It is common to see people reporting great suffering because of stuttering. In these cases, it may be difficult to accept stuttering, there are feelings of fear and shame about stuttering, frustration with the degree of fluency, and avoidance from unpleasant situations (Alm, 2004; Guitar, 1997; Prins, 1997). But we also see people reporting low suffering with regard to stuttering. In these other cases, there is usually no difficulty with accepting stuttering, there is little fear and little shame about stuttering, there are few avoidances from unpleasant situations and stuttering may even be understood as a stimulus to fight for one's dreams. What is it that differentiates those who suffer much from their stuttering from those who do not? What does scientific literature have to say about ways of dealing with difficulties?

Since the 1970s, the experimental psychologist Carol S. Dweck has examined how people deal with difficulties, errors or failures.

Research subjects usually have very similar attitudes towards success in relation to cognitive strategies, positive affect and search behavior (Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980).

However, when difficulties begin, two patterns of cognition, affect and behavior quickly emerge: a helpless response and a mastery-oriented response.

In the face of difficulties, subjects who show a helpless response are prone to (Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980):

• show negative cognition with regard to intelligence, memory or solving problems, that is, subjects begin to feel not smart enough, they do not remember how to solve the problem or they report that they are not good at solving problems. Subjects are also inclined not to predict a positive prognosis about the situation and previous successes are forgotten.
• show negative affect, that is, subjects express boredom with the task and anxiety related to the performance.
• show verbalizations of self-aggrandizing nature, that is, subjects talk about their good skills in other areas. This means that subjects with a helpless response need to protect their image when they are confronted by difficulties and that they also stop focusing on the problem to be solved.
• show reduction in performance after successive failures with high probability of adopting strategies associated with a lower cognitive age.

On the other hand, subjects who exhibit mastery-oriented response are prone to (Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980):

• show positive cognition, that is, they tend to explore other hypotheses, monitor their results, focus and strive more. They are inclined to make a positive prognosis about the situation (for example: "I've done this before. I can do it again").
• show positive affect, that is, they believe that they are able to solve the problems and enjoy the challenge.
• do not make verbalizations unrelated to the task.
• maintain or increase their level of cognitive strategies. Most subjects maintained the level of cognitive strategies. However, approximately 25% of subjects increased the level of cognitive strategies, that is, they teach themselves the most effective strategies.

Thus it is clear that subjects with either a helpless or a mastery-oriented response will react very differently when they are experiencing difficulties. Why?

Later studies showed that different responses come from different goals.

Subjects with a helpless response are inclined to adopt performance goals. They want to prove their skills, show their adequacy and hide their inadequacies. The subjects must answer the question: "Is my ability adequate or inadequate?" The results provide the answer: successes indicate that the person's ability is adequate, while errors and difficulties indicate that the person's ability is not adequate. It is the feeling of inadequacy that activates a helpless response (Dweck & Elliot, 1988).

Subjects with a mastery-oriented response are inclined to adopt learning goals. They want to increase their ability and they see the situations as opportunities to grow. They must answer the question: "What is the best way to improve my skill?" The results provide the answer: successes indicate that the subject is on the right path, while errors and difficulties indicate that the subject is not on the right path to increase his/her ability and therefore must seek another way (Elliot & Dweck, 1988).

The meaning of the word "difficulty" is very different for the two groups. For subjects with performance goals, "difficulty" means failure. For subjects with learning goals, "difficulty" means information, that is, the task should be done another way (Elliot & Dweck, 1988).

In the same manner, the meaning of "effort" is different for the two groups. For subjects with performance goals, the need to employ effort is evidence of low skill. The degree of effort is understood as inversely correlated with the degree of skill, that is, if it is necessary to employ a high effort to do a task, it is because one is not skilled enough (regardless of outcome). For subjects with learning goals, effort is the way to achieve their goals. The degree of effort is understood as directly correlated with the degree of skill, that is, the greater the effort employed in a task, the greater the resultant ability.

For subjects with performance goals, difficulties and effort indicate that they are not good enough. Thus self-esteem is threatened, supporting the emergence of several emotions. If adequacy is questioned, anxiety will probably emerge. If there are negative judgments about the performance, depression will probably emerge. If there is defensive posture regarding the situation, boredom and disdain of the task will probably emerge (Dweck & Elliot, 1988; Nussbaum & Dweck, 2008).

For subjects with learning goals, difficulties indicate that the task should be done another way. Difficulties do not indicate inadequacy and therefore there is no threat to self-esteem. As effort is seen as the way to increase skills, other attitudes and emotions are favored. Subjects are prone to be more determined and persistent. In addition they are prone to feel pride and satisfaction for their efforts (Elliot & Dweck, 1988; Nussbaum & Dweck, 2008).

Why do subjects adopt different goals? Other studies suggested that the adoption of different goals is related to different conceptions about the nature of the skills (Dweck & Leggett, 1988, Mangels et al., 2006).

Subjects who have performance goals assume that personal skills, characteristics and attributes are inherent, that is, they are static and cannot be changed. Subjects who have learning goals assume that personal skills, characteristics and attributes can be developed, that is, they are dynamic and can be changed.

Subjects who understood fluency as an inherent ability would be prone to adopt performance goals and thus to react with a helpless response when confronted by fluency problems. They would be subjects that:

• Believed that stuttering could not really be improved;
• Would want to prove their ability, showing fluency and hiding stuttering;
• Would have difficulty accepting stuttering because this would mean accepting that he/she is inadequate;
• Their self-esteem would be threatened by stuttering;
• Would understand that employing effort to improve is useless, being further proof of his/her low ability to talk;
• Would be inclined to avoid situations considered as threatening;
• Would show high levels of anxiety with respect to their speech performance;
• Would feel depressed in the face of negative judgments;
• Would show boredom and disdain regarding speech situations considered as difficult;
• Would need to protect their image, emphasizing skills in other areas;
• Would show fluency reduction after successive failures.

On the other hand subjects who understood fluency as a flexible skill would be inclined to adopt learning goals and therefore react with mastery-oriented responses when confronted by fluency problems. They would be subjects that:

• Would believe that fluency could be improved;
• Would want to improve their fluency skills;
• Would understand that effort is the way to improve fluency;
• Would be proud of and pleased by their commitment;
• Would face and seek challenging situations;
• Would develop hypotheses about how to improve their fluency;
• Would monitor their results;
• Would persist when confronted by difficulties;
• Would have low anxiety with regard to fluency performance.

I believe that the findings of Dweck's studies may be useful in understanding why some people deal well and others deal poorly with stuttering.

Finally, a commercial from Peru about fear confrontation. The commercial is called "Atrévete. Cambia" ("Dare yourself. Change.").

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNeTeudeygQ

Alm P. A. (2004). Stuttering, emotions, and heart rate during anticipatory anxiety: A critical review. Journal of Fluency Disorders 29 (2), p.123-33.

Diener, C. I. & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36, p. 451-462.

Diener, C. I. & Dweck, C. S. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: II. The processing of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, p. 940-952.

Dweck, C. S. & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review 95 (2), p. 256-273.

Elliott, E. S. & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(1), p. 5-12.

Guitar, B. (1997). Therapy for children's stuttering and emotions. In: Curlee, R. F. & Siegel, G. M. (eds). Nature and Treatment of Stuttering: new directions. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. p. 280-291.

Mangels, J. A.; Butterfield, B.; Lamb, J.; Good, C. & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Why do beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive neuroscience model. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 1 (2), p. 75-86.

Nussbaum, A. D. & Dweck, C. S. (2008). Defensiveness versus remediation: self-theories and modes of self-esteem maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34 (5), p. 599-612.

Prins, D. (1997). Modifying stuttering - the stutterer's reactive behavior: perspectives on past, present, and future. In: Curlee, R. F. & Siegel, G. M. (eds). Nature and Treatment of Stuttering: new directions. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. p. 335-355.

-Discussion-