The Monster Study, conducted in 1939 by speech pathologist Wendell Johnson and his graduate student Mary Tudor at the University of Iowa, is infamous for its ethical violations in psychological research. The study, which aimed to understand the origins of stuttering, involved 22 orphans, including children with typical speech patterns and others who stuttered. Tudor assigned these children into groups to study the effects of negative reinforcement, falsely telling some children they had a speech defect even when they did not. Although it contributed to the field of speech pathology, the Monster Study is widely criticized for ethical violations. This article examines the ethical guidelines the Monster Study breached, including consent, deception, harm, and the treatment of vulnerable populations.
Read also Ethical Principles of Psychologists: The Monster Study
Lack of Informed Consent in the Monster Study
Informed consent is a foundational ethical principle in psychological research, requiring that participants fully understand and voluntarily agree to participate in a study. Informed consent ensures that individuals are aware of the purpose, procedures, potential risks, and their right to withdraw at any time.
No Consent Given by Orphan Participants
One of the most glaring ethical violations in the Monster Study was the absence of informed consent. The participants were orphaned children, many of whom were unaware of the nature and purpose of the research. Since they were minors and wards of the state, they could not legally provide consent themselves, nor were their guardians adequately informed. In ethical research practices, obtaining consent from legal guardians is mandatory when working with minors, but the researchers bypassed this requirement.
Lack of Transparency with Participants
The orphaned children involved in the study were unaware of the true purpose behind their participation. Ethical guidelines necessitate transparency to ensure participants understand what their involvement entails. By withholding information, the researchers deprived the children of the autonomy to choose whether they wanted to participate in an experiment that could impact their psychological well-being.
Read also Ethical Violations in the Use of Multimedia in Instructional Design
Use of Deception and Lack of Debriefing in the Monster Study
Deception is sometimes used in psychological research to avoid influencing participants’ behavior, but it must be carefully managed and ethically justified. The Monster Study’s use of deception, however, was extensive and violated established ethical norms.
False Labeling and Deceptive Diagnosis of Stuttering
The researchers intentionally deceived the children by falsely labeling some as stutterers, even though they had normal speech patterns. They told these children that they had a speech defect, which would likely lead to stuttering if they didn’t take corrective action. This form of deception violated the principle that deception should never cause harm to participants. Here, the researchers manipulated vulnerable children’s self-perceptions, leading to increased anxiety, self-doubt, and in some cases, long-term speech issues.
Absence of Debriefing to Alleviate Psychological Harm
Ethical guidelines require that researchers debrief participants after a study, especially when deception is involved. Debriefing serves to clarify the study’s true purpose, alleviating any negative effects from the experiment. However, there was no evidence that Johnson or Tudor provided debriefing for the children following the study. Consequently, some children carried the psychological burden of believing they had a speech impediment long after the study concluded. The absence of debriefing left the children to cope with the confusion and harm caused by their experiences alone.
Harm to Participants and Violation of Non-Maleficence
A primary ethical guideline in any study is non-maleficence, meaning that researchers should avoid causing harm to participants. Research studies must carefully assess risks and implement measures to protect participants from any form of physical or psychological harm.
Long-Lasting Psychological and Emotional Harm
The Monster Study directly violated the principle of non-maleficence by inflicting psychological harm on vulnerable children. Children who were told they had speech defects began to show signs of anxiety, low self-esteem, and in some cases, developed speech issues that did not previously exist. The negative reinforcement used in the study left many children with emotional trauma, as they became increasingly self-conscious about their speech. This harm was profound and lasted long after the experiment concluded, violating the ethical mandate to protect participants from distress.
Failure to Monitor and Address Emotional Distress
An ethical study should have safeguards to monitor participants’ well-being and address any adverse effects promptly. The researchers in the Monster Study did not actively monitor the children’s emotional or psychological states as the experiment progressed. By failing to provide emotional support or counseling, the researchers disregarded the children’s welfare, contributing to a lasting impact on their psychological health.
Exploitation of Vulnerable Populations in the Monster Study
Research involving vulnerable populations, such as children or institutionalized individuals, requires extra caution and ethical consideration. Vulnerable populations may not have the autonomy to refuse participation or the capacity to fully understand the consequences of their involvement.
Exploitation of Orphaned Children as Research Subjects
The Monster Study involved orphaned children who were under the care of an institution. As orphans, they were especially vulnerable, lacking the protection and advocacy typically provided by family members. Ethical guidelines require that researchers avoid exploiting vulnerable populations or taking advantage of their inability to refuse participation. By conducting this study on orphans without guardians’ consent or the children’s informed understanding, the researchers exploited their vulnerability for experimental purposes.
Lack of Advocacy and Protection for the Participants
An ethical study involving children should have advocates to protect their best interests, typically in the form of parental or legal guardian consent. In the Monster Study, there was no external advocate to intervene on behalf of the orphans, allowing the researchers to proceed without scrutiny or accountability. This lack of oversight and advocacy underscored a fundamental disregard for the children’s rights and well-being, violating ethical principles that protect the autonomy and dignity of participants.
Violation of Beneficence and Lack of Scientific Justification in The Monster Study
Beneficence in research ethics requires that studies be designed to benefit participants or society. A study should yield valuable data to justify any risks to participants, making a compelling case for its scientific or social value.
Minimal Benefit to Society and Harm to Subjects
The Monster Study did not provide substantial benefits to society, nor did it justify the harm inflicted on the participants. Although the study sought to understand stuttering, it failed to yield groundbreaking findings that justified its ethically questionable approach. Ethical research must balance the potential societal benefit against any harm to participants, but the Monster Study fell short of this standard. Its minimal scientific contribution, coupled with the long-term psychological impact on participants, demonstrates a clear violation of the beneficence principle.
Lack of Justifiable Research Methods
The methods used in the Monster Study were inherently flawed and unethical by modern standards, as they involved harming children to test the hypothesis without guaranteeing any positive outcomes. The study could have used alternative methods that posed less risk to participants, but instead, it prioritized a direct, harmful approach. This lack of justified methodology highlights the absence of ethical consideration in designing the study, reflecting a disregard for both beneficence and scientific responsibility.
Conclusion: Ethical Lessons from the Monster Study
The Monster Study remains a critical example of the importance of ethical guidelines in psychological research. By violating principles of informed consent, non-maleficence, beneficence, and the fair treatment of vulnerable populations, the study inflicted lasting harm on participants and failed to achieve substantial scientific benefit. The study’s lack of transparency, disregard for participants’ psychological well-being, and failure to provide debriefing underscore the importance of ethical standards in protecting participants’ rights.
The Monster Study serves as a cautionary tale and a reminder of the essential ethical guidelines governing research today. It underscores the need for rigorous ethical oversight, particularly when research involves vulnerable individuals. Informed consent, transparency, non-maleficence, and beneficence remain pillars of ethical research practices, ensuring that future studies contribute to scientific knowledge without compromising the dignity and well-being of participants.
Get Your Custom Paper From Professional Writers. 100% Plagiarism Free, No AI Generated Content and Good Grade Guarantee. We Have Experts In All Subjects.
Place Your Order Now