Explicit and implicit cognitive processes of the public towards people who stutter

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY Journal of Fluency Disorders Pub Date : 2024-06-24 DOI:10.1016/j.jfludis.2024.106073
Elise L. Rickert, Heather D. Salvo, Jennifer Roche, Hayley S. Arnold
{"title":"Explicit and implicit cognitive processes of the public towards people who stutter","authors":"Elise L. Rickert,&nbsp;Heather D. Salvo,&nbsp;Jennifer Roche,&nbsp;Hayley S. Arnold","doi":"10.1016/j.jfludis.2024.106073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The <em>Public Opinion Survey of Human Attributes - Stuttering (POSHA-S,</em> St. Louis, 2013) was developed as a standard measure of public attitudes about people who stutter. As with any survey-based methods, threats to validity may occur because of social desirability bias. Using computer mouse-tracking, we were interested in observing changes in cognition that are manifested in intentionality through action by evaluating underlying cognitive processes that drive social judgments of people who stutter.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Twenty-two women, 1 non-binary person, and 47 men reported using a computer mouse to complete an online, remote, and modified version of the <em>POSHA-S</em>. Responses were categorized as correct/helpful or incorrect/unhelpful relative to each component of the <em>POSHA-S</em> and were used as measures of explicit cognitive processes. Computer-mouse trajectory metrics, including area under the curve (AUC) and reaction time (RT), were used to measure implicit cognitive processes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Although participants’ explicit responses were significantly more likely to be correct/helpful than incorrect/unhelpful, with endorsement of correct/helpful prompts 77 % of the time, participants also endorsed incorrect/unhelpful prompts more than half (i.e., 52 %) of the time. Familiarity with people who stutter was associated with disagreeing with incorrect/unhelpful prompts. As indicated by greater AUC, participants exhibited significantly more implicit cognitive processes indicating competition when responding “disagree” compared to “agree”, regardless of whether the prompts were correct/helpful or incorrect/unhelpful. Similarly, participants took significantly longer to respond to prompts with \"disagree\" rather than \"agree\".</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The findings of this study offer evidence of participants reporting cognitive processes that are overall more correct/helpful than incorrect/unhelpful, in their explicit responses to the dichotomous response tasks of the <em>POSHA-S</em>. However, these findings are tempered by evidence of a tendency to agree with statements in the measure and suggest the need for further research to increase understanding of how to measure and improve explicit and implicit cognitive processes related to people who stutter.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Fluency Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Fluency Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094730X24000378","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

The Public Opinion Survey of Human Attributes - Stuttering (POSHA-S, St. Louis, 2013) was developed as a standard measure of public attitudes about people who stutter. As with any survey-based methods, threats to validity may occur because of social desirability bias. Using computer mouse-tracking, we were interested in observing changes in cognition that are manifested in intentionality through action by evaluating underlying cognitive processes that drive social judgments of people who stutter.

Methods

Twenty-two women, 1 non-binary person, and 47 men reported using a computer mouse to complete an online, remote, and modified version of the POSHA-S. Responses were categorized as correct/helpful or incorrect/unhelpful relative to each component of the POSHA-S and were used as measures of explicit cognitive processes. Computer-mouse trajectory metrics, including area under the curve (AUC) and reaction time (RT), were used to measure implicit cognitive processes.

Results

Although participants’ explicit responses were significantly more likely to be correct/helpful than incorrect/unhelpful, with endorsement of correct/helpful prompts 77 % of the time, participants also endorsed incorrect/unhelpful prompts more than half (i.e., 52 %) of the time. Familiarity with people who stutter was associated with disagreeing with incorrect/unhelpful prompts. As indicated by greater AUC, participants exhibited significantly more implicit cognitive processes indicating competition when responding “disagree” compared to “agree”, regardless of whether the prompts were correct/helpful or incorrect/unhelpful. Similarly, participants took significantly longer to respond to prompts with "disagree" rather than "agree".

Conclusion

The findings of this study offer evidence of participants reporting cognitive processes that are overall more correct/helpful than incorrect/unhelpful, in their explicit responses to the dichotomous response tasks of the POSHA-S. However, these findings are tempered by evidence of a tendency to agree with statements in the measure and suggest the need for further research to increase understanding of how to measure and improve explicit and implicit cognitive processes related to people who stutter.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公众对口吃患者的显性和隐性认知过程。
目的:人类属性民意调查--口吃(POSHA-S,圣路易斯,2013年)是作为衡量公众对口吃患者态度的标准而开发的。与任何基于调查的方法一样,由于社会期望偏差,有效性可能会受到威胁。利用计算机鼠标跟踪技术,我们有兴趣通过评估驱动社会对口吃患者作出判断的潜在认知过程,观察通过行动在意向性中表现出来的认知变化:22名女性、1名非二元人士和47名男性使用电脑鼠标完成了在线、远程和修改版的POSHA-S。相对于 POSHA-S 的每个部分,回答被分为正确/有帮助或不正确/无帮助,并被用作明确认知过程的测量指标。计算机鼠标轨迹指标,包括曲线下面积(AUC)和反应时间(RT),用于测量内隐认知过程:结果:虽然参与者的显性回答正确/有帮助的可能性明显高于错误/无帮助的可能性,77%的时间认可正确/有帮助的提示,但也有一半以上(即 52%)的时间认可错误/无帮助的提示。对口吃患者的熟悉程度与不同意错误/无帮助提示有关。正如更高的 AUC 所示,与 "同意 "相比,参与者在回答 "不同意 "时表现出更多的内隐认知过程,表明存在竞争,无论提示是正确/有帮助还是错误/无帮助。同样,与 "同意 "相比,参与者在回答 "不同意 "的提示时所花费的时间也明显更长:本研究的结果证明,在对 POSHA-S 的二分反应任务做出明确反应时,受试者报告的认知过程总体上正确/有帮助多于错误/无帮助。不过,这些研究结果也有证据表明,受试者倾向于同意测量中的陈述,这表明有必要开展进一步的研究,以进一步了解如何测量和改进与口吃患者有关的显性和隐性认知过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Fluency Disorders
Journal of Fluency Disorders AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
23
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Fluency Disorders provides comprehensive coverage of clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects of stuttering, including the latest remediation techniques. As the official journal of the International Fluency Association, the journal features full-length research and clinical reports; methodological, theoretical and philosophical articles; reviews; short communications and much more – all readily accessible and tailored to the needs of the professional.
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to "Do dyslexia and stuttering share a processing eficit?", [Journal of Fluency Disorders, 67 (2021) 105827]. Editorial Board A theory building critical realist evaluation of an integrated cognitive-behavioural fluency enhancing stuttering treatment for school-age children. Part 1: Development of a preliminary program theory from expert speech-language pathologist data. Public attitudes toward stuttering and cluttering in Chinese and Japanese speech-language pathology students Mitigating stuttering self-stigma: How do we start and where do we go? Using a Participative Concept Mapping Approach to develop a local framework of principles
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1