Indeed, these scales vary significantly in content, length, as well as breadth, depth and types of temperamental dimensions measured (e.g., the 30-item Short Temperament Scale for Children used in Kefalianos et al. Perhaps, some of the differences in findings regarding caregiver reports of temperament in children who do and do not stutter relates to the use of different temperament scales. (2011) observed that in the Williams’s study “…a higher proportion of CWS, compared to CWNS, fit the temperamental constellation of “slow to warm up” (p. Anderson et al., 2003) and Williams (2006) reported that CWS were more likely to exhibit the temperamental constellation of an “easy child.” Interestingly, however, Arnold et al. Lewis and Goldberg (1997) reported that young CWS, when compared to CWNS, were less negative and more adaptable (cf. 2004) findings of no significant talker-group differences in approach/withdrawal scores. In contrast, Kefalianos, Onslow, Ukoumunne, Block, and Reilly (2014), in a study of the temperament of a large cohort of CWS and CWNS at 2, 3, and 4 years of age replicated Anderson et al.’s (2003) and Howell et al.’s ( Howell, Davis, Patel, Cuniffe, Downing-Wilson et al. Overall, these findings, based on parental reports to normed questionnaires, suggest that CWS are perceived as differing from their CWNS peers in emotion reactivity and emotion regulation processes. This review is organized around the various methods used to empirically study this association, including (a) caregiver reports, (b) direct behavioral observations and experimental tests, and (c) psychophysiological measures.įirst, evidence from caregiver reports suggests that when compared to children who do not stutter (CWNS), CWS display (a) lower inhibitory control, and higher anger/frustration ( Eggers et al., 2010), (b) greater emotional reactivity and greater difficulty in emotion regulation (e.g., Karrass, Walden, Conture, Graham, Arnold, Hartfield & Schwenk, 2006), (c) greater difficulty in flexibly controlling and shifting attention when necessary ( Eggers et al, 2010 Felsenfeld et al., 2010 Karrass et al., 2006), and (d) less adaptability to change ( Anderson et al., 2003).
Below the present authors provide a brief review of essential findings regarding the association between emotion and childhood stuttering.
Although neither the empirical findings nor theoretical models propose that emotion is the main, primary or sole “cause” of childhood stuttering, they do suggest that any comprehensive account of childhood stuttering should include consideration of emotional processes. Taken together, the aforementioned empirical studies and theoretical models involve, at the minimum, two aspects of emotion: (1) emotional reactivity, that is, “the ease by which emotions are aroused, which can involve reactions to novel stimuli, and/or orienting to internal or external stimulation” ( Rothbart, 2011) and (2) emotional regulation, that is, “the processes by which we influence which emotions we have, when we have them, and how we experience and express them” ( Gross, 1998). Recently, the Dual Diathesis-Stressor Model ( Conture &Walden, 2012) and the Multifactorial Dynamic Pathways Theory ( Smith & Weber, 2017) suggest that emotions are associated with childhood stuttering. Over the past several years, numerous empirical studies indicated that emotions play a role in early childhood stuttering (e.g., Anderson, Pellowski, Conture, & Kelly, 2003 Arnold, Conture, Key, & Walden, 2011 Choi, Conture, Walden, Jones & Kim, 2016 Eggers, De Nil, & Van den Bergh, 2009, 2010 Embrechts, Ebben, Franke & van de Poel, 2000 Felsenfeld, van Beijsterveldt & Boomsma, 2010 Johnson, Walden, Conture, & Karrass, 2010).
0 kommentar(er)
