In 1939, Wendell Johnson conducted a study to determine the cause of a stutter. He reasoned with two significant influencers: genetics and environmental factors. The study is known as the monster study. The study went on to be a major asset to the psychological world, but violated many of the standards ethical guidelines put in place today.
The monster study took place at the Stuttering Research Program at the University of Iowa by Mary Tudor, and Wendell Johnson. Dr. Wendell Johnson, a speech pathologist, was determined to find a cause and test his speech impediment theory. Johnson worked alongside, graduate student Mary Tudor to conclude that “evaluative labeling can influence behavior” (Tudor 1939). Together Johnson and Tudor gathered around 22 boy and girl subjects from an orphanage. From that point the children were split into different groups based on their fluency. None of the students were properly informed of what the experiment was about, nor what the aftermath might entail. Instead the children were misinformed and were lead to believe that they were participating in a simple speech therapy but were never told the true intention of the experiment. In fact, several of the subjects suffered lasting damage following the study.
Using labeling Tudor’s role would include, developing stuttering in the speech of non stutterers and curing the stutters of the speech in stutterers.
Ten of the twenty-two participants were marked as stutters. They group of stutterers were judged on their fluency by Tudor and five other graduate students. The group was then further broken down into Group AI and IB. Group AI was told that their speech was fluent. While Group IB, the control group, was told that their speech was poor. The remaining twelve children were all fluent and had no speech impediments. Six were put in Group II2 and were periodically told their speech was not normal at all and eventually developed stutters. The rest of the children were put into group IIB were given compliments on their pronunciation. Following the experiment some children refused to talk period. Norma Jean Pugh, Group II2, was noted as particularly vocal in months previous, but now hardly speaks altogether. Similarly, Betty Romp also in Group II2, refused to talk as well. The study also noticeably reflected over into the schoolwork. Most of the subjects showed behavioral changes such as being completely mute, drastic decrease in speech as a whole and development of tics. In conclusion, Wendell’s hypothesis was correct stutters could be contracted environmentally, and evaluative labeling can be used to influence the mind.
The study was noted for the sums of data collected and did wonders in the speech-language pathology field. However, its known more so for the violation of all things ethical. Several of the APA Ethics Guidelines were violated and its known to be one of the most unethical studies in psychological history. Ethics are a huge concern in the research setting and Johnson violated three: informed consent, freedom form harmful procedure and voluntary participation. Informed consent makes sure all participants are properly notified of all aims and procedures, as well as debriefed. The children were unaware of the aims of the procedure as well as misinformed by the vague mention that they would be participating in a speech therapy. The Freedom from Harmful Procedure guideline, set protection for participants undergoing any treatment that will damage their physical, mental, and/or emotional well-being, neither during the experiment nor after. This violation the informed consent principle. Johnson’s study resulted in lasting psychological damage to the children. Some children would go from vocal before the study to mute, decrease in speech as a whole or develop tics. Lastly, the voluntary participation guideline said that subjects must agree to participate in a study and are allowed to leave at any time. As orphans the children had no one to give guardian or proper authority to approve the study. The ages range from 8-15 and legally labeled them a minors. Therefore, Johnson targeted the group of orphans because they all lacked a parental figure and could easily be taken advantage of.