monster study experiment results

The Monster Study (Summary, Results, and Ethical Issues)

Psychologists and scientists often go into their line of work for the betterment of mankind. Through their experiments and tireless work, they hope to discover information that will cure diseases, uncover the root of certain disorders, and improve the general health of the population. That being said, it has not always been approached in the best way. Experiments on humans, especially those in marginalized groups, often cross ethical lines. One of the most well-known, line-crossing experiments is The Monster Study.

The experiment is not called the Monster Study because it involves any monsters - but it did threaten to ruin the reputation of the psychologists behind it. The idea was so scary to fellow the psychologist’s peers that the results were hidden away for years.

What Is The Monster Study?

The Monster Study was conducted by Dr. Wendell Johnson (a speech pathologist) to learn more about why children developed a stutter. Johnson developed the Monster Study to see if stuttering was a result of learned behavior or Biology, however, there are many ethical problems with the study.

When Was the Monster Study Conducted?

Dr. Johnson conducted the Monster Study back in 1936 at the University of Iowa. Ethics were not prioritized as they are now in psychology and scientific experiments. If this experiment had been proposed today, the researcher may have been stopped before they could begin!

What Happened in the Monster Study?

Johnson chose 22 orphans as participants for The Monster Study. Some of the orphans had a stutter. (It’s not uncommon for young children to have a stutter and then naturally “get over” the stutter without treatment.) Some of the orphans didn’t have a stutter.

The orphans were split up into two groups, with stutterers and non-stutterers in both groups. One of these groups were labeled “normal speakers.” The others were labeled “stutterers.” Throughout the course of the experiment, the children were treated as such.

Johnson’s team met with the children every few weeks for five months to “evaluate” their speech. Children in the “normal” group were praised for their ability to speak well, even if they were actually stuttering or had problems speaking. Children in the “stuttering” group were told that they spoke poorly. They were told things like, “You must try to stop yourself immediately. Don't ever speak unless you can do it right.”

So what happened?

Results of The Monster Study

The children who were labeled “normal” weren’t affected much by the researchers’ praise. They saw improvement in only one child.

Children in the “stuttering” group fared a lot worse. Remember, not all of these children actually had a stutter - they were just told that they had a stutter. Of the six children that were falsely chastised for their speech, five developed speech problems. Reports show that these children became withdrawn and some stopped speaking altogether. These children were as young as five years old.

The study was created with good intentions. Johnson and his colleagues at the University of Iowa frequently conducted studies on themselves and willing adult subjects in the name of finding a cure for stuttering. But other colleagues worried that the use of orphans was crossing lines. Johnson wasn’t the only person conducting studies on marginalized groups in the name of science - Nazis were doing the same thing over in Germany. So the results of the study were never published.

The Impact of the Monster Study

Even in the 1930s, the Monster Study was crossing lines. Using orphans as test subjects is one thing - using minors in a study without their consent is another. Even the staff at the orphanage were unaware of what was really going on. This left many of the “stutterers” with unresolved psychological trauma. Researchers knew that this was a possibility. One member of Johnson’s team wrote “'I believe that in time they...will recover, but we certainly made a definite impression on them.”

She was right. The students’ schoolwork suffered and one ran away from the orphanage two years later. Later, she said that the study ruined her life.

Subjects didn’t know that they were a part of a study until sixty years after it happened. Only a handful of speech pathology students at the University of Iowa learned about the study after it was published. The information was useful - no one at the time had collected so much data about stuttering and how it developed. But the premise of the study was so horrifying that they nicknamed it “The Monster Study.”

The Monster Study didn’t become nationally infamous until 2001. The San Jose Mercury News published a series of articles about the study and commentary from speech pathologists. While some argued that the experiment crossed many ethical boundaries, others argued that it was just a result of its time. Some acknowledged the importance of the data, while others said that it didn’t come to any real conclusions.

At that point, Wendell Johnson had been dead for over 30 years. The University of Iowa issued a formal apology for the study. As all of this made national news, subjects started to learn the truth about what had happened to them.

The Lawsuit

The subjects sought justice. In the early 2000s, three of the subjects in the “stutterer” group sued the University of Iowa for emotional distress and fraudulent misrepresentation. The estates of three of the other “stutterers” were also included in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs claimed that the impact of the study had a lasting impact. One still “hates to talk.” Another, who says she now has a good life, said that she didn’t have many friends in the orphanage partly because she was so quiet.

They won their settlement and the University of Iowa paid over $1 million to the victims and their estates.

Importance and Infamy of The Monster Study

This study should never be repeated, but it shouldn’t be swept under the rug, either. The Monster Study is an important lesson about transparency and consent in experiments. If we don’t learn from these mistakes, we are bound to repeat them. Even 60 years later, it’s important to talk about The Monster Study, why it was wrong, and how psychology has evolved into a more ethical science.

Other Infamous Experiments in Social Psychology

The Monster Study is not the only controversial experiment in social psychology. It often ends up on lists besides experiments like the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment.

The Stanford Prison Experiment

In the 1970s, psychologist Philip Zimbardo recruited a group of young men to pose as guards and prisoners. The guards received no formal training - just instructions to guard the prisoners. Although The Stanford Prison Experiment was meant to take place over the course of two weeks, it was cut short. The results were chilling, and have since been disputed.

Why did it get shut down? Allegedly, the guards took the role so seriously that they began to act cruelly toward the prisoners. Zimbardo asked the guards not to resort to physical violence, but they did. By the sixth day of the experiment, the prisoners had threatened to overthrow the guards. One prisoner stopped eating. Another had a breakdown. Yet, it took six days to call the whole experiment off.

The Milgram Experiment

Participants in the Milgram Experiment were faced with a choice: to shock (or not to shock) another participant. No electric shocks were actually administered, but the participants believed they would be. Researchers pressured the participants to administer the shock, despite the knowledge that the shocks were harmful or even deadly. Stanley Milgram put the experiment together to see how far people would go to obey the order of another.

Robbers Cave Experiment

This experiment was similar to the Stanford Prison Experiment, but with slightly younger participants. The Robbers Cave Experiment brought together two groups of boys at a summer camp. Researchers separated the two groups, assigned them names, and began to create conflict between them. Results were not as dramatic as the Stanford Prison Experiment, but similar criticisms have arisen. Also, like the Stanford Prison Experiment, the study only used young, white boys in the experiment, but made wide generalizations about social psychology. Excluding such a large portion of the population may be okay if you’re doing a study on one demographic, but this should be mentioned in the research.

What do all of these experiments have in common? They all have the potential to cause great trauma. The events of the experiments may not be “real” to researchers, but they are “real” to participants. The participants in the Milgram experiment truly believed they were administering deadly shocks. Prisoners in the Stanford Prison Experiment were physically harmed. Those effects don’t “go away” when the experiment is over. And usually, a participant may not understand the premise of an experiment before they sign up. This is why ethical codes in psychology are especially important, both for the participants in research and for anyone who views the conclusions derived from the research.

How to Conduct Ethical Experiments in Psychology

Ethics is more important nowadays than it was in the 1930s. But how do psychologists ensure that their experiments are ethically sound? Organizations like the American Psychological Association put together guidelines for psychologists and researchers to follow. Guidelines from the APA have been in place since the 50s, but they are constantly evolving.

Principle A: Beneficence and Non-maleficence

This principle goes beyond being nice. The APA encourages professionals to care for the people who are subjects in their research. Eliminating biases and prejudices is just one way that psychologists can act with beneficence and non-maleficence. (It’s important to note that subjects include humans and animals.)

Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility

Psychologists have a responsibility not only to consider the well-being of their subjects, but to ensure that colleagues are acting ethically, too. The psychologists working alongside Philip Zimbardo or Stanley Milgram also had a responsibility to inform their colleagues of the possible effects of their controversial experiments.

Principle C: Integrity

Psychology research is supposed to reveal the truth about the way the mind works. Professionals may have an idea about how the study will turn out, but they must keep an open mind. If the results don’t match the psychologist’s hypothesis, they have to report that honestly. Skewing the results, or skewing the study in order to get certain results, is not ethical.

There is controversy as to whether Philip Zimbardo, for example, skewed the Stanford Prison Experiment to make the guards more cruel to prisoners and the results more dramatic. But to find the expose that challenges his findings is harder than learning about the Stanford Prison Experiment itself!

Principle D: Justice

Treating everyone equally is crucial to keeping psychology a just field. Patients should be held in the same esteem regardless of their background, age, education level, etc. They should also have access to important information in psychology that might benefit their lives and the lives of others.

Principle E: Respect for People's Rights and Dignity

Finally, psychologists must show respect for the rights and dignity of all people. Maintaining confidentiality is one way to achieve this goal. Why? Think about the Milgram experiment. How would you feel knowing that, under the pressure of the experiment, you hit the “shock” button? People might tell you that you’re cruel. You might feel guilty already, and your guilt may be amplified if your identity were to get out. Confidentiality is key to dignity.

Stanley Milgram (Psychologist Biography)
Philip Zimbardo (Biography + Experiments)
Stanford Prison Experiment
The Little Albert Experiment
Human Experimentation List (in Psychology)

Reference this article:

About The Author

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

What's on your mind?

Analyzing psychological studies of the 20th & 21st century, the monster study.

In 1936, Dr. Wendell Johnson from the University of Iowa wanted to find out if stuttering was the result of biology or if it was a learned behavior. The Monster Study did not get its name because it involves actual monsters, but because of the unethical methods used in the experiment.

Twenty-two orphans were selected to participate in the study. Some of the orphans had stutters and some did not. All the participants were split up into two groups containing both orphans that stuttered and did not stutter. One group was labeled as the ‘normal speakers’ and the other group got labeled as the ‘stutterers’.

Although the study was created with good intentions, the results showed the danger of its methods. The orphans that were in the ‘normal speakers’ group saw minimal improvement in their speech. The orphans in the ‘stutterers’ group had much worse results. Six of the orphans in the ‘stutterers’ group did not actually have a stutter, and of the six, five of them developed speech problems and became withdrawn or stopped speaking completely. The youngest of these six orphans was only 5 years old. The orphans in the ‘stutterers’ group also started to do worse in school.

Due to the unresolved psychological trauma caused to the ‘stutterers’ group, the results were never published and the orphan participants did not know they were a part of the experiment until sixty years after it occurred.

This study is extremely unsettling, and the fact that some participants developed lifelong negative effects is upsetting. The results, however, showed important implications not just in speech therapy, but in all methods of education, especially for younger children. Positive reinforcement in education, although showing little effect in this experiment, is important for the growth and well-being of children. I was lucky enough to grow up being taught by kind-hearted and passionate educators. This study shows the severe impact that a negative instructor can have on a student’s mental and physical health and proves how important educators are in our society.

4 thoughts on “ The Monster Study ”

I love these kids

Orphans are the best

IMPOSTOR!!!

The Monster Study: Unveiling Psychology’s Darkest Experiment

Explore the Monster Study, a controversial 1939 experiment on stuttering that reshaped ethical research practices in psychology.

The Monster Study is one of the most controversial psychological experiments of the 20th century.

Conducted in 1939 by Wendell Johnson and his graduate student Mary Tudor, it sought to explore the origins of stuttering through methods that would raise significant ethical questions.

What was the Monster Study?

The Monster Study was an experiment conducted at the University of Iowa to test the “diagnosogenic theory” of stuttering.

This theory, proposed by Wendell Johnson, posited that stuttering is not a biological condition but a learned behaviour triggered by negative reactions to normal speech disfluencies in children.

The study’s aim was to investigate whether stuttering could be artificially induced by applying negative reinforcement.

The experiment design

The participants were 22 orphaned children from the Soldiers and Sailors Orphans’ Home in Davenport, Iowa.

The children were divided into two groups based on their speech fluency.

The first group, consisting of normally fluent children, received negative evaluations of their speech.
The second group, which included children who already stuttered, also received harsh criticism to exacerbate their condition.

The researchers provided the negative group with feedback that focused on their disfluencies, labelling them as stutterers regardless of their actual speech patterns.

The control group was treated positively, receiving encouragement and praise for their speech.

The experiment lasted several months, during which the children were repeatedly exposed to these interventions.

Key findings of the Monster Study

The results suggested that children subjected to negative reinforcement experienced a marked deterioration in their speech fluency.

Some developed behaviours characteristic of stuttering, such as hesitations and speech blocks.

The children who already stuttered became more withdrawn and self-conscious about their speech.

However, subsequent critiques of the study’s methodology revealed that the findings were not as definitive as initially claimed.

Many experts argued that the observed effects could have been due to psychological trauma rather than the development of true stuttering.

The ethical controversy

The Monster Study is infamous not only for its findings but also for its unethical practices.

At the time, ethical standards in research were far less stringent than they are today.

Nonetheless, the decision to use vulnerable orphans as subjects and to subject them to psychological harm has been widely condemned.

The children were not informed of the true nature of the experiment, nor were they given the opportunity to consent.

Many suffered long-term psychological effects, including lowered self-esteem and increased social anxiety.

The study remained largely unknown to the public until it was exposed in 2001, prompting widespread outrage and sparking debates about the ethics of psychological research.

Criticisms and re-evaluations

In the years following its publication, the study’s methodology and conclusions faced significant scrutiny.

Some researchers pointed out that the sample size was too small to draw generalisable conclusions.

Others noted that the methods used to evaluate the children’s speech were subjective and lacked rigorous scientific controls.

Additionally, later analyses questioned whether any of the participants actually developed true stuttering, as opposed to temporary speech disfluencies caused by stress.

Despite these criticisms, the study played a role in shaping the field of speech pathology by encouraging a more nuanced understanding of stuttering.

Legacy and impact

The Monster Study’s legacy is a complex one.

On the one hand, it contributed to the development of speech therapy techniques by highlighting the importance of positive reinforcement.

On the other hand, it stands as a cautionary tale about the dangers of prioritising scientific curiosity over ethical considerations.

In 2001, the University of Iowa issued a formal apology for the study, acknowledging the harm caused to the participants.

The incident also prompted renewed discussions about the importance of ethical guidelines in research.

Lessons for modern psychology

The Monster Study serves as a reminder of the critical importance of ethics in psychological research.

Today, experiments involving human subjects are subject to strict oversight by institutional review boards (IRBs) to ensure the safety and well-being of participants.

Key ethical principles such as informed consent, the right to withdraw, and the minimisation of harm are now central to research practices.

The study also underscores the need for transparency and accountability in the scientific community.

Why the Monster Study still matters

While the methods used in the Monster Study are indefensible, the questions it raised about the nature of stuttering remain relevant.

Modern research continues to explore the interplay between genetics, environment, and psychology in the development of speech disorders.

The study also serves as a historical case study in the evolution of research ethics, illustrating how far the field has come in protecting the rights of participants.

Unanswered questions and future directions

Despite its flaws, the Monster Study left several unanswered questions that continue to intrigue researchers.

Can environmental factors alone trigger speech disorders in individuals with no genetic predisposition?
What role does early childhood intervention play in mitigating the effects of stuttering?
How can researchers study sensitive topics without causing harm to participants?

These questions highlight the ongoing need for ethical, innovative approaches to studying complex psychological phenomena.

The Monster Study remains one of the most controversial experiments in the history of psychology.

Its unethical methods and lasting impact on participants have made it a cautionary tale for researchers across disciplines.

Yet, its legacy also includes important lessons about the nature of stuttering and the critical role of ethics in research.

By reflecting on the mistakes of the past, the scientific community can strive to conduct research that is both rigorous and humane.

Author: Dr Jeremy Dean

Psychologist, Jeremy Dean, PhD is the founder and author of PsyBlog. He holds a doctorate in psychology from University College London and two other advanced degrees in psychology. He has been writing about scientific research on PsyBlog since 2004. View all posts by Dr Jeremy Dean

Join the free PsyBlog mailing list. No spam, ever.

General Categories
Mental Health
IQ and Intelligence
Bipolar Disorder

The Monster Study: A Dark Chapter in Psychology’s History

A dark shadow looms over the history of psychology, cast by a notorious experiment known as the Monster Study, which forever changed the lives of its unsuspecting orphan participants and shook the foundations of ethical research practices. This chilling chapter in psychological research serves as a stark reminder of the importance of ethical considerations in scientific inquiry and the potential for devastating consequences when those boundaries are crossed.

The Monster Study, conducted in 1939, stands as a testament to the darker side of human curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge. It’s a tale that would make even the most hardened researcher’s skin crawl, rivaling the ethical quandaries posed by other infamous experiments like the Rosenhan Study , which challenged the validity of psychiatric diagnoses. But while Rosenhan’s work merely ruffled feathers, the Monster Study left deep, lasting scars on its young subjects.

The Genesis of a Nightmare: Dr. Wendell Johnson’s Brainchild

At the heart of this controversial experiment was Dr. Wendell Johnson, a speech pathologist at the University of Iowa. Johnson, who had struggled with stuttering himself, was obsessed with understanding the origins of this speech disorder. His burning curiosity led him down a path that would ultimately tarnish his legacy and the field of psychology for decades to come.

Johnson’s hypothesis was both simple and startling: could stuttering be induced in children through negative speech therapy? This question, innocent enough on paper, would lead to a study that pushed the boundaries of ethical research to their breaking point and beyond.

To test his theory, Johnson needed subjects – young, impressionable minds that could be molded and observed. And where better to find such subjects than an orphanage? The Soldiers and Sailors Orphans’ Home in Davenport, Iowa, became the unwitting stage for this psychological drama.

The recruitment of orphan children as subjects for the study raises immediate red flags by today’s standards. These children, already vulnerable and lacking parental protection, were perfect targets for exploitation. It’s a stark contrast to the ethical guidelines we now follow, as outlined in the Belmont Report , which emphasizes respect for persons, beneficence, and justice in human research.

The Experiment Unfolds: A Psychological House of Horrors

The Monster Study’s methodology was as cruel as it was misguided. Twenty-two orphan children, ranging from 5 to 15 years old, were divided into two groups. The experimental group, consisting of six children who spoke normally, was subjected to constant criticism and negative feedback about their speech. They were told they were beginning to stutter and that they must try to stop immediately.

On the flip side, the control group received positive speech therapy and praise for their fluency. This stark contrast in treatment would have far-reaching consequences that the researchers couldn’t have anticipated – or perhaps chose to ignore.

The negative speech therapy techniques employed on the experimental group were relentless and psychologically damaging. Children were berated for every speech imperfection, told they were developing a stutter, and made to feel self-conscious about every word they uttered. It was a form of psychological torture that would make even the most hardened observer wince.

This experiment ran for six months, an eternity for young children subjected to such treatment. The scope of the study extended beyond mere observation of speech patterns, delving into the psychological impact of negative reinforcement and the power of suggestion.

The Aftermath: Lives Forever Altered

The immediate effects of the Monster Study were as dramatic as they were disturbing. Children in the experimental group, who had previously spoken normally, began to show signs of stuttering and other speech problems. But the damage went far beyond mere speech patterns.

The psychological trauma experienced by the subjects was profound and long-lasting. Many developed severe anxiety around speaking, while others withdrew into themselves, their once-bubbly personalities dimmed by the constant criticism they had endured.

The lifelong consequences for these orphan children were heartbreaking. Some struggled with speech impediments well into adulthood, while others grappled with deep-seated emotional issues stemming from the experiment. It’s a stark reminder of the lasting impact psychological experiments can have, much like the infamous Little Albert experiment , which demonstrated how easily fears could be conditioned in young children.

Ethical Violations: A Study in What Not to Do

The Monster Study stands as a textbook example of ethical violations in psychological research. The lack of informed consent is glaringly obvious – these children, and even their guardians at the orphanage, were never fully informed about the nature or potential risks of the study.

The deception involved in the experiment was equally troubling. Children were led to believe they had speech problems when they didn’t, a manipulation that had far-reaching consequences for their self-esteem and development.

Perhaps most egregious was the exploitation of a vulnerable population. Orphan children, already at a disadvantage in society, were used as guinea pigs in an experiment that prioritized scientific curiosity over human welfare. It’s a stark contrast to the ethical considerations we now take into account, as exemplified in studies like the Robbers Cave experiment , which, while controversial in its own right, at least involved participants who were not part of a vulnerable population.

The Monster Study also violated one of the most fundamental principles in medical and psychological research: “do no harm.” The researchers knowingly inflicted psychological damage on their subjects in pursuit of their hypothesis, a clear breach of ethical standards.

A Dark Legacy: Shaping Modern Psychology

The Monster Study, despite its ethical failings, has had a significant impact on modern psychology. It serves as a cautionary tale, influencing research ethics and guidelines that aim to prevent such abuses from occurring again.

The legal repercussions of the study were substantial. In 2007, the state of Iowa agreed to pay $925,000 to six of the study’s participants who had filed a lawsuit. This legal action underscored the serious nature of the ethical violations and the lasting harm inflicted on the subjects.

The lessons learned from the Monster Study have been invaluable for future psychological research. It has sparked ongoing discussions about the balance between scientific inquiry and human rights, forcing researchers to confront the ethical implications of their work.

Today, psychology students learn about the Monster Study alongside other controversial experiments like Milgram’s obedience experiment and Harlow’s monkey experiments . These studies, while ethically questionable, have collectively shaped our understanding of research ethics and the importance of protecting human subjects.

The Echoes of the Monster: Reflections on Ethics in Research

The Monster Study serves as a chilling reminder of what can happen when the pursuit of knowledge overshadows basic human decency. It forces us to confront uncomfortable questions about the nature of scientific inquiry and the lengths to which researchers might go in search of answers.

In many ways, the study embodies what Hannah Arendt termed the banality of evil in psychology. The researchers, likely not inherently malicious people, caused significant harm through their actions, justified by the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

The legacy of the Monster Study continues to influence modern psychology. It has contributed to the development of stringent ethical guidelines and review processes that all research involving human subjects must now undergo. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) scrutinize proposed studies to ensure they meet ethical standards and protect participants’ rights and welfare.

Moreover, the study has sparked ongoing debates about the ethics of deception in psychological research. While some argue that certain forms of deception are necessary for valid results, others contend that the potential for harm outweighs any scientific benefit.

Beyond Speech: The Wider Implications

While the Monster Study focused on speech patterns, its implications extend far beyond the realm of stuttering research. It touches on fundamental aspects of human development and psychology, including the power of suggestion, the impact of negative reinforcement, and the crucial role of positive feedback in child development.

The study’s findings, though ethically tainted, have contributed to our understanding of the psychological factors influencing speech disorders. This knowledge has informed more ethical approaches to speech therapy and highlighted the importance of positive reinforcement in treating stuttering.

Furthermore, the Monster Study intersects with other areas of psychological research, such as oral psychology , which explores the foundations of early childhood development. It underscores the profound impact that early experiences and interactions can have on a child’s psychological and emotional development.

A Lesson for the Ages

The Monster Study stands as a stark reminder of the potential for harm in psychological research. It’s a cautionary tale that continues to be relevant in an age where scientific advancement often pushes ethical boundaries.

As we reflect on this dark chapter in psychology’s history, we’re reminded of the importance of ethical research practices. The study’s legacy serves as a constant warning to researchers, urging them to consider the human cost of their work and to prioritize the well-being of their subjects above all else.

The Monster Study, along with other unethical psychological experiments , has played a crucial role in shaping modern psychology. It has led to more rigorous ethical standards, greater protection for research participants, and a deeper appreciation for the potential impact of psychological interventions.

In the end, the Monster Study teaches us that the pursuit of knowledge, no matter how noble its intentions, must never come at the expense of human dignity and well-being. It’s a lesson that resonates far beyond the field of psychology, reminding us of our fundamental responsibility to protect the vulnerable and to always, always, do no harm.

As we continue to push the boundaries of psychological research, exploring new frontiers of the human mind, let us carry with us the hard-learned lessons of the Monster Study. May it serve as a constant reminder that in our quest for understanding, we must never lose sight of our humanity.

References:

1. Reynolds, G. (2003). The Stuttering Doctor’s ‘Monster Study’. The New York Times Magazine.

2. Ambrose, N. G., & Yairi, E. (2002). The Tudor study: Data and ethics. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(2), 190-203.

3. Rothwell, J. D. (2010). In the company of others: An introduction to communication. Oxford University Press.

4. Goldstein, E. B. (2014). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research and everyday experience. Cengage Learning.

5. American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

6. Dyer, C. (2007). Orphans used for speech research win $925 000 settlement. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 334(7586), 176.

7. Johnson, W. (1946). People in quandaries: The semantics of personal adjustment. Harper & Brothers.

8. Silverman, F. H. (1988). The “monster” study. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 13(3), 225-231.

9. Odom, S. L., & Morrow, L. A. (2018). Improving the use of evidence-based practice and research in early childhood education. Journal of Early Intervention, 40(1), 3-4.

10. Shames, G. H., & Rubin, H. (1986). Stuttering then and now. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Was this article helpful?

Would you like to add any comments (optional), leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post Comment

Related Resources

Morphemes in Psychology: Exploring the Building Blocks of Language

Language Psychology: Unveiling the Intricate Relationship Between Mind and Communication

Genius in Psychology: Exploring the Complexities of Exceptional Mental Abilities

Underextension in Psychology: Exploring Child Language Development

False Alarms in Psychology: Understanding Cognitive Errors and Their Impact

Phonemes in Psychology: Exploring the Building Blocks of Language

Psychology Facts About Guys in Love: Decoding Male Romantic Behavior

Psychology Valentine’s Puns: Clever Ways to Express Your Love

Truth Teller Psychology: Unraveling the Minds of Honest Communicators

Wernicke’s Area: A Crucial Component in Language Processing and Comprehension

Shopping Cart

Articles & Insights

Expand your mind and be inspired with Achology's paradigm-shifting articles. All inspired by the world's greatest minds!

Voices of Vulnerability: Ethically Dubious Insights from the Monster Study Experiment

By amelia sinclair, this article is divided into the following sections:.

The Monster Study Experiment, conducted in 1939 by Wendell Johnson and his team at the University of Iowa, is one of the most controversial and ethically debated studies in the history of psychology. This experiment sought to investigate the effects of positive and negative speech therapy on children, particularly focusing on the development of stuttering.

By examining the methodology, findings, and implications of the Monster Study Experiment, we can gain crucial insights into the impact of psychological interventions on vulnerable populations and the ethical responsibilities of researchers.

Methodology and Design

The Monster Study Experiment was designed to explore how different types of verbal feedback could influence a child’s speech patterns. Johnson’s team selected twenty-two orphaned children from Davenport, Iowa, for their study. These children were divided into two groups: those who exhibited normal speech and those who showed signs of stuttering. Each group was further divided into two smaller groups, receiving either positive or negative speech therapy.

The children in the positive therapy group were given encouragement and praised for their fluency, regardless of their actual speech patterns. On the other hand, the children in the negative therapy group were subjected to criticism and told they had speech problems, even if they did not. The researchers aimed to determine whether these differing feedback approaches would exacerbate or alleviate stuttering in the children.

The study’s design involved close observation and documentation of the children’s speech behaviors over several months. The researchers sought to understand the psychological impact of their interventions and to draw conclusions about the causes and treatment of stuttering.

Key Findings

The results of the Monster Study Experiment were both enlightening and deeply troubling. The children who received positive reinforcement generally maintained or improved their speech fluency, experiencing fewer instances of stuttering. In stark contrast, many of the children subjected to negative feedback exhibited increased signs of speech problems, including heightened anxiety, reduced self-esteem, and more pronounced stuttering behaviors.

These findings highlighted the powerful influence of verbal feedback on a child’s speech development and overall psychological well-being. The Monster Study Experiment demonstrated that negative reinforcement could have detrimental effects, particularly on young, impressionable children. The experiment underscored the importance of supportive and encouraging feedback in fostering healthy speech patterns and self-confidence.

However, the study also revealed the potential for significant harm resulting from unethical research practices. The children in the negative therapy group experienced long-lasting psychological damage, with some continuing to struggle with speech issues and emotional distress well into adulthood. The experiment’s outcomes raised critical questions about the ethical boundaries of psychological research and the responsibility of scientists to protect their subjects from harm.

Psychological Mechanisms and Implications

The Monster Study Experiment revealed several psychological mechanisms underlying the effects of speech therapy on children. One key factor is the role of self-fulfilling prophecies, where individuals internalize the expectations and feedback they receive, shaping their behavior to align with those perceptions. In the context of the study, children who were constantly criticized and labeled as having speech problems began to believe in their deficiencies, leading to increased anxiety and impaired speech performance.

Another important mechanism is the impact of self-esteem on behavior. Positive reinforcement helped children develop confidence in their abilities, reducing anxiety and improving speech fluency. Conversely, negative feedback undermined their self-esteem, creating a cycle of fear and failure that exacerbated stuttering.

These insights have profound implications for understanding the development of speech disorders and the broader field of child psychology. The findings emphasize the importance of nurturing environments that promote self-confidence and resilience, rather than criticism and fear. This understanding has informed therapeutic approaches that prioritize positive reinforcement and emotional support, aiming to create conditions conducive to healthy development.

Ethical Considerations

The Monster Study Experiment is often cited as an egregious example of unethical research practices. The use of vulnerable orphaned children as subjects, the deliberate induction of psychological harm, and the lack of informed consent raise serious ethical concerns. The experiment violated fundamental principles of research ethics, including respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.

The ethical controversies surrounding the Monster Study Experiment have significantly influenced the development of modern ethical guidelines for psychological research. These guidelines emphasize the importance of minimizing harm, obtaining informed consent, and ensuring the welfare of participants. Researchers are now held to rigorous standards to protect the rights and dignity of their subjects, reflecting lessons learned from past unethical practices.

Broader Societal Impact

The insights gained from the Monster Study Experiment have had significant implications for various domains, including education, therapy, and public policy. Understanding the impact of verbal feedback on child development can inform teaching strategies that foster positive learning environments. Educators can use constructive feedback to build students’ confidence and resilience, promoting academic success and emotional well-being.

In therapeutic settings, the findings of the Monster Study Experiment have underscored the importance of positive reinforcement in treatment approaches. Speech therapists and psychologists can use supportive techniques to help individuals overcome speech disorders and build self-esteem, enhancing the effectiveness of interventions.

On a broader societal level, the ethical lessons from the Monster Study Experiment have informed public policies that protect vulnerable populations from harmful research practices. These policies ensure that research involving children and other at-risk groups adheres to stringent ethical standards, safeguarding their rights and well-being.

Theoretical Contributions

The Monster Study Experiment has made enduring contributions to psychological theories, particularly in understanding the influence of feedback on behavior and development. It provided empirical support for the concept of self-fulfilling prophecies and highlighted the role of self-esteem in shaping responses to feedback.

The study also contributed to the broader discourse on child psychology, emphasizing the importance of nurturing environments in fostering healthy development. By elucidating the psychological mechanisms underlying stuttering and other behaviors, the Monster Study Experiment has informed theoretical frameworks and research on child development, motivation, and resilience.

The Monster Study Experiment conducted by Wendell Johnson and his team remains a seminal yet controversial work in the history of psychology. Through its provocative design and rigorous methodology, the experiment revealed the powerful impact of verbal feedback on child development, demonstrating how positive and negative reinforcement can shape speech patterns and self-esteem.

As we reflect on the legacy of the Monster Study Experiment, its lessons continue to resonate in various domains, from education to therapy to public policy. Its contributions to our understanding of speech disorders, child development, and the ethical responsibilities of researchers provide valuable guidance for fostering a more effective, humane, and empathetic approach to psychological research and practice.

Voices of Vulnerability: Ethically Dubious Insights from the Monster Study Experiment

Browse Achology Quotes:

Wise quotes and smart ideas for people who simply want to think BIGGER!

Become Certified Today:

Join 13,000+ learners in our Diploma in Modern Applied Psychology (DiMAP).

More Achology Quotes:

Join 67,000+ learners in our Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Practitioner Course.

"The main function of education is to teach one to think sensibly and critically. It is not about acquiring knowledge, but about fostering the ability to think, question, and understand. Intelligence combined with character - that is the ultimate goal of a true education."

Are You Ready to Understand Your Own Psychology?

Achology courses are designed with YOU in mind! We believe every course should help you grow and gain a deeper understanding of yourself. Achology provides valuable insights that are relevant to everyone, including you. So, where will your journey begin?

Courses in Mental Health, Wellness, and Emotional Intelligence

Learn the path to self-mastery with courses in Mental Health, Wellness, and Emotional IQ. These programs equip you with the wisdom to create meaningful change in your life.

Training Courses for Personal Excellence and Ongoing Growth

Unlock the path to personal excellence and continuous growth through paradigm-shifting and transformative courses designed to enhance the most important areas of your life.

Applied Psychology Practitioner Courses for Change-Makers

Do you have a passion for helping others understand themselves and unlock their potential? If so, Achology’s applied psychology practitioner courses are designed for you.

Achology: Pioneering the Future of Psychology Education

Since 2016, achology has been redefining how psychology is studied and practiced. our approach begins with helping you understand your own psychology first. join our dynamic online community and unlock the tools to create positive change in yourself, your career, and the world around you., get updates from the academy of modern applied psychology.

About Achology

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

Mention this member in posts

Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

The ‘Monster Study’: The Creepiest Experiment Ever Done in Human History

September 28, 2022
Psych Experiments

Psychologists and scientists often go into their line of work for the betterment of mankind through their experiments and tireless work they hope to discover information that will; cure diseases uncover the root of disorders and improve the general health of people But being that said it has not always been approached in the best way. There have been a lot of unethical and intriguing experiments especially in humans often crossed the ethical lines.

One such was the Monster Study. It literally threatened to ruin the reputations of the psychologist behind the experiment. The idea was so scary that the results were hidden for years

The ‘ Monster Study’ was conducted by Dr. Wendell Johnson and Mary Tudor. It was a psychological experiment on 22 orphan children in 1939.

What is The Monster Study?

Dr. Wendell Johnson was a speech pathologist. He wanted to know why children developed stutterers. He developed the monster study to see if stuttering was the result of learned behavior and not biology.

22 orphans were chosen for the experiments. Some orphans had stutters, some didn’t. The children were separated into two groups: one group was called Stutterers , and the other was called Normal Speakers . Both of the groups had children with stutterers and perfect speakers.

Throughout the experiment, the children in the group were treated according to the group.

Every week his team visited the children for about 5 months. The children of the Normal speaker group were told that they needed severe speech therapy to correct their ‘stuttering. The remaining 11 of the Stutterers group were called perfectly healthy.

The Normal group was praised for their abilities, even if they had problems they were told that they were doing fine.

Whereas stuttering children were told:

“You have a great deal of trouble with your speech. Don’t ever try to speak if you cannot do it right. You must try to stop yourself immediately.”

In short: half of the children were given positive speech therapy, and the other half were belittled and punished for every small error they made.

There wasn’t much significant effect on the children who were leveled normal. In fact only one child showed improvement. Remember this was a group of children which included both stutterers and non-stutterers and were praised even if they weren’t able to speak properly.

Whereas children in stutterers group worsnedd. Even the children who didn’t have stutterers, 5 of them started to get problems. Report show that these children became withdrawn and some stopped speaking altogether. These children were as young as five years old.

Though the study was conducted with good intentions but researchers feared publishing results. They were not the only one who conducted such experiments. Nazis were doing the same thing over in Germany.

Using orphans as test subjects without their consent was certainly not within the ethical boundaries of any respected scientific study.

In 2007, seven of the original orphan children were compensation with about 1.2 million dollars for the emotional trauma caused by Johnson’s experiment.

And it’s for this reason, blatant manipulation of the human condition that the ‘Monster Study’ is still considered one of the most twisted experiments of all western cultures.

The Most Brutal Torture Method: Chinese Water Torture

The Man Who Experimented on Orphans: Pavlovian Conditioning

August 24, 2022