NAME : ZAHARYL FAIZAL BIN ZAINAL MATRIKS NO: 823143

The research began with random selection of 22 children from orphanage in Iowa. None
were told the intent of Mary Tudor’s experimental research, and they believed that they were to
receive speech therapy. Mary Tudor was trying to induce stuttering in healthy children and to see
whether telling stutterers that their speech was fine would produce a change. Included among the
22 persons were 10 orphans whom had marked as stutterers before the study began. Tudor and
five other graduate students who agreed to serve as judges listened to each of the children speak,
graded them on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (fluent) and conducted with the school's assessment. 5
children were assigned to Group IA, the experimental set, and would be told that their speech was
fine. The five in Group IB, the control group, would be told that their speech is "as bad as people
say".The important is a need to understand cause and effect to determine the best course of action.
Mary Tudor must identify the dependant variable such as outcomes like attitudes also
variable measured like instrument or recorded as observations. This will give special intention from
participants to entertain the interviewer. It need valid and reliable scores in the scale to make the
hypotheses.
The remaining 12 children were chosen at random from the population of normally fluent
orphans. 6 of them were assigned to IIA to be treated or experimental group. These children were
to be told that their speech was not normal, that they were beginning to stutter and that they must
correct this immediately. The final 6 children in Group IIB were normal speakers who were also to
be treated as such and given compliments on their nice enunciation.
Tudor tested each child's I.Q. and identified whether they were left-handed or right-handed.
A popular theory at the time held that stuttering was caused by a cerebral imbalance. If a person
was born left-handed but was using their right hand, their nerve impulses would misfire, affecting
their speech. Johnson did not believe the theory, but still suggested Tudor test each child's
handedness. She had them draw on chalkboards and squeeze the bulb of the dynamometer. Most
were right-handed, but left-handed children were present in all the groups. There was no
correlation between handedness and speech in the subjects. During this period, they assigned
numbers to the children like "Case No 15 Experimental Group IIA"
The children in IIA responded immediately says ‘a’. Another in the group, 9-year-old Betty
Romp, "practically refuses to talk," a researcher wrote in his final evaluation. "Held hand or arm
over eyes most of the time." Hazel Potter, 15, the oldest in her group, became "much more
conscious of herself, and she talked less," Tudor noted. Potter also began to snap her fingers in
frustration. She was asked why she said 'a' so much. "Because I'm afraid I can't say the next word."
"Why did you snap your fingers?" "Because I was afraid I was going to say 'a'. Three times after
her experiment had officially ended she returned to the orphanage to voluntarily provide follow-up
care. She told the IIA children that they didn't stutter after all. The impact is however well-meaning
was questionable.
Some felt the study was poorly designed and executed by Tudor, and as a result the data
offered no proof of Johnson's subsequent hypothesis that "stuttering begins, not in the child's
mouth but in the parent's ear that it is the well-meaning parent's effort to help the child avoid what
the parent has labelled "stuttering" (but is in fact within the range of normal speech) that contributes
to what ultimately becomes the problem diagnosed as stuttering. On 17 August 2007, six of the
orphan children were awarded a total of $925,000 by the State of Iowa for lifelong psychological
and emotional scars caused by six months of torment during the University of Iowa experiment.
The study learned that although none of the children became stutterers, some became self-
conscious and reluctant to speak.
From my opinion, many of the orphans testified that they were harmed by the
"Monster Study" but outside of Mary Tudor, who testified in a deposition on November 19,
2002, there were no actual eyewitnesses to the events. pathologists have argued that
Wendell Johnson did not intend to harm the orphan children and that none of the orphans
were actually diagnosed as "stutterers" at the end of the experiment. Other speech
pathologists have condemned the experiment and said that the orphans' speech and
behavior was adversely affected by the negative conditioning they received. Letters
between Mary Tudor and Wendell Johnson that were written shortly after the experiment
ended showed that the children's speech had deteriorated significantly. That is why the
orphans won the summon from the court.