The Monster Study

In the early 20th century, the question of what causes stuttering remained a perplexing enigma. Was it an inherent genetic disposition, or did environmental factors and learned behaviors play a significant role? Dr. Wendell Johnson, a prominent speech pathologist and advocate of general semantics, embarked on a groundbreaking exploration in the 1930s to shed light on this perplexing issue. His own personal experience as a former stutterer fueled his conviction that stuttering was primarily a learned behavior influenced by the environment, particularly parental criticism.

Dr. Johnson's journey began with his own struggle against stuttering. As an undergraduate at the University of Iowa, he wrestled with this affliction but refused to be defeated by it. Instead, he sought various techniques to overcome stuttering, including self-analysis, writing, public speaking, and forceful vocalization. His relentless efforts bore fruit as he earned a degree in English, followed by a master's in psychology in 1929, and a doctorate in psychology in 1931. Dr. Johnson's unwavering determination led him to devote his life to speech therapy, with a particular focus on helping children conquer the adversity of stuttering.

During the 1930s, prevailing theories held that stuttering had organic or genetic origins. Dr. Johnson, however, had a different perspective and proposed a controversial experiment that has since become known as the "Monster Study." In this study, Dr. Johnson enlisted one of his own students, Mary Tudor, to conduct the research. The experiment aimed to challenge the prevailing theories about the causes of stuttering and unveil the role of environmental factors.

The Monster Study involved 22 orphaned children divided into two separate groups. Crucially, none of the children were informed that they were part of an experiment. Instead, they were led to believe they were receiving speech therapy to improve their communication skills. Among these children, ten were identified by orphanage personnel as stutterers, while the others were randomly allocated to the two groups, known as Group A and Group B.

Mary Tudor, the student chosen to conduct the experiment, met with each child for forty-five minutes every few weeks over several months. In Group A, consisting of normal speakers, children were given positive encouragement. They were assured that their speech was fine and that they would eventually outgrow any stuttering tendencies. Furthermore, they were advised not to pay attention to others' opinions about their speaking ability. Children in Group A received praise regardless of their speech performance.

In stark contrast, Group B, labeled as stutterers, experienced a different form of speech therapy. They were made acutely self-conscious about their stuttering tendencies, receiving lectures about stuttering and being trained to avoid word repetition. This negative therapy left a lasting mark on the psyches of these children, as they were constantly belittled for their speech imperfections. Even when they did not make errors in speech, they were criticized. This approach led to increased self-consciousness, embarrassment, and reluctance to speak, affecting their performance and self-esteem throughout their lives.

The outcomes of the experiment were revealing. Among the five children in Group B who had already exhibited stuttering tendencies before the therapy, three became worse after the negative treatment. In contrast, only one child in Group A, which was labeled as normal speakers, experienced greater speech difficulties after the study.

Perhaps the most disturbing revelation from the Monster Study was that five of the initially normal-speaking children in Group B developed stuttering as a result of the negative therapy. While they had not entered the experiment as stutterers, the treatment's demoralizing effects led them to develop speech impediments.

Despite the study's findings supporting Dr. Johnson's hypothesis, it raised ethical concerns and questions about the treatment's morality. The study was never published, possibly due to advice from colleagues who questioned the ethics of the methods employed. Moreover, the children received inadequate post-study counseling and therapy, leaving them to grapple with the psychological and emotional scars for the rest of their lives.

The implications of the Monster Study remained hidden until 2001 when an investigative reporter for the San Jose Mercury News brought the experiment to light through a series of articles and a book. In response, six remaining children from Group B sued the state of Iowa, highlighting the lifelong psychological and emotional trauma caused by the study. They cited ongoing negative effects, learning disabilities, and, in some cases, persistent speech problems. Although not all had become lifelong stutterers, the study had profoundly impacted their self-confidence and willingness to communicate.

The ethical dilemma surrounding the Monster Study is complex. On one hand, those conducting the experiment believed they were doing good, motivated by the desire to help children overcome stuttering. However, the children had no say in the experiment and were not informed of its true nature; they were misled into believing they were receiving therapy. The fact that the study was never published, despite the evident long-term damage inflicted upon the children and the lack of adequate follow-up, further compounds the ethical questions surrounding this controversial research.

Ultimately, the Monster Study remains a poignant reminder of the ethical challenges in human experimentation and the lasting consequences it can have on the lives of those involved. Stuttering, while still not fully understood, continues to be a subject of study and treatment, with a focus on more ethical and effective approaches to help individuals overcome this communication challenge.