The Monster Study: Unveiling a Controversial Psychological Experiment
In 1939, a psychological experiment was conducted in Davenport, Iowa, that would later be infamously named the “Monster Study.” Its aim was to explore the causes of stuttering by testing whether labeling normal-speaking children as stutterers could induce the condition and whether encouraging actual stutterers about their speech could help them improve. Conducted by graduate student Mary Tudor under the supervision of Wendell Johnson, a renowned speech expert at the University of Iowa, this experiment left behind a legacy of trauma and ethical outrage.
Despite its intentions, the study caused lifelong psychological scars to its participants and raised serious ethical questions. It was so controversial that it remained hidden for decades, overshadowing its findings on stuttering.
What Was the Monster Study?
The experiment involved 22 orphaned children from the Iowa Soldiers’ Orphans Home. These children, some stutterers and others non-stutterers, were divided into two groups:
- Group 1: Praised for their speech and reassured that their stuttering would improve.
- Group 2: Labeled as potential stutterers and criticized for their speech, even if they were normal speakers.
Mary Tudor followed a strict script during her interactions, reinforcing these messages over six months. The children were led to believe they were undergoing speech therapy, but in reality, they were participants in a psychological experiment without their consent or understanding.
The Methods and Ethical Breach
The experiment, conducted from January to May 1939, involved 45-minute sessions every few weeks. Tudor drove to Davenport to interact with each child individually, following her research protocol.
For Stuttering Children:
Tudor reassured them with phrases like:
- “You will outgrow the stuttering.”
- “Pay no attention to what others say about your speaking ability.”
For Non-Stuttering Children Labeled as Stutterers:
She warned them:
- “The staff has concluded you have trouble with your speech.”
- “You must try to stop yourself immediately.”
- “Don’t speak unless you can do it perfectly.”
These negative reinforcements caused severe emotional and psychological effects. While none of the children became true stutterers, many became self-conscious, anxious, and reluctant to speak.
Impact on Participants
The children in the study faced significant academic and social setbacks:
- Schoolwork suffered.
- Some children refused to speak in class or avoided social interactions.
- An 11-year-old boy began correcting himself anxiously, saying the words “felt stuck.”
- Mary Korlaske, a 12-year-old girl, became withdrawn and spoke rarely, even to her best friend.
One child even ran away from the orphanage, ending up in an industrial school for girls. The trauma of being labeled and criticized lingered for years, affecting their confidence and mental health.
The Fallout
The study was never published in a peer-reviewed journal, likely due to its unethical nature and concerns about Wendell Johnson’s professional reputation. The experiment’s name—”Monster Study”—was coined by the traumatized participants themselves.
The ethical ramifications of the study became even more significant in the context of its time. It was conducted during the Nazi human experiments of World War II, further increasing the urgency to suppress its details. Mary Tudor’s thesis remains the sole official record of the study.
Apologies and Compensation
In 2001, the University of Iowa publicly apologized for the experiment, calling it a “regrettable” chapter in psychological research. In 2007, seven of the surviving participants received a total of $1.2 million in compensation for their emotional and psychological scars.
Legacy of the Monster Study
Despite its dark history, the Monster Study contributed to the understanding of stuttering. Wendell Johnson was the first to emphasize the importance of a stutterer’s thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes, a perspective still relevant in speech therapy today.
Patricia Zebrowski, a University of Iowa professor of speech pathology, noted that the study contained one of the largest collections of scientific data on stuttering. However, she acknowledged the significant ethical flaws, stating that no scientific gain can justify such harm.
Reflections on Responsibility
Mary Tudor herself expressed regret for her role in the study. In her correspondence with Johnson, she wrote:
“In time, they will recover, but we certainly made a definite impression on them.”
Even after the experiment ended, she returned to the orphanage three times to provide follow-up care and attempted to reassure the children that they did not actually stutter. Yet, the psychological damage could not be undone.
What Can We Learn?
The Monster Study serves as a reminder of the importance of ethical standards in research. While it aimed to improve our understanding of stuttering, it violated fundamental principles of informed consent and respect for participants.
A University of Iowa spokesperson summed it up best:
“This is a study that should never be considered defensible in any era.”
Reference Websites:
- Visit medicaltimes.io for trusted health insights.
- American Psychological Association (APA) – apa.org
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders – nidcd.nih.gov
- Speech Pathology Australia – speechpathologyaustralia.org.au
Top 10 FAQs About the Monster Study
- What was the purpose of the Monster Study?
To study whether labeling children as stutterers could induce stuttering. - Who conducted the Monster Study?
Mary Tudor, under the supervision of Wendell Johnson. - Why is it called the Monster Study?
The name reflects the unethical nature of the experiment, as coined by its participants. - Were the children aware of the study’s purpose?
No, they believed they were receiving speech therapy. - Did any children develop stuttering from the experiment?
No, but many became self-conscious and reluctant to speak. - What happened to the children later in life?
Many experienced lifelong emotional scars and social anxiety. - Why wasn’t the study published in journals?
To protect Wendell Johnson’s reputation and avoid comparisons with Nazi experiments. - What did the University of Iowa do about the study?
The university publicly apologized and paid $1.2 million in compensation to survivors. - How has this study influenced speech therapy?
It highlighted the importance of addressing stutterers’ emotions and beliefs. - What ethical lessons can we learn?
The need for informed consent, participant safety, and respect in research.