Journal of Abnormal Psychology1967, Vol. 72, No. 5, 441-445EFFECT OF SILENCE ON STUTTERINGEDWARD GOULD AND JOSEPH SHEEHAN *University of California, Los AngelesSince fear of silence is a striking feature of stuttering, this study investigatedthe effect of experimentally imposed silence. 24 adult stutterers read 4passages aloud, S times each, under 3 conditions of imposed silence (introducedfollowing the 2nd reading), and under 1 control condition. They then rankedthese situations as to their evoked discomfort. Unexplained Silence, ExplainedSilence, and Private Silence were compared with a control condition of NoSilence. Findings were that all silences together produced significantly greaterfrequency of stuttering than control readings, with no differences among the3 silence conditions on this dimension. However, Unexplained Silence wasranked highest in discomfort. Results were discussed in terms of a conflictapproach to stuttering, with particular emphasis on role theory.Fear of silence is a striking clinical mani-festation in stuttering. Silence seems to freezethe stutterer, and he has trouble breaking theice. Moreover, to the stutterer silence maybecome a conditioned cue for the arousal ofanxiety, for moments of stuttering are morelikely to occur at the beginning of phrases,that is, in the process of breaking silence.That many stutterers appear uncomfortableduring moments of silence is therefore notsurprising. In therapy a most significant as-signment for a stutterer involves "delayedresponse," a situation in which the stuttererdeliberately holds off from any overt reactionto break the mounting pressure of silence.While the possible effect of silence on stut-tering has not been investigated experiment-ally, Sheehan (1958) has provided a theo-retical framework through which it might beinvestigated. The stutterer faces two fearedgoals, one speech, the other silence. To speakis to enter feared, dreaded speaking situationsand suffer the shame and guilt of stuttering.But to remain silent is to abandon communi-cation and thereby experience frustration,guilt, and failure.The experimental use of silence for induc-ing discomfort in speaking situations has been1 Portions of this article are based upon a doc-toral dissertation by the first author, directed by thesecond author, completed in June 196S. A previousversion of the paper was read at a meeting of theAmerican Speech and Hearing Association, Chicago,November 1965. Important statistical consultationwas provided by Joseph A. Gengerelli, professor ofpsychology, University of California, Los Angeles.studied by Chappie (1953), who suggestedsuch a technique in his work on the stressinterview. Although Chappie dealt with nor-mal speakers, silence should induce even morediscomfort in stutterers. By virtue of sharinga common, maladaptive behavior with highsocial visibility, stutterers have accumulateda number of similar experiences in the area ofspeech. For them, speech has become associ-ated with shame, fear, failure, humiliation,and other negative emotional content (Shee-han, 1958). Similarly, certain conditions ofsilence in communicative settings have be-come overlaid with these negative feelings. Inresponse to the pressures of silence, stutterersshould experience both greater subjective dis-comfort and an observable increase in thefrequency of stuttering.In order to state more specific hypothesesmotivating this study, it is necessary at thispoint to enumerate the experimental condi-tions:1. Unexplained Silence (A). The stuttererwas interrupted in his reading and made toendure 5 min. of silence without explanationin the presence of the experimenter (E).2. Private Silence (B). The stutterer wasinterrupted and left alone without explanationto wait for the return of E.3. Explained Silence (C). The stuttererwas interrupted and asked to wait until Efinished some work.4. No Silence (D). The stutterer was al-lowed to complete the reading task withoutinterruption or silence.441442EDWARD GOULD AND JOSEPH SHEEHANEach of the above conditions of silence wasdesigned to differ in expected emotional im-pact. Unexplained Silence (A) was anticipatedto arouse the most discomfort and to be mostclosely associated with the stutterer's priorunpleasant experiences with silence. NeitherExplained Silence (C) nor Private Silence(B) was expected to produce much discom-fort or increased stuttering, but Private Si-lence (B) was considered likely to createsome annoyance or irritation in the more im-patient of the stutterers. Explained Silence(C) was planned as the least emotionallyladen and least offensive of the three silenceconditions. The No Silence condition (D)served as a control.The major hypothesis motivating this studywas that stuttering behavior would be affecteddifferentially by experimentally imposed si-lence. The specific hypotheses were as follows:1. Frequency of stuttering following Un-explained Silence (A) was expected to be sig-nificantly greater than when following Si-lences B, C, and No Silence (D).2. Stutterers in their reports of expresseddiscomfort would rank the situations in theorder Silences A, B, C, and Control D.METHODSubjectsThe subjects (Ss) were 20 male and 4 femaleadult stutterers, ranging in age from 17 to 46. Ofthese, 22 were either participating in speech therapygroups in the UCLA Psychology Speech Clinic, orhad just applied for therapy. In order to be includedin the study, Ss had to stutter at least 10 times onthe first reading in the first situation.MaterialsReading materials consisted of four 205-wordpassages based on neutral, informational materialconcerning nitrogen, light, meteorology, and dieselengines. No attempt was made to equate passagesexactly, since the design permitted control ofpassage effects. However, they appeared roughlyequivalent in difficulty.A brief five-item questionnaire dealing with stut-terers' subjective reactions to the experiment andtheir evaluations of the silence conditions was ad-ministered as a final step in the procedure.ProcedureEach 5 sat face-to-face across from E. The 5 wasinstructed to read the passages aloud five times insuccession in his most natural fashion, without at-tempts to avoid or fake stuttering. Three 5-min.silence conditions were then introduced sequentially,preceded by the first two readings of the passageand followed by the final three readings.The dependent variable was frequency of stutter-ing on each of the five readings for each of thefour conditions. Thus, a total of 20