Introduction to Jane Elliott and Her Experiment
Jane Elliott, an American schoolteacher and anti-racism activist, designed one of the most influential social psychology experiments in history—the Brown Eyes vs. Blue Eyes exercise. First conducted in 1968 in her third-grade classroom in Riceville, Iowa, the experiment was a direct response to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Elliott sought to teach her young students about the destructive nature of discrimination by simulating an environment where one group was arbitrarily deemed superior to another based on a trivial physical trait: eye color. The exercise divided the children into two groups—those with blue eyes and those with brown eyes—and subjected one group to systemic favoritism while the other faced overt discrimination. The results were immediate and profound, demonstrating how quickly individuals internalize prejudice and how deeply it affects behavior, self-esteem, and performance.
Elliott’s experiment was revolutionary because it provided a visceral, real-time demonstration of the mechanisms of racism and oppression. Unlike traditional lectures on equality, her method forced participants to experience discrimination firsthand, making the lesson unforgettable. The children who were designated as inferior exhibited signs of distress, confusion, and diminished academic performance within hours, while those deemed superior became more confident, even authoritarian. The exercise has since been replicated in various forms with adults, including corporate employees and prison inmates, consistently yielding similar results. Elliott’s work underscores the fact that discrimination is not an inherent trait but a learned behavior reinforced by societal structures. Her experiment remains a cornerstone in discussions about racism, privilege, and the psychology of oppression, illustrating how easily prejudice can be taught and how damaging its effects can be.
The Structure and Execution of the Experiment
Jane Elliott’s experiment was meticulously structured to mirror real-world systems of discrimination. On the first day, she informed her class that scientific studies had proven brown-eyed people were superior to blue-eyed people—smarter, more trustworthy, and better behaved. She then instituted a series of rules that reinforced this hierarchy: brown-eyed children were given extra privileges, such as longer recess times, access to better classroom materials, and the freedom to drink directly from the water fountain. Meanwhile, blue-eyed children were forced to wear collars for easy identification, were denied certain activities, and were frequently chastised for minor infractions. Elliott also manipulated their interactions, encouraging the brown-eyed children to criticize their blue-eyed peers, further solidifying the division. The impact was immediate—students who were labeled inferior became withdrawn, anxious, and less capable in their schoolwork, while those deemed superior exhibited increased confidence and, in some cases, outright cruelty.
The following day, Elliott reversed the roles, telling the children she had been mistaken and that blue-eyed individuals were actually the superior group. The same behavioral patterns emerged, but this time with the previously oppressed group wielding power over their former oppressors. This reversal was crucial because it demonstrated that the behaviors were not tied to inherent traits but to the arbitrary assignment of status. The children who had been subjugated the previous day now adopted the same discriminatory attitudes they had resented, proving how quickly individuals can internalize and perpetuate systemic bias when placed in a position of authority. The exercise also revealed how performance and self-perception are deeply tied to societal treatment—students performed better academically when they were in the “superior” group and worse when they were oppressed. Elliott’s experiment highlighted the psychological toll of discrimination, showing that even in a controlled, temporary environment, the effects of prejudice are profound and far-reaching.
Psychological and Sociological Implications
The Brown Eyes vs. Blue Eyes experiment provides critical insights into the psychology of prejudice and the mechanisms of systemic discrimination. One of the most striking findings was how quickly the children internalized their assigned roles. Those designated as inferior began to exhibit lower self-esteem, reduced academic performance, and heightened anxiety, mirroring the effects of real-world oppression on marginalized groups. Conversely, the “superior” group displayed increased aggression, entitlement, and a willingness to enforce the unjust hierarchy, illustrating how privilege can distort empathy and moral judgment. These behaviors align with social identity theory, which posits that individuals derive self-worth from their group memberships and will often favor their in-group while discriminating against out-groups, even when those groupings are arbitrary. The experiment also underscores the concept of learned helplessness—the psychological phenomenon where individuals subjected to persistent discrimination begin to believe they have no control over their circumstances, leading to passive acceptance of their oppression.
From a sociological perspective, Elliott’s exercise demonstrates how systemic bias is perpetuated through institutional reinforcement. The teacher’s authority in the classroom served as a microcosm of societal power structures, showing how those in positions of influence can either challenge or reinforce discrimination. The children’s rapid adoption of prejudiced behaviors highlights the role of socialization in shaping attitudes—people are not born racist or prejudiced but learn these behaviors through environmental conditioning. Additionally, the experiment reveals the cyclical nature of oppression; when the roles were reversed, the newly empowered group replicated the same abusive behaviors they had previously condemned. This mirrors real-world scenarios where marginalized groups, upon gaining power, may perpetuate similar systems of oppression rather than dismantle them. Elliott’s work remains a powerful tool for understanding how prejudice is constructed and how deeply it embeds itself in both individual psychology and societal structures.
Criticisms and Ethical Considerations
Despite its groundbreaking contributions, Jane Elliott’s experiment has faced significant criticism, particularly regarding its ethical implications. Some psychologists argue that the exercise subjected children to unnecessary emotional distress, comparing it to psychological manipulation. The sudden and intense nature of the discrimination could have had lasting effects on the participants, including heightened anxiety or trauma. Critics also question whether the benefits of the experiment outweighed the potential harm, as the children were not given prior consent or proper debriefing in its initial iterations. Additionally, some argue that the simulated nature of the exercise oversimplifies the complexities of real-world racism, which is deeply rooted in historical, economic, and cultural factors rather than arbitrary physical traits. While the experiment effectively demonstrates individual and interpersonal discrimination, it may not fully capture the institutional and systemic dimensions of racism that persist over generations.
On the other hand, supporters of Elliott’s work contend that the emotional impact was precisely the point—the distress the children felt mirrored the real-life experiences of marginalized groups, making the lesson more impactful. Elliott herself has defended the exercise, stating that the temporary discomfort was a necessary price for teaching lifelong empathy and awareness. Furthermore, the experiment’s replicability in adult settings, such as workplace diversity training, suggests its broader applicability beyond the classroom. Ethical debates surrounding the study continue to influence how similar exercises are conducted today, with modern adaptations often including more thorough consent processes and psychological support for participants. Regardless of these criticisms, the experiment’s enduring legacy lies in its ability to provoke critical conversations about privilege, power, and the mechanisms of discrimination in ways that theoretical discussions alone cannot achieve.
Legacy and Modern Applications
Jane Elliott’s Brown Eyes vs. Blue Eyes experiment has left an indelible mark on psychology, education, and social justice movements. Its core principles have been adapted for diversity training programs in schools, corporations, and government institutions, helping individuals recognize unconscious biases and the impact of systemic discrimination. The exercise’s visceral approach makes it particularly effective in settings where traditional anti-racism education fails to resonate. Many modern workshops use variations of Elliott’s method to help participants confront their own prejudices in a controlled environment, fostering deeper self-awareness and empathy. Additionally, the experiment has been widely studied in academic circles, contributing to research on stereotype threat, in-group favoritism, and the psychological effects of oppression. Its findings remain relevant in contemporary discussions about racial inequality, gender discrimination, and other forms of systemic bias.
Beyond its academic and professional applications, Elliott’s work has influenced broader cultural conversations about privilege and allyship. In an era where movements like Black Lives Matter and #MeToo highlight ongoing struggles against oppression, the experiment serves as a reminder of how quickly discrimination can take root and how difficult it is to dismantle. Elliott herself has remained an outspoken activist, using her platform to challenge complacency and encourage active resistance against injustice. Her experiment’s enduring relevance underscores a sobering truth: prejudice is not a fixed trait but a learned behavior that can be unlearned. By forcing people to confront their own capacity for discrimination, Elliott’s work continues to inspire efforts toward a more equitable society.
Conclusion: Lessons from the Experiment
Jane Elliott’s Brown Eyes vs. Blue Eyes experiment remains one of the most powerful demonstrations of how prejudice is constructed and perpetuated. Its simplicity belies its profound implications—showing that discrimination is not innate but taught, and that even arbitrary divisions can lead to deep-seated inequality. The experiment’s findings resonate across contexts, from education to corporate environments, offering a stark reminder of the dangers of unchecked bias. While ethical concerns persist, the exercise’s ability to foster empathy and self-reflection cannot be understated. In a world still grappling with systemic racism and social injustice, Elliott’s work challenges us to recognize our own roles in perpetuating or dismantling oppressive structures. Ultimately, the experiment serves as both a warning and a call to action: prejudice is a learned behavior, but so is compassion, and it is up to each of us to choose which we will reinforce.
