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
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 http://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.