Social Network Analysis of Adults Who Stutter

Schloss Natalie

Purpose: Stuttering is a multifaceted communication difference with diverse manifestations and experiences. While previous research has explored the psychological and emotional aspects of stuttering, showing trends of heightened social anxiety and reduced quality of life, there remains a gap in understanding how the quality of stutterers’ social relationships relates to their communication well-being. To this end, we conducted an egocentric social network analysis to examine the central question of this study: For adults who stutter (AWS), to what extent does stuttering-related support within their communication networks relate to their communication well-being? Methods: A total of 201 AWS completed this study. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 83 years old (M = 39.01; SD = 16.38). To participate, participants needed to (1) self-identify as a person who stutters, (2) live in the U.S., and (3) speak English as a primary language. Participants completed a 20-minute online survey containing five parts: egocentric social network survey, demographics, stuttering background, Quality of Life subtest of the Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s Experience of Stuttering (OASES-QoL; Yaruss & Quesal, 2006), and the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS; Mattick & Clark, 1998). The social network survey first asked participants to identify 6-12 individuals they communicate with regularly and to assess their stuttering experiences with each among five measures of stuttering-related support. We combined the OASES-QoL and SIAS scores to develop the dependent measure of communication well-being. Results: AWS with more supportive social networks experienced higher communication well-being. Specifically, communication well-being was significantly predicted by how often AWS said everything they wanted to say with each person in their network (adjusted R2 = 0.22), how comfortable they felt stuttering with each person (adjusted R2 = 0.17), how openly they discussed their stuttering experience with each person (adjusted R2 = 0.17), how much they thought each person understands their stuttering experience (adjusted R2 = 0.02), and how many people in their network who were stutterers themselves (adjusted R2 = 0.02). How openly AWS stuttered with each person did not significantly predict communication well-being. Conclusion: Our findings extend prior research that indicate that social support and being in community with other stutterers can strengthen AWS’ communication well-being. Due to the importance of social connectedness, these findings promote therapeutic practices that holistically support PWS’ social connection.

Social Network Analysis of Adults Who Stutter

Files and links (1)

Abstract

Details

Metrics