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)
0
