The Monster Study is a fascinating yet controversial chapter in the field of psychology. Conducted in 1939 by Dr. Wendell Johnson at the University of Iowa, this study aimed to understand the origins of stuttering. But it has since become infamous for its ethical implications. Let’s break it down in a way that's easy to understand.
What Was the Monster Study?
The Monster Study involved 22 orphaned children, divided into two groups:
- Stutterers: Children who already exhibited signs of stuttering.
- Non-Stutterers: Children who did not have any speech issues.
The Experiment's Steps
- Selection of Participants: The children were chosen from a local orphanage. They were unaware of the study's true nature.
- Speech Therapy Sessions: The stutterers received positive reinforcement about their speech, while the non-stutterers were subjected to negative comments about their speech.
- Assessment: The children's speech was monitored over time to study any changes in their speaking patterns.
Positive vs. Negative Reinforcement
- Positive Reinforcement: Encouragement and praise for correct speech; intended to help stutterers.
- Negative Reinforcement: Criticism and discouragement aimed at non-stutterers; aimed to create anxiety about their speech.
Ethical Concerns
The Monster Study has been widely criticized for its lack of ethical standards. Some key issues include:
- Informed Consent: The children were not informed about the study, nor were their guardians.
- Psychological Harm: Many of the non-stuttering children later developed speech issues due to the stress and negative feedback they received.
- Long-term Effects: Some participants reported lasting impacts on their selfesteem and social interactions.
Real-Life Implications
The Monster Study serves as a stark reminder of the importance of ethics in psychological research. Here’s how it has influenced the field:
- Stricter Guidelines: It has led to the implementation of stricter ethical standards for research involving human subjects.
- Awareness of Psychological Harm: Researchers are now more aware of the potential for psychological harm and take steps to minimize risks.
Comparison with Modern Studies
Today, psychological research requires informed consent, which means participants must be fully aware of the study's nature and risks. Unlike the Monster Study, modern experiments prioritize the wellbeing of participants. For example:
- Collaborative Research: Participants are often involved in discussions about the study.
- Debriefing: After a study, participants are informed about its purpose and any deception involved.
Conclusion
While the Monster Study aimed to explore speech development, it ultimately raised questions about ethics in psychology that persist to this day. By examining its controversial nature, we can appreciate the importance of conducting research responsibly.