The Monster Study

By: Lexi Breeze

"Monster is a relative term. To a canary, a cat is a monster." -Dr. Wong in Jurassic World.
The Monster Study was an experimental stuttering study performed on orphan children in
Davenport, Iowa in 1939. The study was conducted by graduate student Mary Tudor and
supervised by assistant professor Wendell Johnson at the University of Iowa. There were twenty
two children total in the experiment. Half of the children received positive speech therapy and
the other half received negative speech therapy.
Wendell, suffering from a stutter himself, believed that, "Stuttering begins not in the
child's mouth but in the parent's ear". Tudor and Johnson were trying to induce stuttering in
healthy children by using negative speech therapy with half of the children and telling them that
they were showing all the early signs of a stuttering problem. The other children were marked as
stutterers before the experiment and were given positive feedback and told that there was nothing
wrong with the way they spoke. The children were told that they would receive speech therapy. It
was not disclosed that they would be trying to induce a stutter in half of the children. The ages
ranged from five to fifteen. The experiment lasted from January until May.
Tudor would spend forty five minute increments with each child about once a month
using a designated script. To the children who stuttered she would tell them that they would
outgrow their stutter and to not worry about what others said to them about their speech. To the
children without a stutter she would tell them that they were showing early signs of a stuttering
problem and that they shouldn't speak unless they could do it right. What price are we willing to
pay in order to further our knowledge?

After the experiment ended, the children with the stutter who received positive feedback
still had the stutter. However, the children without a stutter who received negative feedback
suffered from lifelong psychological effects and speech problems. Tudor wrote her dissertation
but never sought to have her work published. Nevertheless, the story became public and received
both negative and positive attention. Because of the negative attention it received, a lawsuit was
filed on behalf of the orphan children who suffered long term effects from the experiment. Six of
the children were awarded $925,000 for lifelong effects caused by six months of psychological
and emotional torture.
While the lawsuit ended in a settlement favorable to the orphan children the question
remains of whether or not this was an ethical experiment. After the story hit the fan, a book was
written about the study with the authors consisting mostly of speech pathologists. One of them
was Richard Schwartz and his opinion on the topic is well covered in chapter 6 of Ethics: A Case
Study from Fluency. He states that the Monster Study, "was unfortunate in Tudor and Johnson's
lack of regard for the potential harm to the children who participated and their selection of
institutionalized children simply because they were easily available. The deception and apparent
lack of debriefing were also not justifiable.". There were many others who also shared this
opinion. The arguments were that the experiment was "poorly designed and executed" and
therefore any information taken from the study is useless and showed no proof of Johnson's
hypothesis.
The counter argument was that Johnson did not intend to harm any of the orphans. There
was no way of knowing that there could or would be lasting effects for these children. In fact,
Patricia Zebrowski, who an assistant professor of speech pathology and audiology argues that the
data collected from this study is the "largest collection of scientific information" on stuttering

and is still used today to influence the importance and views on stuttering. Johnson's son,
Nicholas Johnson, fiercely defends his late father as well. Others wonder if there truly was any
harm done to these orphans at all.
Some would debate that all the proof needed is in Tudor's dissertation notes. After only
one visit with a five year old girl named Norma, Tudor notes that "it was very difficult to get her
speak, although she spoke very freely the month before." Another little girl, nine year old Betty,
"practically refuses to talk". Another fifteen year old became "much more conscious of herself,
and she talked less". It is also noted that the girl began snapping her fingers out of frustration
because she was afraid she couldn't say the next word. The notes also included that all of the
children's grades fell in school. One boy expressed fear of speaking because the words wouldn't
come out right, that they felt stuck. Another boy completely refused to recite in class for fear that
he wouldn't speak correctly. The list continues with notes on these children who received
negative speech therapy and started displaying anxious and withdrawn behavior.
After the experiment had officially ended, Tudor did go back to the orphanage and tried
telling the children that they actually did not have a stutter. Unfortunately the damage was
already done. In a letter to Johnson, Tudor writes, "I believe that in time they will recover, but
we certainly made a definite impression on them." This statement along with the testimony of the
orphans is enough to convince some that the experiment was unethical and poorly designed and
executed. Later, Mary Tudor expressed her sincerest apologies that the study had such adverse
effects on the participants and that she was unable to provide any positive therapy to reverse
those effects.
With the argument that there is significant light shed on the subject from this study can it
be said that the pros outweigh the cons? The notes from this study and the evidence showing that

the participants suffered long term effects shows us that the information gained from this
experiment shouldn't be worth what was left after it was completed. There will always be a need
for research and experimental studies but again at what expense are we willing to pay to obtain
more knowledge about the unknown?
We can't subject innocent children to unnecessary treatment that has lasting psychological
effects for the sake of information. Our children are our future and by using them for
experimental treatment seems to cause more problems that will need to be investigated. More
issues means more studies to find solutions which takes us right back to the beginning. It seems
more like a vicious cycle than a path to a solution. Monster is a relative term and is defined as an
imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening. If we aren't careful we may
become our own monsters.

Work Cited
Wikipedia

The New York Times Magazine: The Stuttering Doctor's 'Monster Study'
By Gretchen Reynolds
Google
Jurassic World