The 'Monster Study' on Stuttering
[Photo by Yogi]
The so-called 'Monster Study' on children's stuttering qualifies for this series on weird psychology on three grounds. First it had extremely shaky (practically non-existent) ethical standards. Second its results were never published for fear it would be likened to experiments carried out by the Nazis (Rothwell, 2003). Finally, in historical context, its findings were dramatic.Challenging theories of stuttering
Dr. Wendell Johnson, a speech pathologist, wanted to show that the prevailing theories about the causes of stuttering were wrong. During the 1930s it was thought that stuttering had an organic or genetic cause. This meant you were born a stutterer (or not) and little could be done.Dr Johnson had different ideas. Instead he thought the labelling of children as stutterers could actually make them worse, and in some cases cause 'normal' children to start stuttering. To prove his point, he suggested an experiment which has since become known as the 'Monster Study'.
Power of labelling
Twenty-two young orphans were recruited to participate in the experiment. They were then divided into two groups. The first were labelled 'normal speakers' and the second 'stutterers'. Crucially only half of the group labelled stutterers did actually show signs of stuttering.During the course of the experiment, the normal speakers were given positive encouragement but it was the treatment of the other group that has made the experiment notorious. The group labelled stutterers were made more self-conscious about stuttering. They were lectured about stuttering and told to take extra care not to repeat words. Other teachers and staff at the orphanage were even unknowingly recruited to reinforce the label as the researchers told them the whole group were stutterers.
Dramatic results
Of the six 'normal' children in the stuttering group, five began stuttering after the negative therapy. Of the five children who had stuttered before their 'therapy', three became worse. In comparison, only one of the children in the group labelled 'normal' had greater speech problems after the study.Realising the power of their experiment, the researchers tried to undo the damage they had done, but to no avail. It seemed the effects of labelling the children stutterers was permanent. This is something the orphans labelled stutterers have had to cope with for the rest of their lives.
Clearly this research raises a number of major ethical concerns.
Case for the defence
- The researchers had the best of intentions - they were motivated to help stutterers of all ages. Indeed Dr. Wendell Johnson was himself a severe stutterer.
- The findings supported Dr Johnson's theory and contributed to new and successful ways of treating people with stutters.
Case for the prosecution
Despite the researcher's good intentions, the study fails on any number of ethical dimensions.- The children were never told they had been involved in a study, until it was revealed by a newspaper over 60 years later (read the emotionally charged report from the San Jose Mercury News).
- The teachers and administrators of the orphanage were also misled about the purpose of the study. This deception was never explained to them.
- The study was never published. Because of this some argue the damage inflicted on the children was even more unethical. All studies must balance the potential risks against the potential benefits. Without publication and dissemination through the academic community, this study's benefits are reduced.
The final word
This is left to the University of Iowa, where Dr Johnson was working at the time of the experiment. In 2001, 36 years after his death, they issued a formal apology, calling the experiment both regrettable and indefensible (Rothwell, 2003).This judgement is impossible to argue with.
UPDATE: Six participants in this study have just won a £500,000 settlement against the University of Iowa.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibilityLabels: Development, Weird Psychology
36 comments
While there was far more horrendous research going on during that same period, (such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study), it seems interesting that researchers thought they could get away with morally questionable research so long as it was in a good cause and only involved the use of subjects from "marginalized" populations (orphans, visible minorities).
Romeo, I hadn't heard of that one - a quick Google reveals it makes the 'Monster Study' look like a walk in the park. Frightening.
Tuskegee is the more famous case of complete breakdown in research ethics. I had not heard of the Monster test, so thank you for that.
But this has gone on in many fields (e.g., birth control pills were tested on women in Puerto Rico and Haiti in the 1950s and 60s) and is still continuing in the developing countries with current pharmaceutical trials (we [who live in the industrialized countries] just redefine who we use as lab rats based on their assessed "value" to a global society, and who lacks the power to sue if something goes wrong).
If you want your socks knocked off, dig into the U.S.'s eugenics program that lasted for the majority of the 20th Century...
(U.K. had one also, but I haven't researched it as thoroughly).
Crackpot! The results of this study do not pass of myth. They were swindled to supply support to the mistaken theory of Johnson on the causes of the stuttering. The Dr. Wendell Johnson itself admitted that later.
Hello Jeremy Dean,
They damaged those children life with their experiment... IMO who ever want to experiment about something they invent or find, its better to experiment it first on them selves or on their family then others.
In this incident those innocent orphans suffering with it... it happened because they are orphan... this is very sad to know... I hope scientist will re think whenever they want to experiment on something they invent or find.
SHZ.
Self Help Zone
Dr G, thanks for the pointer - very interesting.
Gustav, I think this is a stronger interpretation of the story than I had myself.
SHZ, as Romeo says it's often marginalised populations which suffer disadvantage. It is sad.
Someone I knew well at school had a very bad stutter/stammer from birth, to the point of crippling him, and ultimately destroying him.
He was also one of the most intelligent and insightful humans I ever met.
He committed suicide in his 20's.
Enough said.
Anonymous, thanks for your comment. As you say. Enough said.
I don't understand the reason of the success of theories so fraudulent like that one. In this way, the understanding of the stuttering difficultly will reach scientific maturity. Labelling does not cause stutter. To confirm what I am saying, look for the article " The Indians have many terms will be it: stuttering among the Bannock-Shoshoni " in the PubMed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/portal/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
The scientific poverty of the ruling theories on stuttering is very depressing. It does not even seem that we are living the golden age of the neuroscience. The scientific understanding of the stuttering still seems to be in the Middle Age.
Evolve, please.
Gustav, thanks for the pointer to the article. Unfortunately I can only get access to the abstract.
Just to be clear: Johnson was not claiming that labelling causes stuttering, but that it could reinforce it. He was saying that a diagnosis of stuttering can make the stuttering worse.
Ahh...Just for your information...The orphans targeted in group IIa did stutter...
No where in the 263 page master thesis study document is it confirmed/stated that the orphans stuttered...That being said, It is what happened after the study was discontinued that confirms the orphans stuttered.
Sorry to pop your "belief" Gustav, But W. Johnson had an effective "cookbook" recipe for creating severe stuttering symptoms...
Perhaps someday the "whole story" will be told...
Very interesting anon. - so you're saying that none of the orphans were stutterers at the start of the study? I read a couple of accounts, both of which said half the group were stutterers beforehand. Is that not correct then?
Jeremy Dean -
You are correct - 2 groups divided into 4 sub-groups. 1 of the 2 groups were CWS prior to the study beginning, as you indicate.
Group IA of the CWS group (5 children) was administered "Positive" therapy/"Reverse therapy"...This is also a most interesting part of the study, and almost never explored...
It is I who must apologize for not being clear....My comments only concerned group IIA (6 children) - Normal speakers turned into CWS.
I am quite certain at some point the whole story will come out.
Now Jeremy - my question to you is ...What is "stuttering" to you? Is it more than what is seen/heard by the listener?
Thanks for the clarification.
What is stuttering to me? I would guess it is more than is seen and heard by the listener. It is about the psychosocial processes that the individual with the stutter experiences. I'm certainly interested in what these processes are and how they manifest themselves...
Although researchers have concluded that those in the negative therapy group showed a loss of self-esteem and other detrimental effects seen in adult stutterers, nothing in the study indicated any of the subjects became stutterers.
Gustav, I read two separate reports published in decent textbooks. They both stated non-stutters became stutters. I'll need some solid documentary evidence before I'm convinced otherwise.
It seems there's a lot of controversy over this study. The main problem seems to be that the original findings were never published. That makes it difficult to evaluate and probably leads to all this confusion over what actually happened.
Stuttering is essentially a neurobiologic disorder, as well as Tourette syndrome. Such as this last, it can't be induced exclusively by environmental factors.
Interesting Replies since my last post...
As I had indicated in an earlier post, it was not what was IN the Master Thesis Study that confirmed that the subjects stuttered...Gustav is correct when he says "nothing in the study indicated any of the subjects became stutterers." This is correct and indisputable when one reads the study.
That being said, What happened with/to the orphans AFTER the study was ended by Johnson would -- without a doubt -- support that stutter-like behaviors were present in at least some of the orphans subject to the "therapy".
I suggest reading the following: "The Monster Study" by Dr. Franklin H. Silverman, Journal of Fluency Disorders, 13 (1988), 225 - 231... Interview with Dr. Franklin H. Silverman at www.speechpathology.com/interview/interview_detail.asp?interview_id=1032
Also, obtaining the actual study entitled "An Experimental Study of the Effects of Evaluative Labeling on Speech Fluency" by Mary Tudor, Master's Thesis, University of Iowa from the University of Iowa may help as well in gleaning real information.
In addition, the book "ABANDONED...Now Stutter My Orphan" by Dr. Jerome Halvorson, 1999 May also be of interest. He, I believe, extensively interviewed the graduate student - Mary Tudor - about the study, and what happened after it was discontinued - prior to writing "ABANDONED...".
I do not doubt that "stuttering" is neurobiologically based. It may very well be, but this is not "absolute" or "Proof Positive" at this time by any means.
That being said...I do believe it is absolutely positively possible to "create" a child who stutters following Johnson's recipe.
I'd be interested in what/how Gustav and Dr. Francis define "stuttering"?
Jeremy -- "Professionals" have done their best to discredit and fabricate information regarding the study...for more than 60 years... The graduate student -- and now the orphans, after the news article in 2001 - also know what precisely, actually happened.
Anon, having read Dr Silverman's account I can see why the confusion arose about whether or not the 'therapy' caused stuttering.
Thank you very much for your comprehensive comment.
A neurological basis of stuttering?
“A new era has begun in the understanding and treatment of stuttering. Sommer and others have shown that stuttering is associated with abnormal brain functioning, and hence it should be viewed as a neurological disorder with psychological compensations. The challenge now facing physicians and neuroscientists is to understand how stuttering develops, why it resolves spontaneously in some cases, and what treatments will ultimately assist individuals who struggle with this disorder.”
Thank you for exploring this article; as someone who suffered greatly with a stutter throughout childhood, I know all too well the negative effects that are brought out by the condition. While thankfully I no longer suffer any frequent speech impediment due to early diagnosis and aggressive speech therapy, I still endure many deep-lingering doubts in my internal self ranging from anxiety of public speaking to strong timidness and insecurity. The cruelness that children with a stuttering problem endure is extremely damaging to one of the most fundamental needs of a person - the need to express oneself - and the mere thought of the effects of this study on those children brings me back to a very painful time in my life. I can only imagine the kind of difficulties these children must have endured. Monster study, indeed.
Iowa Settles Stuttering Study Lawsuit
"[...] According to the study, some became reluctant to speak or self-conscious about their speech, but none became stutterers."
Hi Researcher, yes this is a point of contention which the comments above deal with. Here's an extract from Dr Silverman's account:
"When the master's thesis was completed, the children were not stuttering, and everyone thought that's the end of it. Then what happened was a few months later Wendell Johnson got a frantic call from the orphanage that the children had begun to stutter. They were not able to reverse it. The question was, would this persist life long?"
Hi Anon, thanks for sharing your experience - I'm glad this article was interesting.
Researcher -
Fluency Training + Stuttering Modification = Monster Study
Fluency Bigots are more commonly known as Fluency Nazis by many who stutter...
Stuttering is so much more than the freakin' stutter...
Know how to stop stuttering? Don't talk...
Researchers don't get that..never did, never will...
Do your research on your own kids, you freak...
A "Monstered" Stutterer
Genetic etiology in cases of recovered and persistent stuttering in an unselected, longitudinal sample of young twins.
Dworzynski K et al., Department of Psychology, King's College London, Gower Street, London, UK.
PURPOSE: The contribution of genetic factors in the persistence of and early recovery from stuttering was assessed. METHOD: Data from the Twins Early Development Study were employed. Parental reports regarding stuttering were collected at ages 2, 3, 4, and 7 years, and were used to classify speakers into recovered and persistent groups. Of 12,892 children with at least 2 ratings, 950 children had recovered and 135 persisted in their stutter. RESULTS: Logistic regressions showed that the rating at age 2 was not predictive of later stuttering, whereas ratings at ages 3 and 4 were. Concordance rates were consistently higher for monozygotic than for dizygotic twin pairs (with the exception of girls at age 3). At 3, 4, and 7 years, the liability to stuttering was highly heritable (h2 estimates of between .58 and .66). Heritability for the recovered and persistent groups was also high but did not differ from each other. CONCLUSION: Stuttering appears to be a disorder that has high heritability and little shared environment effect in early childhood and for recovered and persistent groups of children, by age 7. The clinical implications of the findings are discussed.
researcher -
I'd be interested in your definition of what "stutttering" is.
Thank you
The only ones who need a definition of stuttering are the "experts" and "researchers"...
We who stutter KNOW what it is...
researcher...Do your experiments on your own kids...you freak...
Hi Stutterer, I appreciate you putting forward your view but please can you keep it polite.
Thanks.
Jeremy Dean-
My apologies. Nothin' but respect from me for your request.
Many of us who stutter and belong to self help groups suspect that the # 1 reason for more severe stuttering developing in children who stutter as they grow into adults who stutter is the type of "therapy" that is inflicted upon us when we are young... Fluency traing/shaping and Stuttering Modification techniques. These "techniques" are very similar to the "techniques" used to make the orphans stutter and really ruined the quality of their lives.
Fear is a most damaging thing to the human psych. Kids are fragile.
I guess I personally have a difficult time with the "experts."
A child's life can easily be ruined by bad "therapy". I really believe we who stutter know the most about stuttering, but "experts" mostly refuse to listen to those of us who stutter.
People judge intelligence... wrongly I believe...By what and how you say things. Because we stutter, most professionals view many of us who stutter as stupid...wrongly so.
It is a terrible plight for a stutterer to chose silence in life.
Yet most of us do.
It is my hope you accept my apology.
Hi Stutterer, apology accepted of course.
Thanks for sharing your experience - I really do welcome all perspectives.
Excellent comentaries. I liked specially the article "The neurological basis of stuttering?"
Congratulations for the one who indicated it.
Fortunately, still there's light and rationality in the middle of so much darkness.
when my son was little he would stutter, I would hear him start to struggle and say a "catch phrase" such as "super-cala-fragil-istic-expi-ala-docious". It gave his brain just enough of a distraction to catch up with his speach. he doesn't stutter anymore. Maybe it would work with adults, you could try to thing of a very long word, use the same word all the time, when you started to stutter to distract you thought process and your speech, and relax the mind, it might help, with some practice. just a suggestion from a mom.
As a thirty-five year old stutterer myself, I'm finding this blog very interesting. I hope people are not abandoning it already. I find when I'm talking to kids--which is my job as a primary school teacher--I am much more relaxed and fluent than when I talk to adults, especially strangers. Relaxation therapy, meditation, any sort of tricks of the mind ... while hardly scientific, may in fact help "fool" a stutterer's brain out of a potential upcoming stutter. It works for me usually. What does everybody think?
Hello-
I was directed to this blog by a friend of mine who stutters.
I was 1 of 3 expert witnesses retained by the lawfirm representing 5 of the 6 plantiffs in the recently concluded lawsuit re: "The Monster Study".
I am wondering if anyone on this blog would be interested in the findings regarding the study and its aftermath?
Sincerely,
Michael J. Retzinger, M.S., CCC-SLP
Board Recognized Specialist & Mentor - Fluency Disorders
Yes, retz, count me among the ones interested.