Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2009, 109, 119-120. © Perceptual and Motor Skills 2009
SOME COMMENTS ON LOHMAN (2008):
PSEUDOSTUTTERING AS A TRAINING METHOD1
MANISH K. RAMI
University of North Dakota
Summary.—This letter addresses some issues in Lohman’s (2008) article on students’ perceptions of face-to-face pseudostuttering experiences. Concerns include
the valuation of the pseudostuttering experiences on the telephone as compared to
face-to-face experiences in training graduate students in speech-language pathology.
Lohman (2008) reported data on 36 graduate students’ perception of
face-to-face pseudostuttering experiences in public. The data included responses from the participants on a pre- and postexperience questionnaire
and a postexperience roundtable discussion. The data were interpreted as
supporting the use of face-to-face pseudostuttering experiences by graduate students as an evidence-based teaching practice. This comment expresses concern for using face-to-face pseudostuttering experiences as
compared to similar pseudostuttering experiences over the telephone.
Rami, Kalinowski, Stuart, and Rastatter (2003) demonstrated that
pseudostuttering experiences on the telephone had a significant effect on
the self-perceptions of 29 graduate speech-language pathology students
in training. The authors suggested that pseudostuttering experiences on
the telephone could be used as a valuable teaching exercise for the graduate students in speech-language pathology. Lohman (2008) suggests “caution in applying the outcome” of Rami, et al.’s paper “because it involved
simulating stuttering over the telephone” (p. 952), while also stating in
the same paragraph that “people who stutter often assert that speaking
on the telephone is one of their most feared speaking situations” (Leith &
Timmons, 1983). The two statements seem contradictory. If speaking on
the telephone is a feared situation in people who stutter, then the value of
such an experience is clear.
Lohman (2008) suggests that a pseudostuttering experience on the
telephone may be easier or have less value than a face-to-face situation.
On the contrary, the Rami, et al. (2003) data support the opposite claim,
that the pseudostuttering experiences on the telephone are not easy and
that such experiences cause the participants to feel anxious, withdrawn,
quiet, guarded, and insecure. Lohman (2008) also suggests that “listeners
Address correspondence to Manish K. Rami, Ph.D., Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of North Dakota STOP 8040, 290 Centennial Drive, MH 108,
Grand Forks, ND 58202-8040 or e-mail (manish.rami@und.edu).
1
DOI 10.2466/PMS.109.1.119-120
120
M. K. RAMI
may hang up, which may increase frustration, anxiety, and insecurity” (p.
952) in the participants. Hanging up by listeners should be considered as
part of the participants’ pseudostuttering experience. Such rejection and
failure of communication will contribute to feelings of anxiety and insecurity, which is the purpose of the pseudostuttering exercise.
The long-term consequences of a face-to-face pseudostuttering experience so powerful that it brought at least one of the participants to tears
(Lohman, 2008, p. 959) must be considered. While there are no data on
the long-term effects of either the face-to-face pseudostuttering exercises
or those on the telephone, the contact hypothesis cautions that the type
of experience could influence an individual’s prejudice (Allport, 1954). If
the experience is positive, the prejudice may decrease; if the experience is
negative, it may consolidate the prejudice. An intensely emotional experience such as the one described above could strengthen negative characterization of persons who stutter (Stangor, 2000). Thus, one must make
an appropriate choice of an experiential exercise; an exercise that is valuable and adequate should not prove so powerful that it could potentially
confirm students’ biases. The pseudostuttering exercise on the telephone
seems to fit these criteria, while the face-to-face experience may be too intense. Caution is in order.
As a side note, references to Ham (1990) and Hanson, Gronhovd, and
Rice (1981) are corrected below.
REFERENCES
Allport, G. W. (1954) The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ham, R. E. (1990) Clinician preparation: experiences with pseudostuttering, “It was
the longest day of my life!” Journal of Fluency Disorders, 15, 305-315.
Hanson, B. R., Gronhovd, K. D., & Rice, P. L. (1981) A shortened version of Southern
Illinois University speech situation checklist for the identification of speech-related anxiety. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 6, 351-360.
Leith, W. R., & Timmons, T. L. (1983) The stutterer’s reaction to the telephone as a
speaking situation. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 8, 233-243.
Lohman, P. (2008) Students’ perceptions of face-to-face pseudostuttering experience.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 107, 951-962.
Rami, M. K., Kalinowski, J., Stuart, A., & Rastatter, M. P. (2003) Self-perceptions of
speech language pathologists-in-training before and after pseudostuttering experiences on the telephone. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 491-496.
Stangor, C. (2000) Stereotypes and prejudice. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Accepted June 9, 2009.
COMMENTS ON LOHMAN (2008)