Monster Study

The Monster Study was a non-consensual experiment performed on 22 orphan children in Davenport, Iowa in 1939 about stuttering. It was conducted by Wendell Johnson, University of Iowa, with the physical experiment being performed by his graduate student Mary Tudor.

The study was never published, and as a result was relatively unknown until 2001 San Jose Mercury News article conducted by an investigative reporter, Jim Dyer, revealed both the details and followed up with the former test subjects who were still living - none of whom were ever told it was an experiment. A lawsuit took place and the 7 test subjects from the "negative-reinforcement" group who were told they stutter but did not were awarded $925,000 by the State of Iowa for lifelong psychological and emotional scars.

The nickname "Monster Study" was coined in the 40s and 50s by those associated with the Stuttering Research Program at University of Iowa who knew about it. Some assume it was due to Johnson's peers being horrified that he would experiment on orphan children to confirm a hypothesis. Others suggest it is due to what was said to the children themselves that was considered monstrous. Regardless, Tudor's thesis is the only official record of the details of the experiment.

Study

The study was performed through the University of Iowa, which was and is well-known for their advancements for stuttering research. Dr. Wendell Johnson was a professor there, and one of his graduate students in the late 1930s was Mary Tudor. Johnson, a stutterer himself, is said to have created the thesis for this experience, and it was performed by Mary Tudor. The experiment took place at Iowa Soldiers' Orphans' Home. The visits took place in 1939 over repeated visits by Tudor.

Setup

The thesis was to induce stuttering in non-stuttering children by telling them that they stuttered, and to stop stuttering in non-stuttering children by ignoring the stutter and telling the children they spoke 'fine'. Johnson later stated his belief that stuttering "begins not in the child's mouth but in the parent's ear."

The researchers had four questions in mind when carrying out the study:

1. will 'removing' the label 'stutterer' from those who have been so labeled have any effect on their speech fluency?;
2. will endorsement of the label 'stutterer' previously applied to an individual have any effect on their speech fluency?;
3. will endorsement of the label 'normal speaker' previously applied to an individual have any effect on their speech fluency?; and
4. will labeling a person previously regarded as a normal speaker, a 'stutterer' have any effect on their speech fluency?

256 children were screened by Tudor and five other graduate students served as judges listened to a pool of individual children speak, and graded them on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (fluent). Twenty-two subjects were selected from a veterans' orphanage in Iowa between the ages of 5 and 16. The subjects, along with the workers of the orphanage, were not told the intent of Tudor's research, and they believed these were speech therapy sessions. Included among the twenty-two subjects were ten orphans whom teachers and matrons had marked as stutterers before the study began. The other twelve were deemed to be 'normal' speakers (i.e. did not have a stutter).

The ten selected stuttering children were then divided into two groups:

1. Group IA (experimental): Five stuttering children were selected and would be told that their speech was fine and that they did not stutter.
2. Group IB (control): Five stuttering were selected and would be told that their speech is "as bad as people say," and receive traditional speech therapy.

The 12 selected non-stuttering children were chosen from the population of 'normal' speaking (considered fluent) orphans. Although these children had "speech errors" and disfluencies, they were not considered to be stutterers. They were also divided into two groups:

1. Group IIA (experimental): Six normal (i.e. fluent) children were selected and would be told that their speech was horrible, that they were beginning to stutter, that they must correct this immediately, and not to speak unless it was without a stutter.
2. Six normal (i.e. fluent) children were selected for Group IIB, who were told they did not stutter, and given compliments on their nice enunciation.

Treatment

On the first visit, Tudor tested each child's I.Q. and identified whether they were left-handed or right-handed. A popular theory at the time held that stuttering was caused by a cerebral imbalance. If, for example, a person was born left-handed but was using their right hand, their nerve impulses would misfire, affecting their speech. Johnson did not believe the theory, including his own failed attempts as a lab rat, but still suggested Tudor test each child's handedness. Tudor had them draw on chalkboards and squeeze the bulb of a dynamometer. Most were right-handed, but left-handed children were present in all the groups. During this period, they assigned numbers to the children, such as "Case No 15 Experimental Group IIA..."

The experimental period lasted from January until late May 1939, and the actual intervention consisted of Tudor driving to Davenport from Iowa City every few weeks and talking with each child for about 45 minutes. She followed an agreed-upon script.

In her dissertation, she reported that she talked to the stuttering children who were going to be told that they did not stutter (IA) and said, in part, "You'll outgrow [the stuttering], and you will be able to speak even much better than you are speaking now... Pay no attention to what others say about your speaking ability for undoubtedly they do not realize that this is only a phase."

To the non-stuttering children in IIA, who were told they stutter, she said: "The staff has come to the conclusion that you have a great deal of trouble with your speech… You have many of the symptoms of a child who is beginning to stutter. You must try to stop yourself immediately. Use your will power… Do anything to keep from stuttering… Don't ever speak unless you can do it right. You see how [the name of a child in the institution who stuttered severely] stutters, don't you? Well, he undoubtedly started this very same way."

Clinical notes

The children in IIA responded immediately. After her second session with 5-year-old Norma Jean Pugh, Tudor wrote, "It was very difficult to get her to speak, although she spoke very freely the month before." Another in the group, 9-year-old Betty Romp, "practically refuses to talk," a researcher wrote in his final evaluation. "Held hand or arm over eyes most of the time." Hazel Potter, 15, the oldest in her group, became "much more conscious of herself, and she talked less," Tudor noted. Potter also began to interject and to snap her fingers in frustration. When Potter was asked why she said 'a' so much, she replied, "Because I'm afraid I can't say the next word." When asked, "Why did you snap your fingers?" she replied, "Because I was afraid I was going to say 'a.'"

All the children in Group IIA's schoolwork fell off. One of the boys began refusing to recite in class. The other, eleven-year-old Clarence Fifer, started anxiously correcting himself. "He stopped and told me he was going to have trouble on words before he said them," Tudor reported. She asked him how he knew. He said that the sound "wouldn't come out. Feels like it's stuck in there."

The sixth orphan, Mary Korlaske, a 12-year-old, grew withdrawn and fractious. During their sessions, Tudor asked whether her best friend knew about her 'stuttering,' Korlaske muttered, "No." "Why not?" Korlaske shuffled her feet. "I hardly ever talk to her." Two years later, she ran away from the orphanage and eventually ended up at the Industrial School for Girls.

Most of the non-stuttering children who received negative therapy in the experiment suffered negative psychological effects, and some retained speech problems for the rest of their lives.

Tudor herself was impacted. Three times after her experiment had officially ended, she returned to the orphanage to voluntarily provide follow-up care. She wrote to Johnson about the orphan children in a letter dated April 22, 1940, "I believe that in time they … will recover, but we certainly made a definite impression on them." Mary Tudor returned to the orphanage three times to try to reverse the negative effects caused by the experiment but lamented in her letters to Johnson the fact that she was unable to provide enough positive therapy to reverse the deleterious effects.

Reaction

Johnson never published the results, and the study was relatively unheard of outside of those who knew Johnson. Since the stuttering clinic at University of Iowa attracted a lot of leading researchers, however, it was an open secret. Those at the center dubbed the experiment the "Monster Study" in the 40s and 50s, but was widely unknown. Johnson passed away early in 1965. A 1988 article published in the Journal of Fluency Disorders suggests, as someone who knew Johnson, that he never published it due to embarrassment of the experiment conclusions.

In 2001, 62 years after the experiment was performed, an investigative reporter, Jim Dyer, for San Jose Mercury News published a series of articles after finding The Monster Study tucked away in the basement at University of Iowa. He was horrified, and began reaching out to the test subjects to better understand what happened and what the impact was. He compiled and released a series of articles, and the unpublished experiment became national news. By then, several of the 1939 orphaned children had passed away, but he interviewed their children to better understand possible impacts. Several however, were still alive and freely shared with Dyer.

The article revealed that several of the children had long-lasting psychological effects stemming from the experiment. One woman expressed horror to learn that she was part of an experiment without her consent or knowledge. She had believed her whole life that she was a stutterer, and the negative feedback from Tudor had caused her to be withdrawn from many aspects of life. Children of one of the other children reported that their parent was very quiet in ways they found notable, and were very self-conscious about their speech.

Dyer also interviewed Mary Tudor, who was 84 years old, on the record about her experiences and its impact on her.

Response

The University of Iowa's "Wendell Johnson Speech and Hearing Clinic" is still one of the driving educational centers for stuttering research. After the release of articles by San Jose Mercury News, the University of Iowa publicly apologized for the Monster Study in 2001. A spokesman for the University of Iowa said that while the standards for experiments were different in 1939, this experiment was "regrettable under any circumstance".

Jim Dyer and Mercury News

Jim Dyer resigned from his position at San Jose Mercury News after publishing the series of articles about the Monster Study. Executive Officer for the paper said Dyer, who is also a master's degree candidate at the University of Iowa, presented himself only as a graduate student to gain access to an Iowa archive, and said that the archive is not open to journalists. These comments stemmed from an archivist, Jim Hendrickson, stating that Dyer told him he was doing research for his dissertation and never mentioned he was a journalist. Dyer also signed a statement that he was a student of psychology, which he was not. Hendrickson further explained that reporters were not allowed into the archives. However, Hendrickson clarified a few weeks later that he was wrong, and it was not uncommon for reporters to view sensitive material in the archive. By then, though, media reports were done. San Jose Mercury News refused to correct their earlier assertion about the archives being open to journalists.

Public response

Speech pathologists

Speech pathologists have condemned the experiment and said that the orphans' speech and behavior was adversely affected by the negative conditioning they received.

A book Ethics: A Case Study from Fluency was written and published in 2005 to provide an impartial scientific evaluation. The panel of authors in the book consists mostly of speech pathologists who fail to reach any consensus on either the ethical ramifications or scientific consequences of the Monster Study. Some argued that it was in poor taste to experiment on orphaned children regardless of legal requirements at the time, and others argue that it was not understood at the time to be dangerous.

Reanalysis of results

Some therapists felt the study was poorly designed and executed by Tudor, and as a result the data offered no proof of Johnson's subsequent hypothesis that "stuttering begins, not in the child's mouth but in the parent's ear"—i.e., that it is the well-meaning parent's effort to help the child avoid what the parent has labeled "stuttering" (but is in fact within the range of normal speech) that contributes to what ultimately becomes the problem diagnosed as stuttering.

In 1993, Paticia Zebrowski, University of Iowa assistant professor of speech pathology and audiology said that the data that resulted from the experiment is the "largest collection of scientific information" on the phenomenon of stuttering and that Johnson's work was the first to discuss the importance of the stutterer's thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, and feelings and continues to influence views on stuttering greatly.

Overall, the study failed to prove Johnson's theory. Those actual moments of stuttering did not change in a notable way. However, the moments of speech hesitation, interruptions and non-stuttering disfluencies increased for Group IIA.

Criticism from stutterers

Although the study has developed fame, few commentators are people who stutter themselves. Wendell Johnson, who performed the study, had a stutter and is still highly acclaimed in stuttering research.

The podcast All In The Mind had on guest Jonty Claypool, a person who stutters, who criticized the study as horrifying to say to anyone.

The podcast Stutterology has two episodes on The Monster Study. Horak, the host, as well as McGuire, one of the guests, have stutters. They critique the study harshly, but work to comprehend what was going on with fellow stutterer Wendell Johnson. Horak points to Johnson's recent conversion to General Semantics as the likely trigger. As an adult who feared speaking, Johnson telling himself he didn't really stutter and that his voice impacted him positively. Johnson may have assumed this would work for children, not being aware of the difference between "stuttering" and "struggling with a stutter".

Horak also points out that what is said to the orphan children is still practiced in speech therapy for stuttering today. The guests and Horak refer to The Lidcombe Program handbook, a popular preschooler stuttering treatment program, as doing exactly what Johnson and Tudor did. McGuire also shares the way her experience with speech therapy mirrored some of the feelings expressed by the non-stuttering orphans.

Defense of Johnson

Many were quick to defend Wendell Johnson, even in the official apology from the University of Iowa in 2001, which asked not to tarnish Johnson's positive legacy over this. Most professional criticisms of the Monster Study are intentional in pointing out that Johnson and Tudor did not intend to cause harm, and write ups about him after 2001 include the study as minor point.

Nicholas Johnson, the son of the late Wendell Johnson, has vehemently defended his father. He and some speech pathologists have argued that Wendell Johnson did not intend to harm the orphan children and that none of the orphans were diagnosed as "stutterers" at the end of the experiment.

The University of Iowa's speech clinic building is still "Wendell Johnson Speech and Hearing".

Lawsuit

The surviving children from the experiment, and the families of the ones who had passed filed a joint lawsuit against the State of Iowa. The state tried to have the lawsuit dismissed but in September 2005, Iowa's Supreme Court justices agreed with a lower court in rejecting the state's claim of immunity and petition for dismissal.

Many of the orphans testified that they were harmed by the "Monster Study" but outside of Mary Tudor, who testified in a deposition on November 19, 2002, there were no eyewitnesses. The advanced age of the three surviving former orphans on the plaintiff's side helped expedite a settlement with the state.

For the plaintiffs, we hope and believe it will help provide closure relating to experiences from long ago and to memories going back almost 70 years. For all parties, it ends long-running, difficult and costly litigation that only would have run up more expenses and delayed resolution to plaintiffs who are in their seventies and eighties.

On 17 August 2007, seven of the orphan children were awarded a total of $925,000 by the State of Iowa for lifelong psychological and emotional scars caused by six months of torment during the University of Iowa experiment. The study learned that although none of the children became stutterers, some became self-conscious and reluctant to speak.

Ethics in studies

Today, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association prohibits experimentation on children when there exists a significant chance of causing lasting harmful consequences.

In the National Research Act of 1974, informed consent became a requirement in experiments.

External links

• 'Monster Study' Still Stings. Orphans Subjected To Intense Ridicule In Bid To Make Them Stutter at CBS News