Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jan 1;23(1):41-49.
doi: 10.1093/deafed/enx033.

Speech Intelligibility and Personality Peer-ratings of Young Adults With Cochlear Implants

Affiliations

Speech Intelligibility and Personality Peer-ratings of Young Adults With Cochlear Implants

Valerie Freeman. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. .

Abstract

Speech intelligibility, or how well a speaker's words are understood by others, affects listeners' judgments of the speaker's competence and personality. Deaf cochlear implant (CI) users vary widely in speech intelligibility, and their speech may have a noticeable "deaf" quality, both of which could evoke negative stereotypes or judgments from peers. In this study, college students with typical hearing (TH) used semantic differential scales to rate speech samples of highly-intelligible TH young adults and age-matched CI users with high or low intelligibility (CI-Hi, CI-Lo) on personality traits related to competence (intelligence, achievement), friendship skills (friendliness, popularity), and attractiveness as a friend (extraversion, dependability). Judges rated TH positively, CI-Lo negatively, and CI-Hi as intermediate, even though CI-Hi were as intelligible as TH. Both CI user groups were rated as friendly but unattractive as friends (insecure, shy, boring, unpopular, does not "sound like someone who could be my friend"), underlining the role of deaf speech quality in peer judgments. Such negative first impressions are likely to affect CI users' social interactions and friendships, highlighting the importance of speech intelligibility and quality for CI users and calling for education on deafness and deaf speech for TH peers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Rating task instructions, on-screen (top) and oral supplement script (bottom).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Mean trait ratings by talker group.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Arnett J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    1. Batten G., Oakes P. M., & Alexander T. (2014). Factors associated with social interactions between deaf children and their hearing peers: A systematic literature review. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 19, 285–302. 10.1093/deafed/ent052. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Berkay P. J., Gardner J. E., & Smith P. L. (1995). The development of the opinions about deaf people scale: A scale to measure hearing adults’ beliefs about the capabilities of deaf adults. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 105–114. 10.1177/0013164495055001010. - DOI
    1. Berndt T. J., & Das R. (1987). Effects of popularity and friendship on perceptions of the personality and social behavior of peers. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 7, 429–439. 10.1177/0272431687074005. - DOI
    1. Blood G. W., Blood I. M., & Danhauer J. L. (1978). Listeners’ impressions of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 11, 513–518. 10.1016/0021-9924(78)90025-4. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types