Asked Cecil this one, but didn’t get an answer. Anyone know?
At a recent corporate sensitivity/diversity training seminar (a topic itself), we were shown a videotape called “Eye of the Storm.” In it, an early ‘70s elementary school teacher engaged in a sociological experiment on a third grade class. She told all the children that the blue-eyed kids were smarter, better behaved, etc. than the brown-eyed
students (the school was in Iowa, and all of the kids were white). Immediately (OK, within 15 minutes), the blue-eyed kids started acting superior, and the brown-eyed kids felt inferior. The brown-eyed kids test scores plummeted within the space of 4 hours. The next day (or maybe a few days after), the teacher reversed the experiment. The brown-eyed kids were told they were superior, and the blue-eyed kids inferior. Once again, within an amazingly short period of time, the blue-eyed kids were acting inferior and their test scores plummeted. This was supposed to demonstrate how persons in positions of authority can devastatingly impact the personality and intellectual performance of
people. The whole experiment seemed somewhat dubious to me – the results were almost instantaneous, and instantly reversible (and apparently, all the kids’ parents consented to this experiment).
Is this legit? Or were the results I saw in the video doctored in some way to make a particular point?
Some brief background to clarify some inaccuracies in the OP:
The new video used in diversity training has been edited to make specific points about the study. (After all, it’s only 90 minutes long - they had to leave something out). The original documentary was filmed in the 1960’s and was more scientific in it’s presentation, although Ms. Elliott is certainly no scientist. While thought-provoking, an isolated study doesn’t make for scientific proof. These things have to be reproducible.
In any case, this kind of experiment on children is unethical, IMHO and should never be repeated.
Jane Elliot still runs these seminars today for adults, and has thus had many repetitions of the effects of the treatment (though not on kids AFAIK). On the show “Blue eyes” or whatever it was called, she specifically addressed the ethical aspect of the study on kids very well, and if you hear her explanation (I won’t repeat it as this is not a debating forum), you’ll agree the experiment didn’t harm anyone; rather it was very helpful both to the kids and parents. It’s worthwhile to watch the show and hear the background on the whole “blue eyes” seminar she gives.
Lucky me - I’ve watched the video from beginning to end, as well as a follow up with the children in the class.
The experiment was done as you describe, and the results were close to what you describe as well.
Jane Elliot was ridiculed by a large segment of her community, however she perservered and continued to do her project yearly.
All of the children involved in the project rated it as a positive learning experience. This is when they were adults and looking back - they all confirmed that Ms. Elliot’s goal of demonstrating the problem of racism had been met, and that they had gained a valuable perspective.
BTW - it wasn’t an experiment, so no ethics approval was needed - it was a teaching method, and by all accounts, a very successful one.
Befor the show they segrated out the blue eyed audience members and gave them green collars to wear and generallly treated the blue eyed people badly. They also were not given chairs to sit in and made to wait but most of the audience came a long way to see the taping so they didn’t want to leave.
Then on the show the woman went on to explain how blue eyed people we all less intelligent and meaner than brown eyed people. (the Nazi all had blue eyes!) There were lots of brown eyed people in the audience who were nodding their heads in agreement at these remarks.
Was hoping for a little bit more scientific rigor than Oprah. Haven’t watched her in years, but it always seemed she preaches almost exclusively to the converted…
havent they had movies and books where a experiment like this was done in like high school between 2 groups and it generally gets out of hand and turns into a violent us vs them thye semed to be popular in the late seventies
i always wondered if the original experiment ever happened and from what this topic says i guess it did ta least once
I saw an interview on Ms. Elliot a few years back during the Million-Man March era. She was arguing with someone (Sorry can’t remember who) by stating that, despite the statements from some of the leaders of Nation of Islam, no black person could ever be racist. It was the same old “definition by exclusion” argument that was discussed recently in another thread (sorry, I couldn’t find it either) - there can be no racism without power, and power is held by whites, therefore only white people can be racist.
And since no one seems to have heard of anyone repeating this experiment (excuse me, “learning exercise”) and yielding similar results, I’m going to remain highly skeptical…
Spike Lee did something like this for one of his movies. He separated the light-skinned black females from the darker-skinned black females, giving them better accommodations, etc. It wasn’t an experiment so much as he really wanted some tension between the two factions so that it would show up better on film.
What was the name of that experiment from the 50s or 60s where researchers divided male college students into two groups–criminals and guards–and put them in a prison situation, and within a couple of hours, the “prisoners” were acting like real prisoners, and the “guards” were acting like real guards (I remember seeing a short video clip, and one of them was acting exactly like the guy from Cool Hand Luke–which I guess would mean the experiment was done in the 60s)?
It was dubbed the Stanford Prison Experiment. It took place in August 1971 and was ended early because of “unexpected results”. There is a write up at Stanford’s website
I was thinking of this same movie, it’s called The Wave, and was supposedly based on a true story. Since I haven’t heard of this outside the confines of the movie, I’ll doubt it without further evidence.
Speaking of movies, there are other examples of sociological experiments/observations on films. The first was intentional. Francis Ford Coppola, in directing The Outsiders, gave all the Greasers paperback scripts and bad hotel accomodations while giving leatherbound scripts and premium accomodations to the Socs to create tension on the set.
The second was on Planet of the Apes. The original. The chimpanzees, apes, and orangutans all ate meals with their own kind. Apparently, subconciously, the actors felt most comfortable with those that looked like them.
I remember one movie that had a particularly interesting spin. The teacher decides to give the class a “lesson in understanding bigotry”, and arbitrarily gives students a color classification. The colors I remember were green and orange. The students had to wear a bandanna of said color so that they could be identified as such at all times. “Green” students were treated better: got to sit in a better part of the lunch room, got to get fewer questions right to get an “A”, etc. The “Green” students started feeling they were better than the “Orange” ones, and started calling the “Orange” students “Rangs”. The orange students started hanging out together, even though they wouldn’t have done so otherwise: blacks, whites and hispanics were all getting along in a school otherwise plagued by racial tension.
I have been trying to remember Jane Elliott’s name for a couple of years now, with the intent of trying to find out if her work is regarded as valid by mainstream psychologists. The reason for this is that I find her demonstration compelling and would often like to refer to it, but I would hate to find out later that she’s been discredited. Once you provided me with her name, I jumped right on Google and Scirus, where I found many university courses using the videos and referring to the classroom exercise. All seemed to regard the work as a valid illustration and a useful exercise. Here is one example from Washington State University, Human Development 350
I was able to turn up one dissenting opinion, but I don’t have access to the full article. Here is the abstract:
Susanne Lang & Rudolf Leiprecht: Authoritarianism as an anti-racist learning objective? Critical reflections on the “Blue Eyed/Brown Eyed” training (Jane Elliott)
My tentative conclusion is that Jane Elliott, while not a proper authority on racism, nevertheless has provided a useful exercise (not an experiment). It does apparently give people an awareness of how systematic discrimination might feel, but should not be regarded as a model for the way racism really works. I would really like to see a proper study of the effects of discrimination on school performance. “Further research is needed…”