The Monster Study: A Legacy of Labeled Speech
In nineteen thirty-nine, a University of Iowa experiment at a Davenport orphanage tested whether negative labeling could induce stuttering in children. Decades later, the 'Monster Study' remains a haunting case study in research ethics and the lasting power of psychological harm.
Listen in the Fylom app.
Wendell Johnson hypothesized that stuttering was caused by adult labeling rather than physiological mechanics.
Researchers at the University of Iowa used twenty-two orphans as unwitting subjects in nineteen thirty-nine.
Hostile therapy groups used verbal suggestion to induce speech anxiety in healthy children over six months.
Negative feedback caused previously fluent children to become self-conscious and withdraw from communication.
The State of Iowa paid a nine hundred twenty-five thousand dollar settlement to survivors in two thousand seven.
The experiment lacked ethical safeguards and failed to debrief the children after the study concluded.
- 01Intro1 min
- 02The Theory in the Parent's Ear2 min
- 03Six Months in Davenport3 min
- 04The Silence of the Lambs2 min
- 05The Monster Re-emerges3 min
- 06Outro1 min
- Monster Study - Wikipedia
- The Stuttering Doctor's 'Monster Study'
- What Was the Monster Study and Why Was It Hidden?
- The Monster Study - Dan Leonard
- Iowa to pay subjects $925K for stuttering study
- The Ethical Implications of the “Monster Study - Ethos | HKUMed
- The Tudor Study: Data and Ethics - Grand Valley State University
- 'Monster Study' Still Stings
- The Ethical Implications of the “Monster Study”
- Ethics: A Case Study from Fluency
- Research Ethics I: Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)—Historical and Contemporary Issues Pertaining to Human and Animal Experimentation
- Ambrose & Yairi The Tudor Study
- Ambrose & Yairi The Tudor Study
Fylom generates episodes like this on any topic you're curious about.
Fylom episodes are researched, written, and voiced by AI. Automated checks help catch inaccuracies, but episodes aren't reviewed by a human and AI can still get things wrong. Treat them as a starting point, not a source of record — more in our accuracy disclaimer.