top of page
Search

Before Ethics: The Speech Experiment That Should Never Have Happened

Writer: Taylor Martin
Taylor Martin
Jul 7, 2025
4 min read

Imagine being a child, excited to speak up, only to be told your voice is wrong.


In 1939, this became reality for a group of orphaned children in Iowa—all in the name of speech-language research. Known today as the "Monster Study," this unethical experiment left lasting psychological effects and continues to serve as a powerful lesson for parents, educators, and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) alike.


In today’s world, where speech therapy is built around safety, trust, and child-centered care, the Monster Study is a chilling reminder of what happens when encouragement is replaced with criticism. If you're a parent or professional supporting a child's communication development, this story is worth your attention.


---


What Was the Monster Study?


The Monster Study was a stuttering experiment led by Wendell Johnson, a well-known speech-language pathologist, and conducted by his graduate student Mary Tudor at the University of Iowa. Their hypothesis? That stuttering could be caused or worsened by the way a child was labeled and treated.


To test this, they chose 22 children at the Iowa Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans' Home—some who stuttered, and others who spoke fluently. The children were split into groups. Some were praised for their speech. Others, including fluent speakers, were wrongly told they had speech problems and were criticized for how they talked.


Tudor recorded statements like:

"The staff has come to the conclusion that you have a great deal of trouble with your speech. You must try to stop yourself immediately."
"Your speech is as bad as people say.''

The goal was to observe whether negative feedback could cause children to develop a stutter or become more self-conscious about their speech.


The result? While most children did not develop true stuttering, those who were negatively labeled became anxious, withdrawn, and reluctant to speak—effects that lasted long after the study ended (Yairi & Ambrose, 2000; Spradley, 2001.


Despite Johnson's theory—that stuttering was learned behavior caused by labeling and anxiety—the results of the study did not support his hypothesis. None of the children developed clinical stuttering, though they did exhibit stress behaviors such as whispering, avoiding speech, and snapping their fingers in frustration. Some, like 15-year-old Hazel Potter, became withdrawn and self-conscious, while others, like Clarence Fifer, began anticipating speech difficulty and reported that words "felt stuck."


Many of the children's grades dropped during the study period, a reflection of how deeply the anxiety and self-consciousness affected not just their communication but their overall functioning in daily life. One child, 9-year-old Betty Romp, began practically refusing to speak and would cover her eyes during conversations. Another child, Clarence Fifer, began correcting himself mid-sentence and described words as feeling "stuck." These changes were not just linguistic—they affected every part of the children's lives, from academic performance to emotional well-being.


Interestingly, some children labeled as stutterers actually showed slight improvements in fluency. As reported in the New York Times Magazine (2003), "The results for each of the groups were not only insignificant, but also in the wrong (unexpected) direction."


---


Why Was It Unethical?


The Monster Study is widely condemned today because:


  • Children were deceived and never gave consent.

  • Orphans were targeted, making them especially vulnerable.

  • Emotional harm was knowingly inflicted.

  • There was no ethics committee to oversee or stop the harm.


Though never published during Johnson's lifetime, the study came to light decades later, sparking outrage. In 2007, the state of Iowa paid nearly $1 million to survivors of the study for the damage they suffered (New York Times, 2003; University of Houston.


Tudor herself felt conflicted, later writing that she believed the children would recover but that they had been clearly impacted. One of the children, Mary Nixon (formerly Mary Korlaske), later said, "It just ruined my life."


---


What We Can Learn: Encouragement Builds Confidence


The biggest takeaway? Children need encouragement, not correction, to grow their communication skills.


When a child is told they speak incorrectly, they may internalize fear and self-doubt. But when we focus on what they are saying and celebrate their efforts, their confidence and skills flourish.


At Confident Therapies, our sessions are rooted in this belief. Most children I work with don’t even realize they’re in "therapy" because we’re just playing. We laugh, build trust, and learn together. It feels natural—because that's how learning language should feel.


We meet children where they are. We listen to their stories, not just their speech sounds. We model without pressure. We guide without shame.


---


A Note to Parents


If you ever worry about how your child talks, remember this:


  • Every child deserves to feel safe and proud when they speak.

  • Progress comes from connection, not correction.

  • Speech therapy should feel like growth, not punishment.


Your words have power. Use them to support, encourage, and invite your child to keep sharing their world with you.


---


Sources & Further Reading



---


Let’s build children up, not break them down. That’s the heart of ethical, effective speech therapy.

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page