This study compares how stuttering is represented and engaged with on two major social media platforms, Instagram and X. Both platforms significantly influence public perceptions of stuttering but differ in focus and user engagement. A qualitative content analysis was conducted on highly engaged posts related to stuttering, collected over a year and identified using relevant hashtags and keywords. User engagement metrics, including likes, shares, and comments, were assessed to gauge the reach and impact of different content types.
Results indicate that Instagram content primarily revolves around personal experiences and emotional impacts. Users share success stories, seek advice, and express the emotional toll of stuttering, often featuring testimonials about speech therapy and alternative treatments. However, there are concerns regarding the promotion of non-evidence-based treatments and the potential spread of misinformation.
In contrast, X emphasizes advocacy, policy reform, and the influence of prominent public figures. Findings show that real-time interactions enable broader discussions about raising awareness and addressing stigma. Clinical content frequently includes research articles, discussions about evidence-based practices, and updates from professional conferences. Influential healthcare professionals and advocacy groups shape the discourse, contributing to a more structured representation of stuttering. X facilitates the dissemination of evidence-based information and encourages public engagement, especially during events like National Stuttering Awareness Week.
This research report will critically analyze the results of highly engaged posts about stuttering on Instagram and X, exploring how these platforms can both help and mislead readers. It will also discuss how speech pathologists can contribute to developing evidence-based practice shared on social media and highlight the importance of accurate information in shaping public perception. Audience engagement will be encouraged through quick polling activities, allowing participants to share their clients’ experiences with social media and its impact on their understanding of stuttering.

Boyle, M. P., Dioguardi, L., & Pate, J. E. (2016). A comparison of three strategies for reducing the public stigma associated with stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 50, 44–58.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Choudhury, M., Dinger, Z., & Fichera, E. (2017). The utilization of social media in the hearing aid community. American Journal of Audiology, 26(1), 1–9.
Chu, J. T., Wang, M. P., Shen, C., Viswanath, K., Lam, T. H., & Chan, S. S. C. (2017). How, when and why people seek health information online: Qualitative study in Hong Kong. Interactive Journal of Medical Research, 6(2), Article e7000.
Chu, S. Y., Unicomb, R., Lee, J., Cho, K. S., Louis, K. O. S., Harrison, E., & McConnell, G. (2022). Public attitudes toward stuttering in Malaysia. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 74, Article 105942.
Dignazio, L. E., Kenny, M. M., Raj, E. X., & Pelkey, K. D. (2020). Stuttering-related podcasts: Audio-based self-help for people who stutter. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 5(5), 1131–1138.
Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Frethey-Bentham, C., Fahy, J., & Goodman, S. (2019). Social media engagement behavior: A framework for engaging customers through social media content. European Journal of Marketing, 53(10), 2213–2243.
Donaher, J., & Minkoff, C. (2014). The portrayal of stuttering on YouTube. Perspectives on Fluency and Fluency Disorders, 24(1), 20–25.
Finn, P. (2019). The impact of social media on communication sciences and disorders: A need for examination and research. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 4(2), 224–227.
Gerlach, H., Hollister, J., Caggiano, L., & Zebrowski, P. M. (2019). The utility of stuttering support organization conventions for young people who stutter. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 62, Article 105724.
Hemsley, B., Palmer, S., & Balandin, S. (2014). Tweet reach: A research protocol for using Twitter to increase information exchange in people with communication disabilities. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 17(2), 84–89.
Leko Krhen, A., & Suˇ ˇsak, L. (2022). Internet searches conducted by people who stutter: Association with speech-language therapy and severity of stuttering. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 1–8.
Louis, K. O. S., Irani, F., Gabel, R. M., Hughes, S., Langevin, M., Rodriguez, M., … Weidner, M. E. (2017). Evidence-based guidelines for being supportive of people who stutter in North America. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 53, 1–13. Lua, A. 2021. How the Instagram Algorithm Works in 2021: Everything You Need to Know. 〈https://buffer.com/library/instagram-feed-algorithm/〉.
Mena, P., Barbe, D., & Chan-Olmsted, S. (2020). Misinformation on Instagram: The impact of trusted endorsements on message credibility. Social Media Society, 6(2), 2056305120935102.
Miller, T. (2015). Stuttering in the Movies: Effects on Adolescents’ Perceptions of People who Stutter (409) [Master’s thesis. Western Washington University West] WWU Graduate School Collection.
Nicolai, S., Geffner, R., Stolberg, R., & Yaruss, J. S. (2018). Retrospective experiences of cyberbullying and emotional outcomes on young adults who stutter. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 11(1), 27–37.
Raj, E. X., Daniels, D. E., & Thomson, P. E. (2023). Facebook groups for people who stutter: An extension of and supplement to in-person support groups. Journal of Communication Disorders, 101, Article 106295.
Seitz, S. R., & Choo, A. L. (2021). Stuttering: Stigma and perspectives of (dis) ability in organizational communication. Human Resource Management Review, Article 100875.
Zraick, R. I., Azios, M., Handley, M. M., Bellon-Harn, M. L., & Manchaiah, V. (2021). Quality and readability of internet information about stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 67, Article 105824.