What happens if researchers give stutterers MONEY for every time they spoke fluently? (and they lose money, whenever they start to stutter). Research study: "Effects of contingent events on stuttering and fluency"

What happens if researchers give stutterers MONEY for every time they spoke fluently? (and they lose money, whenever they start to stutter). Research study: "Effects of contingent events on stuttering and fluency" [Research study](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h-ZgstKapaE2AJoMrveTfV8tRBcU84hL/view?usp=sharing): "*Effects of contingent events on stuttering and fluency*" ​ **Abstract**: In Study 1, with 4 male 18-20 yr old stutterers, the effect on stuttering frequency of contingent monetary gain and contingent monetary loss for stuttering was examined individually for over 12 hrs, using control periods when no contingency was present. Both contingencies resulted in decreased stuttering, suggesting that the effect of observing and recording instances of stuttering was more powerful than the money. In Study 2, monetary gain and loss was made contingent on units of fluent speech for 5 male and 1 female 17-34 yr old stutterers over 12 hrs. Fluency increased for the group during monetary gain, but monetary loss did not have the predicted effect of decreasing fluency, perhaps because the contigent events served also to enhance self-observation. ## Study Overview The research consisted of two separate studies focusing on stuttering and how different types of monetary rewards and penalties could influence it. ## Study 1 * **Participants**: Four young men aged 18-20 who stutter. * **Method**: They were observed over 12 hours, during which two types of monetary contingencies (rewards and penalties) were tested to see their effect on stuttering. * **Contingent monetary gain**: They earned money if they did not stutter. * **Contingent monetary loss**: They lost money if they stuttered. * **Control periods**: Times when no monetary incentives were applied. * **Results**: Both types of monetary contingencies (gaining or losing money) led to a decrease in stuttering. * **Conclusion**: The researchers suggested that simply observing and recording the instances of stuttering (self-monitoring) might have been more effective in reducing stuttering than the monetary incentives themselves. ## Study 2 * **Participants**: Six individuals (five men and one woman) aged 17-34 who stutter. * **Method**: Over 12 hours, they were given monetary rewards or penalties based on their fluent speech. * **Contingent monetary gain**: They earned money for fluent speech. * **Contingent monetary loss**: They lost money if their speech was not fluent. * **Results**: * **Monetary gain**: Increased fluency in speech for the group. * **Monetary loss**: Did not decrease fluency as expected. * **Conclusion**: The lack of a decrease in fluency during monetary loss might be because the contingent events (the reward or penalty system) also increased the participants' self-awareness and self-monitoring, which influenced their fluency. ## Key Takeaways * In both studies, monetary incentives had an impact on stuttering and fluency, but self-observation played a crucial role. * In Study 1, both earning and losing money helped reduce stuttering. * In Study 2, earning money increased fluency, but losing money did not decrease fluency, likely due to increased self-awareness from the monitoring process. The main idea is that self-monitoring might be a significant factor in improving speech fluency, potentially more so than the monetary incentives themselves.