The Monster Stuttering Study by Wendell Johnson

The Monster Study is an investigation that was carried out in the United States in the 1930s. and that he wanted to find out the effects of different therapies in children with language and communication disorders.

This study has generated debates and controversies that have marked an important part of research in psychology, specifically regarding its ethical dilemmas. Below we explain what the Monster Study is, how it was approached and what are the reasons why it is considered a controversial investigation.

• Related article: "The 15 types of research (and characteristics)"

What is the Monster Studio?

The Monster Study is an investigation about language fluency disorder (stuttering), directed by the American psychologist Wendell Johnson in 1939. It was conducted under Johnson's supervision, but directly led by one of his graduate students, Maria Tudor.

The research was carried out at the University of Iowa and twenty-two orphaned children from the veterans' orphanage also from Iowa participated. The main objective of the study was to analyze whether stuttering could be induced and whether it could be diminished with therapy based on positive reinforcement.

In contrast to the cerebral theories that were gaining in his time, Wendell believed that stuttering is a learned behavior, and that as such, it could be unlearned and also induced.

According to the psychologist, stuttering occurs when the person who listens to someone with little fluent speech evaluates this as something undesirable; issue that is perceived by the person speaking and causes tension and concern.

The consequence of this tension and concern is that the speaker worsens the fluency of his speech; which causes more anxiety and again causes stuttering. In other words, for Wedell stuttering is a consequence of the effort to avoid stuttering, which is caused by the pressure exerted by the person who is listening.

• You may be interested in: "Stuttering (dysphemia): symptoms, types, causes and treatment"

Study design

The Monster Study began by selecting the 22 children who participated. Of these 22 selected children, there were 10 who had a stutter previously detected by their teachers and caregivers.

Later, Tudor and her research team personally assessed the children's speech. Thus, they generated a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 referred to the lowest fluency; and 5 referred to the highest fluency. Thus, they divided the group of children: 5 of them were assigned to an experimental group and the other 5 to a control group.

The other 12 children who participated did not have any language or communication disorders and they were randomly chosen also within the orphanage. Six of these 12 children were also assigned to a control group and the other 6 to an experimental group. They were between 5 and 15 years old.

None of the children knew they were participating in an investigation; they believed that they were really receiving a therapy that would last 4 months, from January to May 1939 (the time the study lasted).

Maria Tudor had prepared a therapy script for each group. To half of the children he would say some positive sentences, trying to get the children to stop paying attention to the negative comments that others make about their speech; and to the other half I would say those same negative comments and I would emphasize every mistake in his speech.

Main results

The 22 children were divided according to whether they had a language disorder or not, into a control group and an experimental group. The children in the experimental group received language therapy based on positive reinforcement. This included, for example, praising the flow of his speech and his words. This was true for children who had stuttering as well as those who did not or had very little.

To the other half of the children, those in the control group, Tudor gave them a therapy based on the opposite: negative reinforcement. For example, he exalted every imperfection of language, belittled speech, emphasized that they were "stuttering children"; and if the children did not present any disorder, he told them that they were not speaking well and that they were presenting the first symptoms of stuttering.

The only conclusive result was that the participants in the latter group quickly presented anxiety symptoms, especially for the shame that speaking caused them, which is why they began to obsessively correct each speech, and even avoid communication. Even his schoolwork decreased and his behavior changed towards withdrawal.

Why is it known as a “monster” study?

This studio is known as a “monster” because of the ethical dilemmas it has generated. The group of children who received the therapy based on negative reinforcements also presented psychological effects. negative in the long term, in addition to the fact that those who already had language disorders kept them throughout their lives. life.

Upon completion of the study, Tudor returned to the orphanage voluntarily to offer help to those who had developed anxiety and those who had worsened their fluency of speech. Even tried therapy based on positive reinforcement.

Likewise, Johnson apologized a year later, saying that the children would surely recover in time, although it was clear that his study had left an imprint on them.

Johnson's peers and colleagues dubbed this research the "Monster Study," calling it unacceptable that orphaned children were used to test a hypothesis. Currently, and after several cases similar to this one, the ethical norms of research in psychology have been reformulated in an important way.

After being hidden, this investigation came to light and caused the University of Iowa to publicly apologize in 2001. This same university faced a lawsuit for thousands of dollars from several of the children (now adults) who had been long-term affected by the research.

Bibliographic references:

• Goldfarb, R. (2006). ethics. A Case Study from Fluency. Plural Publishing: USA
• Polti, I. (2013). Ethics in research: analysis from a current perspective on paradigmatic cases of research in psychology. Paper presented at the V International Congress on Research and Professional Practice in Psychology. Faculty of Psychology, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires. [Online] Available at https://www.aacademica.org/000-054/51
• Rodriguez, P. (2002). Stuttering from the perspective of stutterers. Central University of Venezuela. Retrieved May 12, 2018. Available in http://www.pedrorodriguez.info/documentos/Tesis_Doctoral.pdf.