The Monster Study, conducted in 1939 by Wendell Johnson and his team at the University of Iowa, is often highlighted as an ethical misstep in psychological research. The study aimed to investigate the effects of different speech therapies on children, particularly focusing on stuttering. However, several factors contributed to its unethical nature.
Firstly, the subjects of the study were orphans who were not given informed consent. These children, who were vulnerable and lacked stable familial support, were subjected to experiments without fully understanding the implications or being able to agree to participate. Without informed consent, the fundamental ethical principle of respecting an individual’s autonomy was violated.
Moreover, the method of the study itself was problematic. The children were divided into two groups: one received positive speech therapy, while the other group received negative feedback about their speech. The latter approach sought to instill fear and anxiety about speaking, which not only caused psychological distress but also had long-lasting effects on the children’s self-esteem and speech abilities. This aspect raises concerns about the harm principle in research ethics, which argues that participants should not be subjected to harm or distress.
Additionally, the lack of professional oversight and monitoring during the experiment contributed to its unethical nature. The researchers did not adequately assess or mitigate the negative consequences of their interventions, demonstrating a disregard for the well-being of the participants.
In summary, the Monster Study was deemed unethical due to the lack of informed consent, the harmful nature of the interventions, and inadequate oversight. This case serves as a harsh reminder of the ethical responsibilities that researchers have towards their subjects, particularly vulnerable populations.