The Monster Study of Stuttering by Wendell Johnson

This controversial research is an example of how unethical science can harm people.

The Monster Study is a research study that was conducted in the United States in the 1930's and aimed to find out the effects of different therapies on children with language and communication disorders.

This study has generated debates and controversies that have marked an important part of research in psychology, specifically with respect to its ethical dilemmas. Below we explain what the Monster Study is, how it was approached, and the reasons why it is considered controversial research. it is considered a controversial research.

What is the Monster Study?

The Monster Study is a research study on the fluency disorder on language fluency disorder (stuttering).which was directed by the American psychologist Wendell Johnson in 1939. It was conducted under Johnson's supervision, but directly conducted by one of his graduate students, Maria Tudor.

The research took place at the University of Iowa and involved twenty-two orphaned children from the veterans' orphanage also in Iowa. The main objective of the study was to analyze whether stuttering could be induced and whether it could be reduced with a therapy based on positive reinforcement.

In contrast to the brain theories that were gaining ground at the time, Wendell believed that stuttering is a learned behavior.and, as such, could be unlearned as well as induced.

According to the psychologist, stuttering occurs when the person who listens to someone with poor speech evaluates this as something undesirable, which is perceived by the speaker and causes tension and concern.

The consequence of this tension and worry is that the speaker worsens the fluency of his speech; which generates more distress and again causes stuttering. and again leads to stuttering. In other words, for Wedell, stuttering is a consequence of the effort to avoid stuttering, which is caused by the pressure exerted by the listener.

Study design

The Monster Study began by selecting the 22 children who participated. Of those 22 children selected, there were 10 who had stuttering previously detected by their teachers and caregivers.

Tudor and his research team then personally assessed the children's speech. They generated a 1 to 5 scale where 1 referred to the lowest fluency and 5 referred to the highest fluency. Thus, they divided the group of children: 5 of them were assigned to an experimental group and the other 5 to a control group.

The other 12 children who participated did not have any language or communication disorder and were randomly selected also from within the orphanage. were also randomly selected from within the orphanage.. Six of these 12 children were also assigned to a control group and the other 6 to an experimental group. They were between 5 and 15 years of age.

None of the children knew they were participating in research; they believed they were actually receiving therapy that would last 4 months, from January to May 1939 (the length of the study).

Maria Tudor had a therapy script prepared for each group. To half of the children she would say some positive phrases, trying to get the children to stop paying attention to the negative comments made by others about their speech; and to the other half she would say those same negative comments and would emphasize every mistake in his speech.

Main results

The 22 children were divided according to whether they had a language disorder or not, into a control group and an experimental group. The children in the experimental group of the received positive reinforcement-based speech therapy. This included, for example, praising the fluency of their speech and words. This applied both to the children who had stuttering and to those who had little or no stuttering.

To the other half of the children, the control group, Tudor gave therapy based on the opposite: negative reinforcement. For example, he exalted every imperfection of language, belittled speech, emphasized that they were "stuttering children"; and if the children did not present a stuttering problem, he would give them a "stuttering child".and if the children did not show any disorder, he told them that they were not speaking well and that they were showing the first symptoms of stuttering.

The only conclusive result was that the participants of the latter group quickly presented symptoms of anxiety, especially due to the embarrassment they felt when speaking, which is why they began to correct every speech in an obsessive manner, and even avoided communication. At the same time, their schoolwork declined and their behavior shifted towards withdrawal.

Why is it known as a "monster" study?

This study is known as a "monster" because of the ethical dilemmas it has generated.. The group of children who received the therapy based on negative reinforcement also showed long-term negative psychological effects, and those who already had language disorders retained them throughout their lives.

Once the study was over, Tudor returned to the orphanage voluntarily to offer help to those who had developed anxiety and to those whose speech fluency had worsened. She even tried positive reinforcement therapy..

Likewise, Johnson apologized a year later, saying that the children would surely recover in time, although it was clear that his study had left an imprint on them.

Johnson's peers and colleagues dubbed this research the "Monster Study," calling it unacceptable that orphaned children were used to test a hypothesis. Today, and after several cases similar to this one, the ethical standards of research in psychology have been significantly reformulated.

After having remained hidden, this research came to light and caused the University of Iowa to prompted the University of Iowa to publicly apologize in 2001.. This same university faced a lawsuit for thousands of dollars from several of the children (now adults) who had been affected long-term by the research.

Bibliographical references:

• Goldfarb, R. (2006). Ethics. A Case Study from Fluency. Plural Publishing: USA
• Polti, I. (2013). Ethics in research: analysis from a current perspective on paradigmatic cases of research in psychology. Paper presented at V International Congress on Research and Professional Practice in Psychology. School of Psychology, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires. [Online] Available at https://www.aacademica.org/000-054/51
• Rodríguez, P. (2002). Stuttering from the perspective of stutterers. Universidad Central de Venezuela. Retrieved May 12, 2018. Available at http://www.pedrorodriguez.info/documentos/Tesis_Doctoral.pdf.