The ‘Monster Study’ on Stuttering
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.
- 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.
References - Click here to toggle visibility
Join 22301 readers
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.