced somewhat by the fact that it is easier for stutterers to introduce themselves to someone they per- ceive to be inferior to them, or to someone for whom they 1; wish to do a favor, or over whom they have some control. Barbara5 also describes the same relationship 1John M. Fletcher, The Problem of Stuttering (New York: Longmans, Green, 1938), p. 226: 2Ibid., p. 236. 31bid., p. 242. “lbid., p. 245. 5Dominick Barbara, "Communication in Stuttering," Diseases of the Nervous System, XIX (1958) p. 178-181. 14 between the stutterers' fluency or lack of fluency when speaking to others of superior or inferior social status. Adlerl also sees stuttering in much the same way. He holds that stuttering bases its existence on an intensi- fied feeling of inferiority. It is "an attempt to with- draw by means of passive resistance from the superiority of other." Another writer2 also sees stuttering as being caused by self-conceptual problems. He lists four causes which he feels are inclusive of almost all reasons for stuttering. Three of these reasons can be summed up as feelings of in- adequacy in speaking, and a fourth as problems of adequacy feelings in social situations. Fletcher3 also places a lot of emphasis on feelings of inferiority as a cause in triggering stuttering and claims that The social relations of inferiority, of subjection to authority, of scrutiny, and criticisms are precisely the ones which have been found to be the most potent excitants of the emotional and motor reactions of stuttering. The foregoing men have expressed their views about inferiority as being typical self-feelings of stutterers. lAlfred Adler, The Practice and Theory of Individual Psychology (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1929), p. 139 2H. Heltman, "Psycho-Social Phenomena of Stuttering and Their Etiological and Therapeutic Implications,” Journal of Social Psychology, IX (1938) p. 90. 3Fletcher, loc. cit., p. 241. 15 Some of these men have pointed out that these feelings tend to trigger the reaction of stuttering. Bryngleson, and Murphy and Fitzsimons also see unhealthy self-concepts among stutterers, but in their descriptions of such, they see an injured concept following the stuttering. Brynglesonl points out that the asocial and maladaptive behavior of stutterers "is sponsored by the stutterer's own concept of self as a stutterer, as a human being different from other individuals because he stutters.” Murphy and Fitzsimons2 say much the same thing, but in different words. They hold that a person's stuttering fosters painful reactions from the stutterers' environment, thus strengthening self-under- estimation. They go on to explain further this feeling that "in one way, a stuttering person's self-concept may be thought of as his expectancy of what may happen to him in various situations." Murphy and Fitzsimons seem to be hinting here that although self-concepts are injured by stuttering, there appears to be to some degree an inter- relationship or cycle involving both stuttering and self- concept. Several more authorities have discussed stutterers' concepts of themselves, although these are not directly lEryng Bryngleson, "Psycholigical Problems in Stuttering," MentalgHygiehe, XXI (1937), p. 643. 2Murphy and Fitzsimons,_ 0p. cit., p. 118. 16 related to feelings of inferiority. Barbara and Kinstler both describe stutterers as having feelings of being picked on and rejected. Barbaral feels that stutterers tend to impose restrictions on themselves by feeling abused, hurt, that others are not interested in them, and that they have been robbed of happiness. These self- imposed restrictions cause them to withdraw more and more, causing even more feelings of unhappiness. These feelings 2 then aggravate the stuttering even more. Van Riper claims that one of the fears of stuttering is developed by being rejected by associates and receiving social penalties. Kinstler3 has also described such feelings of rejection and also offers a possible cause for consideration. In a study of maternal feelings toward young male stutterers, he found that the mothers rejected their sons in covert ways more than overt ways. This he believes may explain why many stutterers feel rejection, although not being able to point the source of such feelings. One authority“ sees these needs for personal recognition, self-expression and regard as an individual of worth, as needs with the same lDominick Barbara, Stuttering: Psycho-Dynamic Approach (New York: Julian Press, 1954), p. 222. 2Van Riper, op. cit., p. 374. 3Donald Butler Kinstler, "Covert and Overt Maternal Rejection in Stuttering," Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, XXVL (1961) p. 152. “Louis P. Thorpe, "Psychological Mechanisms of Stut- tering," Journal of General Psychology, XIX (1938) p. 98. 17 import as needs of thirst and hunger. Barbaral makes an about fact from some of the others at this point. He feels that a stutterer's speech can often lose communication as its main purpose and be used as a means of social combat and achieving personal superiority. These reasons are believed to be only superficial, however, and are used as a defense against facing the problem positively. It is indicated that the stutterer is not aware of this defense, although it is possible, if he seeks insight. Some writings have also been found which deal with therapy and the stutterer's self-concept. Again we find that there is no agreement between authorities. Most of the writers feel that an important goal in therapy is to strengthen the stutterer's self-concept. Murphy and Fitz— simons2 state that the major goal is to help the person to strengthen his self-process, to regard himself as a person of worth and abilities, to accept his limitations, but be aware of his capabilities. Self process is used here pre- cisely as defined in Chapter 1. Another source3 puts it this way: "A fundamental goal in the treatment of stuttering _'1 , ii lDominick A. Barbara, "Some Aspects of Stuttering in the Light of Adlerian Psychology," Journal of Individual Psychology, XIII (1957) p. 193. 2Murphy and Fitzsimons, Op. cit., p. 126. 3Zelen, Sheehan, and Bugental, Op. cit., p. 70. 18 is the alteration of the stutterer's attitudes and per- ceptions of himself." Heltmanl lists four devises which he claims include all successful treatments of stuttering. Two of these four devises include increasing self-con— fidence in speaking situations and progressive awareness of social adequacy. Van Riper2 does not agree with the authorities just quoted when treating secondary stutterers. He claims that we should avoid decreasing stuttering by influencing or suggesting attitudes of self-confidence. He explains that these factors are ". . . too unstable to be relied upon for permanent relief." His approach for treating primary stuttering seems to be that of preventing feelings of inadequacy and not that of increasing feelings 4 believes that all stutterers lack of adequacy.3 Buchholz confidence in speech to some degree, but he also believes that all stutterers possess confidence in speech to some degree. He suggests5 that it is necessary to tap this natural confidence in speech to get underneath the feeling of inadequacy itself and entirely eliminate it. Another lHeltman, 0p. cit., p. 93. 2Van Riper, op. cit., p. 415. 312101. . pp. 135-139. ”Clarence A. Buchholz, ”Indigenous Confidence for Stutterers," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XIX (1933) p. 60. 51bid., p. 62. l9 approach to building self-confidence indirectly is advocated by Sander.l He states that everything possible should be done to help the stuttering child experience emotionally satisfying accomplishments, for this breeds self-confidence. 1Erick K. Sander, "Counseling Parents of Stuttering Children," Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, XXIV (1959) P- 259~ CHAPTER III SUBJECTS, TEST AND PROCEDURE Subjects There were 100 subjects (50 control and 50 experiment- al) used in this study. Each of the experimental subjects was matched with a control subject according to age, sex, educational achievement, and race. None of the subjects possessed any physical abnormalities which were of concern to them. The subjects ranged in age from 17-29 years with a mean of 19.9 years and a median age of 20 years. There were 43 males and 7 females included in each group. It was required that all subjects to be at least high school graduates. It was believed that this standard would help eliminate the variable of the vocabulary in the test. The lowest level of educational achievement was high school graduate and the highest was college graduate. The mean level of education completed was the freshman year of college. There were no subjects possessing graduate degrees. All subjects were from the whiteskinned Caucasian race, commonly, found in the United States. Minority groups may possess concepts which could be altered by prejudice and discrimination of majority groups. These 20 21 concepts could falsely appear to be the results of a stuttering problem. In an effort to eliminate such a variable, only the Caucasian race was used. For similar reasons, no persons with physical disabilities or ab- normalities were included in this study. Thus, personality peculiarities resulting from a physical deviation could not falsely represent any personality deviation resulting from stuttering. Test The measuring instrument employed in this study was a semantic differential test utilizing a seven point scale. A total of eight concepts were investigated: Myself, Friends, My Happiest Self, Myself with a Speech Problem, Strangers, Myself in the Future, Myself and Failure, and PeOple of Authority. The same test items1 were used in another study which was investigating the self-concepts of hard of hearing individuals. In that study the concept Myself with a Hearing Loss was used. The scales and factors from this concept were used, but the title Myself with a Speech Problem was substituted in place of the original title. This concept then should be considered with some reservations since the test was initially 1E. J. Hardick, "Self-Concept of Hard-of-Hearing Adults as Measured by Semantic Differential Technique” (unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1964) 22 constructed and all factors statistically based upon the concept of Myself with a Hearing Loss. It was believed, however, that with this reservation in mind, it would be interesting to view the test results of the revised title in this study. The first two pages of the test were devoted to in— structions for the test. The first page also included the control information for the experiment. The instructions and test may be found in the appendix. Each concept contained six dimensions or factors. Three of these were universally used throughout the test. That is, each of these three dimensions were investigated in each of the eight concepts. These three factors were ’1abeled capability, genuineness, and toughness. Each of the eight concepts also contained three more dimensions which were found to be categories highly significant in evaluating the particular concept. Each of the six di- mensions investigated for each concept was composed of three scales. These scales were statistically selected through factor analysis as being significant in describing the dimension in which it was included. Procedure All directions necessary for taking the test were included in the first two pages of the test booklet. How- ever, if the testee had questions about the test, his 23 questions were answered. The test was given both indivi- dually and in groups whenever the Opportunity allowed. When group testing was done special instructions were given for the subjects not to loOk at their neighbors test. The first page of the booklet contained the information used for matching the control group with the experimental group. The second page contained the necessary information for filling in the scales included in the test. The directions for taking the test and filling in the scales may be found in the appendix. NO time limit was set for taking the test, but the subjects were not allowed to go back and review previous test items already completed. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results The subject's scores for each scale were determined and recorded. The extreme end Of the scale with the polar adjective having the positive connotation received a rating Of one, and as progression was made to the other end Of the scale, the scores went progressively higher until a rating of 7 was reached which indicated the extreme negative end Of the scale where the adjective with the negative connotation was located. Next, the median Of the three scales for each Of the six dimensions for each concept was determined. Osgood,l the originator Of the semantic differential technique recommends the median as the measure Of central tendency when dealing with semantic data. The median, therefore was used for this study. The median scores assigned to each of the dimensions for both the control and experimental groups were compared and the differences (d's) found. A sign of + or - was affixed to the differences, depending upon which 1Charles E. Osgood, George J. Suci and Percy H. Tannenbaum, The Measurement Of Meaning (Urbana: University Of Illinois Press, 1957), p. 87. 24 25 group scored closest on the scale to the positive polar adjective. If a normal speaking subject's score was closer to one, than the stutterer's score, the sign affixed to the difference score was positive (+). If tie stut- terer‘s score was closer to one than the control's, the sign affixed to the difference score was negative (-). In the process of statistical analysis, these signs have reversed their connotations, so that on tables one and two, the + sign favors the stutterers and the - sign favors the normal speakers. Next the d scores were ranked, without respect to their signs, according to size. Then the ranks were assigned the same sign as the d it represented. The smaller of the sums of the like signed ranks were then found to determine T. N was then found representing the total number of d's having a sign. In cases where the compared medians of the control and experimental subjects were the same, a zero was assigned as the d and was dropped from further use in the test.1 With the above information gathered, it was then possible to use the Wilcoxon Matched- Pairs Signed-Ranks Test to determine the 2's for each dimension. 1Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the (Behavioral Sciences (New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1956), p. 81. 26 T - N(N + l) v/i N(N + l)g(2N + l) 24 Probability values (p) were determined, utilizing a two-tailed test since no predictions Of the direction of the test were made before hand. The p's for the dimensions which are unique to the individual concepts are found in Table 1. These dimensions were found in the construction Of the test to be important in evaluating responses to their respective concept irrespective of all other con— cepts. The p's for the dimensions which were universally used on all concepts are found in Table 2. These dimensions were found in the construction Of the test to be important dimensions in evaluating all Of the concepts found in the test. It was decided before the analysis Of the tests that significance would be at the .05 level. The foregoing procedures were required tO determine the differences, if any, between stutterers and normal speakers when rating themselves on each Of the eight concepts. The results can be found in Tables 1 and 2 and will be discussed later in this chapter. The second part Of the analysis was involved in de- termining if people think Of themselves in much the same 27 Table 1.--Probability Values from the Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test, When Stutterers and Normal Speakers are Compared on the Independent Dimensions Which are Unique for Each Concept. —Signs Favor Associated Concept Dimension Normal Speakers Probability I Popularity - .5O MYSELF Anxiety-Tension — *.O4 Severity + .60 II Sociability — . *.o3 FRIENDS Capability - .44 Orientation — .22 III Intelligence + .84 MY HAPPIEST Popularity — .18 SELF Excitability - *.O2 IV Capability - .80 MYSELF WITH Genuineness + .88 A SPEECH Toughness - .72 PROBLEM V STRANGERS Alertness + -68 Abnormality - .74 Capability + .12 VI Gravity - .34 MYSELF IN Comfortableness + .86 THE FUTURE Optimism + .98 VII Assurance - .26 MYSELF AND Genuineness + .22 FAILURE Severity - .96 VIII Genuineness + .92 PEOPLE OF Comfortableness + .86 AUTHORITY Severity + .82 *Scores at the .05 level of significance or better. 28 Table 2.--Probability Values From the Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test When Stutterers and Normal Speakers were Compared on the Three Universal Dimensions. Concept Concept Number Title Capability Genuineness Toughness I MYSELF -.34 +.52 -.70 II FRIENDS +.78 +.58 -.58 III MY HAPPIEST SELF -.88 -.5O -.20 IV MYSELF WITH A SPEECH PROBLEM -.60 +.SO +.72 V STRANGERS +.16 +.O8 +.1O VI MYSELF IN THE FUTURE +.72 +.78 -.08 VII MYSELF AND FAILURE +.44 -.76 -.82 VIII PEOPLE OR AUTHORITY -.74 +.48 -.98 + sign favors stutterers 29 Table 3.--Probability Values from the Wilcoxon Matched—Pairs Signed-Ranks Test, When All Subject's Own Scores on the Three Universal DimenSions were Compared for the Concepts Myself and Friends. Scales Composing -Signs Favor The Associated Dimension Dimension Concept Friends Probability Useful-Useless CAPABILITY Success-Failure + .61 Valuable-Worthless True-False GENUINENESS Moral-Immoral - .06 Sincere—Artificial Tender-Tough TOUGHNESS Easy-Hard + .004 Lenient—Severe 30 way as they think Of their friends. For this part Of the study the three universal dimensions were viewed in compar- ing the two concepts Myself and Friends. Table 3 shows the results which will also be discussed later in this chapter. In the analysis Of test data it was found that stutterers and normal speakers were not Significantly different from each other on the three universal dimen- sions. Both groups were then able to be included together in this analysis as one group irrespective Of Speech be- havior. The same procedures described for the first analysis as one group irrespective Of Speech behavior. The same procedures described for the first analysis were followed, but here, the subjects' own scores for Myself and Friends were compared against each other. Thus each subject became his own control. The Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed- Ranks Test was again used. In determining d's, the concept Myself received the + Sign if it was closer to the positive end of the scale than the concept Friends. If the d‘s showed the concept Friends to be closest to one, the Sign attached to the d's were -. The d's for the two concepts may be viewed for the three dimensions in Graphs 1, 2, and 3. Again the Signs have been reversed in the statistical process, SO that in Table 3 + favors Friends and - favors Myself. It is strongly suggested that the reader study the scales which represent the various dimensions Of the 31 concepts investigated in this study during the discussion which follows. These scales may be found in the appendix. Discussion Of the 48 dimensions tested for the comparisons be- tween the normal speakers and stutterers, three were found to be different at the .05 level Of Significance. All three of these factors favored the normal speakers. That is, the normal speakers tended to rate themselves closer to the positive end Of the scales, and were Significantly different from stutterers on the three fac- tors. When Concept One, Myself, is considered, it is found that stutterers are more anxious and tense than normal speakers at the .04 level. The reasons for this anxiety, however, de not appear as a result Of concern over popularity or capableness. Neither does this anxiety seem to be caused by a concern over displaying a personality that is false or not a genuine picture Of themselves. All Of these considerations compare favorably with the normal speakers on the test. The cause Of this expressed anxiety is not suggested by any findings in this study. The next concept under consideration, Friends, in- dicates from the findings that stutterers think Of their friends as being less social than normal speakers consider their friends. This was found at the .03 level. Again 32 no hint is given as to why the stutterers think their friends are less sociable. There is no indication that the reason is because Of the friends being less capable, less genuine, or less orientated than the normal Speaker‘s fiends. Neither is it because their friends are more tough or hard, because none Of these have any comparable difference with how the normal Speakers view their friends. It will be found later in this discussion that peOple have a tendency, at least for the universal dimensions studied in this study, to view themselves and their friends Similarly. In the light Of this finding, it would be interesting to note if stutterers would consider themselves to be less sociable than normal Speakers and their friends more anxious and tense than normal speakers. This would result, of course, in reversing the two Significantly different dimensions found in the first two concepts. The third concept, My Happiest Self, is found to be somewhat complimentary to the findings in concept one, if it can be assumed that excitability and anxiety-tension are somewhat related. It would be dangerous to say, how- ever, that there is a positive relationship. In concept III stutterers rate themselves to be significantly more "excitabla" at the .02 level, than do normal speakers. This concept is very revealing Of the stutterer‘s social and mental ability concepts of themselves. They think of themselves as being equally as intelligent and capabl U0 (A) and also as being as popular, genuine, and tender as the normal speakers. Concept IV does not compliment the theory that stutterers have unhealthy feelings about their speech. It is interesting to find that stutterers did not think Of their speech problem as interfering with their ”capableness." Nor did they think of themselves as being any more "artifi- cial” than the normal speakers. Likewise, they neither thought Of themselves as being "hard” or "tough." These and the preceding findings seem to indicate that the stutterers speech problem is not closely related, if at all, to a personality problem. One thing more must be considered here, however. We do not know how the normal speakers conceived of themselves. This concept is somewhat abstract to the normal Speaker and he may have conceived Of himself with deep concern and morbidity or with little concern. The only thing we know from this test is that the normal speakers and stutterers rated this concept about the same. This fact together with the reservation which must be made by changing the title from Myself with a Hearing LOSS makes the rating Of this concept difficult to interpret. More surprising results are found under concept V, Strangers. Again the findings are against a common stereo- type Of stutterers. Stutterers are not found to possess feelings Of fear and distrust toward strangers. The compared 34 scores here are not significantly different between the normal speakers and stutterers, but there is a tendency for the stutterers tO rate strangers more favorable than the control group. The tendency was for the stutterers to rate strangers as being more capable, more genuine, more tender and lenient. This is hard to explain in light of many authorities Observation that stutterers have a harder time speaking to strangers than with those with whom they are familiar. Myself in the Future, Concept VI, at first glance again portrays the stutterers as being no different from the normal Speakers. There is no differences in usefulness, fairness, or humorousness, or differences in comfortableness or amount Of optimism. Neither is there differences in capability or genuineness concepts about the future. There is a tendency at the .08 level, although not meeting the Significancy requirements for this study to think Of themselves as being more tough, hard and severe in the future. This was not indicated on Concept I, however. This does not Say much for the Optimism Of the stutterers for the future, which was just reported as being no different than the Optimism Of the normal speakers. There is the possibility that for this concept the subjects evaluated their future and not themselves in the future. It might be possible therefore that the tendencv was for 35 the stutterers to view their future as "tough” and not themselves as "tough" in the future. Both the experimental and control groups rated themselves similarly on Concept VII, Myself and Failure. They seemed to share Similar amounts Of assurance and Optimism about themselves consistantly throughout the concept. Concept VIII, People Of Authority, also pictures the two groups as having no differences. This is in dist agreement with the thinking Of many who see the stutterer’s stuttering more severe when talking to authority figures. In Concept VIII, however, the stutterers have recorded themselves as conceiving people Of authority as being equally as genuine, comfortable, lenient, capable, genuine and tender as do normal Speakers. For the second part of the experiment which asked if people would rate Concept I, Myself, and Concept II, Friends, differently or the Same some interesting results were found. Table 3 and Graphs l, 2, and 3 Show the results Of the findings. Graphs l, 2, and 3 are especially interesting because they Show information which does not appear in Table 3, the findings of the statistical analysis. The graphs include all subjects where the results Of the Wilcoxon Test in Table 3 does not. The graphs also Show the distribution of differences along the seven point scale «wmpOOwnzm HH< Some mommpcoogog O>HPmH3E302 02 mm mm 5 mm mm mm mm mm mm 9. mo 3. mm a hflbv oocogomgfia mo pesoe< mcflmeHbcH mamom oo.s m Eomw whee: mamomv 36 00.: mw.mumm.m oo.m Om.mw oo.m mN.H Om.H mm.HAufflmw. ou. mm. 0.0 _ L _ fl 4 _ .poownsm oEmm who you bongEOo mm: HH pom H mpaoocoo goo COHcheHQ mpHHHanmo one son: Abv cocosommfim mo common comm pm moocosommam mo EOQESZII.H Enema OVD [\-\O Lfl-II‘MNr—i sioafqns go JeqwnN s.mpomnnsm HH< Some mmMmucoopom o>HomHDEsoz eooH mm mm am pm am mm mm ad 08 mm ow om so mm as mm a «Apv oocogowofla LO eczoe< wcflpmoflpCH OHmOm 0.» m Some when: oamome 0.0 ._oo.m were whm me oo.m msmgomm mom _oo.m me; omé mmé 04 ms. om. mm. .pOOmQSm been one mom UmmeEOO mm; HH pom H mpmoocoo sow COHmcoEHQ whosozfiscoo one coca oocogoemam mo oopwoa comm pm mooqogoemflm mo goQESZII.HH compo O\.CD [\-\0 L03 mm sioafqns JO JaqwnN 38 « mpOOmpzm HH< Eogm mowmecoomom o>HpmHOESQUA ooa mm mm so om Hm mm em mm me me so am am om ma «Apv ooqogoueflm 0O ozsoe< msflnmoHOsH oflmom 00.w m Eogm mpflcs mamom # om.m ms.e mmamo.m ms.m om.m mm.m o.m ms.a om.H mm.a o.H ms. om. mm. 000 R0 fl _ H _ .poompsm oEmm one 900 boson :800 mm; HH 02m H mpaoocoo pom cOHmcoEHm mmocsmsoe who Con: poochommfla mo oohmoa zoom pm neocogoomflm mo EOQESZII.HHH Lamas O\CO NQQ-IT‘MCUr—i sioafqng JO JeqwnN (A) KO where the tables indicate only if there is a difference or not between the subjects ratings Of the two concepts. Inspection Of Table 3 would indicate that there is no dif~ ference between the way the subjects rated themselves and their friends in relation to capableness. In other words, the subjects see themselves and their friends as being about the Same for this dimension. Inspection Of Graph I sheds even more light on this finding. It shows that 23% Of the subjects rated themselves and friends exactly the Same, and that 86% rated themselves and friends ex- actly the same, or within only a difference Of one scale point on the seven point scale. Graph I is interesting because the 23 subjects with equal ratings for themselves and friends were not included in the Wilcoxon Test, because the test does not utilize equal rankings in its analysis. Table 3 also records the dimension Genuineness as not Showing a significant difference between the two concepts.' However, it is only .01 away from Significance. But, when Graph 2 is Observed, it can be noticed that again 23% Of the subjects rated themselves and their friends exactly the sane. If the fact that these 23 persons were not utilized in the analysis is considered, more weight is added to the indication that there is no difference between the way the subjects rated Concepts I and II for the dimension Genuineness. 40 When the third dimension, Toughness is observed, it can be noticed that there is a very distinct difference at the .004 level between how the subjects rated themselves and their friends. It shows that the subjects rated their friends as more "tender" than themselves. When Graph 3 is viewed and the 13 equally matched scores are considered, this difference does not seem SO great. It can be seen that 67% Of the subjects rated themselves and friends either exactly the same or within only one scale point Of difference on the seven point scale Eighty-seven per cent of the subjects rated themselves and friends within two scale points Of being the same. These findings then in- dicate that for the items included in this study, subjects for the most part conceive no distinct differences between themselves and their friends. When differences are in- dicated, however, the subjects tended to think Of their friends more positively then they did themselves. It must be remembered that most Of the stutterers in this test were college students. Thus, if a more typical sampling Of the general population were made, different findings might be witnessed. It is suspected that if a difference were Observed, it would prove more difference between the two groups. Also, the largest majority Of the stutterers had received therapy or were receiving therapy at the time they took the test. This might also have some effect on the scores. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summer The self-concept has been described as an important element in understanding human behavior. The formation Of one‘s self-concept can be influenced by society or by the individual himself. It is possible for a person‘s behavior to be altered by an alteration of his self-concept. Likewise, it is possible for the behavior of a person to alter his concept Of self. Many peeple have been interested in how stuttering affects the self-concept and also in how self-concepts affect stuttering. The purpose Of this study has been to shed more light upon the disagreement men have about the relationship between self-concepts and stuttering. This has been accomplished through the means Of a semantic differential test. A review Of research indicates that a few studies have been conducted to investigate the stuttereris self- concept. A variety of tests have been used and a variety of results have been reported. There seems tO be no area of common agreement. A review Of the literature not supported specifically by research has also disagreed. 41 42 The test for this study was administered in groups and individually. The directions were included as part Of the test, but any questions which arose were answered. No time limit was set for completing the test. The tests were then scored and statistical evaluations made. Conclusions Within the confines of this study it can be concluded that: l. Stutterers rate themselves as being Significantly more anxious and tense than do normal speakers. 2. Stutterers feel their friends to be more un- sociable, weak and unsure of themselves than normal speakers feel about their friends. 3. When at their happiest, stutterers are less calm and are Significantly more excitable than normal speakers. 4. Stutterers think Of themselves with a Speech problem no differently than normal speakers conceive of themselves with a Speech problem. 5. Stutterers do not view strangers any differently than normal speakers do. 6. Stutterers have as healthy concepts of themselves in the future as normal speakers. 7. Neither the stutterers nor the normal Speakers Show differences in their concepts of self while experienc- ing failure. I a.‘ K») 8. Contrary to an existing belief, stutterers do not view peOple Of authority any differently than normal Speakers do. 9. People do not think Of their friends as beizg Significantly more or less capable than they do themselves. Nor do people think of their friend S posseSSIng (D 5.11 characteristics Of genuineness sore or less than themselves. People do, however, show a tendency to view their friends as more tender and lenient than they view themselves. Recommendations Following are listed some recommendations for further study which would shed more light upon the result of this study. 1. An investigation Of the self-concepts of stut- terers during the time when they are first recognized as being stutterers, to determine if differences in self—con- cepts from normal Speakers are a result of time-inflicted social punishments upon the stutterer or existant at the onset Of stuttering. kers SD 2. A survey asking stutterers and normal spe how they rate their self-concept: in the proper perspec- tive-—lower than it Should be, higher than it should be, not a problem, a problem to social adjustment, a problem when Speaking, etc. 44 3. An investigation of the self-concepts of stut- terers from a representative sampling of the nation‘s population. H. An investigation of the self—concepts if stut‘ terers before and after rrceiving therapy. 5. A more involved investigation of the relation— ship between the self-concepts of people and their concepts of their friends. TBT IOGRAPHY Bi 1.1 45 BIBLIOGRAPHY [Ti 0 ( J >~.‘ U) Adler, Alfred. The Practice and Theory of Individual Psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace Co., l929. Barbara, Dominick. New York: .L4— «' Stue.e:ing: Psych dynamic Approach. Julian Press, ” 1.95%. Bender, James F. The Personality Structure of Stutterers. New York: Pitman Publishing Corp., l939. Berlo, David. The Process of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1960. Bloodstein, Oliver. Stuttering: A Symposium. Edited by Jon Eisenson. New Yorl: Harper & bros., 1958. Bluemel, Charles. Stuttering and Allied Disorders. New York: Macmillan, 1935. . The Riddle of Stuttering. Danville: Publishing Co., 1957. Interstate Boome, E. J. and Richardson, M. A. ment of Stammering. The Nature and Treat- New York: Dutton Co., 1932. Eisenson, Jon (ed.). Stuttering: A Symposium. New York: Harper Bros., 1958. Fletcher, John. The Problem of Stuttering. New York: Longmans, Green, 1938. Johnson, Wendell. Stuttering: A Symposium. Jon Eisenson. New York: pp. xv, xvi. Edited by Harper & Bros., 1958, Krech, David and Crutchfield, Richard S. Problems of Social Theory and _ Psvchclogy. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., Inc., 1938. Murphy, Albert T. and Fitzsimons, Ruth M. Stuttering and Personality Dynamics. New York:. 1960. Ronald Press Co., 46 A7 Murphy G. Personality: A Biosocial Approach to Origins and Structure. New York: Harper & Bros., 1947. Osgood, Charles E., Suci, George J., and Tannenbaum, Percy H. ”The Measurement of Meaning,” Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957. Van Riper, Charles. Speech CorrectionzPrinciples and Methods. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958. White, Robert W. The Abnormal Personality. New York: Ronald Press, 1956? Articles and Periodicals Abbott, J. A. "Repressed Hostility as a Factor in Adult Stuttering,” Journal of Speech Disorders, XII, 1947, 428-430. Barbara, Dominick. ”Communication in Stuttering,” Diseases of the Nervous System, XIX, 1958, 178—181. "Some Aspects of Stuttering in the Light of Adlerian Psychology,” Journal of Individual Psycho- IEEY, XIII, 1957, 193» Bender, James F. "The Stuttering Personality,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, XII, 1942, 140-146. . "The Prophylaxis of Stuttering," Nervous Child, 11, 1943, 181-198. Bluemel, Charles. "Stuttering: A Psychiatric Viewpoint," Journal of Speech and Hearing Disordera XXIII, 1958, 263-267. Brown, Spencer F. "Theoretical Importance of Certain Factors Influencing the Incidence of Stuttering,” Journal of Speech Disorders, III, December, 1938, 223-230. Bryngleson, Bryng. "Psychological Problems in Stuttering,” Mental Hygiene, XXI, 1937, 631-639. 48 Bucholz, Clarence A. ”Indigenous Confidence for Stutterers, Quarterly Journal of Speech, XIX, 1933. Fiedler, F. E. and Wepman, J. M. ”An Explanatory Investi- gation of the Self-Concept of Stutterers," Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, XVI, 1951, 110-114. Froeschels, E. "The Care of Stuttering,' gology, VL, 1955, 115-119. Heltman, H. ”Psycho-Social Phenomena of Stuttering,” Journal of Social Psychology, IX, 1938, 79-96. Acta Otolaryn— Johnson, Wendell, "Influence of Stuttering on Attitude and Adaptations," Journal of Social Psychology, V, 1934, 415*420. . "Stutterers Attitudes Toward Stuttering," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XIX, 1961, 32-44. Kenyon, E. L. "The Etiology of Stammering II," Journal of Speech Disorders, VII, June, 1942. Kinstler, Donald Butler. "Covert and Overt Maternal Re- Jection in Stuttering," Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, XXVI, 1961, 152. Madison, L. and Norman, R. D. ”A Comparison of the Per- formance of Stutterers and Non-Stutterers in the Rosensweig Picture Frustration Test,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, VIII, 1952, 179-183. Moncur, John Paul. "Environmental Factors Differentiating Stuttering Children from Non-Stuttering Children,” Speech Monographs, XVIII, 1951, 312-325. Porter, H. von Krais. ”Studies in the Psychology of Stutterers: XIV. Stuttering Phenomena in Relation to the Size and Personnel of Audience,” Journal of Speech Disorders, IV, 1939, 312-333. Richardson, L. H. ”A Personality Study of Stutterers and Non-Stutterers," Journal of Speech Disorders, IX, 1944, 152-160. Sander, Erick K. "Counseling Parents of Stuttering Children," Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,” XXIV, 1959, 262'272. 1 49 Sheehan, J. G. and Zussmen, C. "Rorschachs of Stutterers Compared with Clinical Control," American Psychologist, VI, 1951, 500. Solomon, M. "Stuttering as an Emotional and Personality Disorder," Journal of Speech Disorders, IV, 1939, 347-357. . "The Psychology of Stuttering, Speech Disorders, III,.1938, 59-61 " Journal of Sortini, Adam J. "Twenty Years of Stuttering Research," Journal of the Exceptional Child, XXI, 1955, 181-183. Spriesterbach, D. C. "An Objective Approach to the Investi- gation of Social Adjustment of Male Stutterers," Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, XVI, 1951, 250-247. Thorpe, Louis P. "Psychological Mechanisms of Stuttering,” Journal of General Psychology, XIX, 1938, 97-109. Walnut, Frances. "A Personality Inventory Item Analysis of Individuals who Stutter and Individuals who have Other Handicaps,” Journal of Speech and Hearing,Disorders, XIX, 1954, 220-227. Will, Nell, "Six-Month Report on Personality Develop- ment of a Thirteen-year-old Stuttering Boy," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXX, 1944, 88-95. Zelen, S., Sheehan, J. G., and Bugental, J., ”Self- Perceptions in Stuttering," Journal of Clinical Psychology, X, 1954, 70-72. Other Material Hardick, E. J. "Self-Concept of Hard-of Hearing Adults as measured by Semantic Differential Technique." unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University 1954. Wallen, Vincent. "A-Q Technique Study of the Self-Concept of Adolescent Stutterers and Non—Stutterers." un- published Ph.D. Dissertation, Boston University, 1959. APPENDICES APPENDIX A 51 APPENDIX A INSTRUCTIONS Do not write your name on this booklet. The information asked for on this page is only for the purpose of matching the two groups under investigation: "normal" speakers and stutterers. It is not important to know the identity of each individual. Fill in the following blanks: Age Sex Race Check the highest level of education which you have completed: High school ; College F. S J S ; Graduate Do you have any physical abnormalities which are of much concern to you? Yes No . There is much yet to be learned about stuttering that will be helpful in understanding the nature of the problem and in therapy. This study is investigating the feelings and attitudes which ”normal" speaking individuals and stutterers have about themselves and others. In taking the test which follow, please respond to the questions on the basis of how you feel about the concept given at the top of each test page. Don‘t let yourself respond the way you think you should, if different from the way you feel, or in a way you think you are expected to answer by the experimenter. Remember, there is no correct answer. All answers will be confidential and the names unknown. 52 53 INSTRUCTIONS (cont.) On every page of this booklet you will find a different concept to be Judged and beneath it a set of scales. You are to rate the concept on each of these scales in order. Here is how you are to use these scales: If you feel that the concept at the top of the page is extremely related to one end of the scale, you should place your check-mark as follows: fair X : : : : : : unfair or fair : : : : : : X unfair If you feel that the concept is guite related to one or the other end of the scale (but not extremely), you should place your check mark as follows: strong : X : : : : : weak 01" strong : : : : : X : weak ~r .fiW—v If the concept seems only slightly related to one side as opposed to the other side (but is not really neutral), then you should check as follows: active : : X : : : : passive or active : : : : X : : passive The direction toward which you check, or course, depends upon which of the two ends of the scale seem most characteristic of the concept you're Judging. If you consider the concept to be neutral on_tne_scale, both sides of the scale equally associated with the concept, then you should place your check-mark in the middle space: safe _ : : : X : : : dangerous IMPORTANT: (1) Place your check-mark in the middle of spaces, not on the boundaries. (2) Be sure you check every scale for every concept-~do not omit any. (3) Never put more than one check-mark on a single scale. 54 INSTRUCTIONS (cont.) Do not look back and forth through the items. Do not try to remember how you checked similar items earlier in the test. Make each item a separate and independent judgment. Do not worry or puzzle over individual items. It is your first impressions, the immediate "feelings” about the items, that we want. On the other hand, please do not be careless, because we want your true impressions. superior MYSELF inferior interesting boring disliked liked severe lenient false true useless useful immoral moral artificial sincere easy hard worthless valuable tough tender SUCCESS failure tense~ cruel relaxed kind lighthearted depressed happy Sad hard 56 FRIENDS easy interesting boring weak strong useful useless clear confused lenient severe afraid unafraid unsociable sociable true false immoral moral undesirable desirable unsure confident failure SUCCESS valuable worthless tender tough sincere cruel artificial kind easy moral MY HAPPIEST SELF hard immoral tender tough lenient severe unpopular mild popular intense liked disliked sociable unsociable boring interesting emotional unemotional clever stupid useless useful calm excitable true false worthless valuable success failure sincere artificial MYSELF WITH A SPEECH PROBLEM moral unfair worthless immoral fair valuable bad good useful useless failure success tough tender true false easy artificial hard sincere severe lenient healthy sick valuable STRANGERS worthless tough tender success failure lenient severe slow quick true false moral immoral useful useless strange natural dull sharp interesting boring easy hard sincere artificial uncomfortable comfortable weak strong MYSELF IN THE FUTURE moral immoral severe lenient uncomfortable comfortable failure success Sincere artificial worthless valuable useful useless unfair fair humorous serious good bad pessimistic optimistic easy hard tender tough true false superior inferior small MYSELF AND FAILURE large useless hard useful easy sincere artificial valuable worthless success failure positive immoral negative moral tender tough unsure confident insecure secure severe lenient good bad false true tense relaxed failure PEOPLE OF AUTHORITY success relaxed tense hard easy artificial sincere tender tough disliked pessimistic liked optimistic follower leader moral immoral useless useful lenient severe true valuable false worthless undesirable desirable APPENDIX B 63 APPENDIX B A BREAKDOWN OF THE SCALES WHICH REPRESENT THE UNIQUE DIMENSIONS FOR EACH CONCEPT. (The first word in each scale represents the positive polar adjective and the second word represents the negative polar adjective. However, this is not necessarily how they appear on the test.) CONCEPT I. MYSELF: POPULARITY - superior-inferior interesting—boring liked-disliked ANXIETY‘TENSION - relaxedntense lighthearted-depressed happy-sad SEVERITY - easy-hard tender-tough kind-cruel CONCEPT II. FRIENDS: SOCIABILITY - strong—weak sociable-unsociable confident-unsure CAPABILITY - interesting-boring useful-useless desirable-undesirable ORIENTATION - clear—confused unafraid-afraid kind—cruel CONCEPT III. MY HAPPIEST SELF: INTELLIGENCE - interesting-boring clever-stupid useful-useless POPULARITY - popular~unp0pular liked-disliked sociable-unsociable 64 65 EXCITABILITY - mild-intense unemotional-emotional calm-excitable CONCEPT IV. MYSELF WITH A SPEECH PROBLEM: CAPABILITY - valuable-worthless useful-useless healthy-sick GENUINENESS - fair-unfair good-bad true-false TOUGHNESS - tender-tough easy—hard lenient-servere CONCEPT V. STRANGERS: ALERTNESS - quick-slow sharp-dull strong-weak ABNORMALITY - moral-immoral natural-strange comfortable-uncomfortable CAPABILITY - valuable-worthless useful-useless interesting-boring CONCEPT VI. MYSELF IN THE FUTURE: GRAVITY - useful-useless fair-unfair humorous—serious COMFORTABLENESS - comfortable-uncomfortable good-bad superior-inferior OPTIMISM - valuable-worthless optimistic-pessimistic easy-hard 66 CONCEPT VII. MYSELF AND FAILURE: ASSURANCE - confident-unsure secure-insecure relaxed-tense GENUINENESS - large-small positive-negative good—bad SEVERITY - easy-hard tender-tough lenient-severe CONCEPT VIII. PEOPLE OF AUTHORITY: GENUINENESS - true-false valuable-worthless desirable-undesirable COMFORTABLENESS - relaxed-tense liked-disliked optimistic-pessimistic SEVERITY - easy-hard leader-follower lenient-severe APPENDIX C 67 APPENDIX C A BREAK DOWN OF THE SCALES WHICH REPRESENT THE UNIVERSAL DIMENSIONS FOUND IN EACH CONCEPT (The first word in each scale represents the positive polar adjective and the second word represents the negative polar adjective. However, this is not necessarily how they appear on the test.) CAPABILITY: useful-useless success-failure valuable-worthless GENUINENESS: true—false moral—immoral since-artificial TOUGHNESS: tender-tough east—hard lenient-severe 68 '33,, :2 TST 8W r» if" " "".'S- J‘U‘t: Z“ NJ av ‘ l ’ ‘ I. i $51337, , -A..._.A - ‘ ‘ , . Mu.“ u-Mw "Illlllll'l’llllllIS