The Monster Study BY SELINA BRICKSTOCK Introduction Hosted by Dr Wendell Johnson, a speech pathologist and professor at the University of Iowa He 'stuttered grotesquely, often rendered speechless by the impediment' (Reynolds, 2003) Perhaps this is why the university appealed to him for it was know for its research on stuttering The experiment took place in Davenport, Iowa at an orphanage in 1939 One of his students, Mary Tudor was recruited to conduct the experiment The aim In the 1930's it was believed that stuttering was a biological trait that was uncorrectable Johnson disagreed with this labelling and sought to disprove it He wanted to determine the cause of stuttering by showing that the disorder was a learned, conditional response In order to do this he created an experiment From this experiment he also wanted to find a way to treat and help people that stuttered The experiment 22 orphan children selected to take part in a stuttering experiment, 10 of which already stuttered They were divided at into two groups equally, group one was labelled the 'normal speakers' and group two the 'stutterers' Group one received positive encouragement and praise for their fluency Group two would receive negative reinforcement, told to stop stuttering even if they didn't Ethical issues Similar to the child abuse experienced in the Little Albert experiment Neither the children nor the staff gave consent Seen as inhumane and monstrous thus labeled the 'Monster study' Created a lifelong struggle for those that received negative speech therapy Had physiological effects on the children (Embarrassed, self-conscious and belittled) Some had speech problems throughout the rest of their lives Staff at the orphanage were told to scold the children in group IIA for speaking incorrectly The location of the experiment They were deceived into taking part by being told their were to receive speech therapy Johnson was too determined to prove his hypothesis despite the outcome The results The most disheartening aspect of the study was that it failed to prove Johnson’s hypothesis that stuttering is a learned behaviour (Goel, 2013) The negative results were never published Mary Tudor felt remorseful about the impact she'd had on the children and attempted to undo the damage over the course of three visits but was not successor The effects were permanent Conclusion Years later in 2001 university of Iowa formally apologised for the undergoing of the experiment and in 2007 the participants were granted compensation of nearly a million dollars for the lifelong side effects they have suffered. "Only now, at the remove of decades, we begin to digest and appreciate what the Tudor study tells us about the origins of speech defects, as well as the ethics of science, the brittleness of children and the egos of driven men" (Reynolds, 2003)
