A Classroom Divided: The Lasting Lessons of Jane Elliott's Eye Color Experiment

UPI Study › Courses › Advanced Social Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 5.5 Free with a free account

A Classroom Divided: The Lasting Lessons of Jane Elliott's Eye Color Experiment

Advanced Social Psychology · Chapter 5: Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Intergroup ConflictSection 5.5 · lesson 29 of 8510 min · free with a free account

← Drawing the Line: The Psychology Behind Ingroups and OutgroupsNext lesson: Shortcuts That Mislead: How Stereotypes Influence the Way We Process Information →

Earn 3 college credits for Advanced Social PsychologyRecommended for credit by NCCRS · Psychology 310 · self-paced · one payment, lifetime access
Enroll in Advanced Social Psychology · $250 →Download the syllabus (PDF)

In this lesson

Two days, an arbitrary line, and a demonstration that outran its own method.

  • Reconstruct the context and design of Elliott's exercise
  • Describe the effects observed across both phases
  • Relate it to categorization, status, and stereotype threat
  • Evaluate it on methodological and ethical grounds

Free study notes

Get this lesson's notes by email

The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.

One email. Unsubscribe in one click.

Transcript

Everything said in the video, section by section (1,394 words). Read along, or search it.

Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Intergroup Conflict

A Classroom Divided

This section covers a demonstration, not an experiment. The distinction matters, and we will spend a slide on it. But it is one of the most discussed things ever done in a classroom. Jane Elliott divided her third-grade class by eye color. Within minutes, the children's behavior changed. Within hours, so did their academic performance. We will reconstruct what she did, and what she observed. Then connect it to four mechanisms from earlier in this chapter. And then take the criticisms seriously, because they are substantial. The goal is to know exactly what this demonstration can and cannot support.

April 1968

The Day After

It begins with a specific date, in April nineteen sixty-eight. The day after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Junior. Jane Elliott was a third-grade teacher in Riceville, Iowa. A small town, and an all-white one. She asked her pupils a question. How would it feel to be judged by the color of one's skin? And the conversation faltered. The children had almost no direct experience of racial difference. They struggled to engage with the question in the abstract. That failure is what produced the exercise. Elliott improvised a two-day demonstration on the spot. It became one of the most widely discussed pedagogical interventions in the field.

Status Of Evidence

Read It as a Quasi-Experiment

Before the details, fix what kind of evidence this is. Getting this wrong is the most common error students make here. It was not designed as a controlled experiment. There was no hypothesis under test in the conventional sense. Researchers have since treated it as a quasi-experimental illustration. A quasi-experiment manipulates a variable without full random assignment or control. It sacrifices inferential rigor for ecological vividness. That is a genuine trade, and it runs in both directions. You get something you could never get in a laboratory. And you give up the ability to rule out alternatives. So cite it accordingly. It is evidence about what is possible, not about effect sizes. Use it to illustrate a mechanism that other studies establish.

The Design

An Arbitrary, Biologically Meaningless Line

Elliott divided her class along eye color. A dimension that is arbitrary, and biologically meaningless. Meaningless, at least, with respect to anything the children were asked to do. On the first day, brown-eyed children were declared superior. More intelligent. Better behaved. More deserving of privileges. Privileges like a longer recess, and a second helping at lunch. Blue-eyed children were required to wear felt collars. The collars marked them as inferior, visibly, to everyone in the room. And they were denied the same privileges. On the second day, the assignments were reversed. Every child experienced both sides of the line. The aim was not to test a hypothesis. It was to give the children a brief, embodied experience of an arbitrary status.

The Authority

The Teacher Was Part of the Manipulation

Here is the design element that most summaries leave out. And it is the one carrying the effect. Elliott deliberately reinforced the new hierarchy through her own behavior. As the authority figure in the room. Praise tracked the day's privileged category. So did criticism. So did attention. And so did the seating arrangements. This is not a background detail. It is half the manipulation. The arbitrary criterion supplies the category. The teacher supplies the normative weight behind it. Without an authority endorsing the hierarchy, there is only a label.

What She Observed

Within Minutes, Then Within Hours

What she observed fell into three domains, and the timing is striking. Start with affect. The privileged group quickly became more cheerful, and more animated. More expansive in posture, which is a physical change. The stigmatized group became quieter, and withdrawn. Visibly distressed, within minutes. Then social behavior. The privileged children mocked, excluded, or corrected the other group. They formed new alliances along the new line. The stigmatized children began arguments tentatively. Some refused to defend themselves at all. Then academic performance, which is the theoretically important one. Privileged children completed timed reading and math drills faster. Faster than their own previous baseline, which is the key comparison. The same children, on the day they were stigmatized, performed measurably worse. Same tasks. Same children. One day apart.

The Reversal

Nobody Was Immune

The second day is what makes this more than a story about cruelty. The assignments flipped, and so did the children. Yesterday's stigmatized group showed the same shift toward dominance. Having just experienced the other side did not prevent it. That is worth sitting with for a moment. They knew exactly what it felt like. They did it anyway. And yesterday's dominators experienced the same drop in mood. And the same drop in performance. Their previous day's confidence supplied no protection whatsoever. So the inference is uncomfortable, and it is the point of the exercise. Neither group was the kind of children who do this. Both groups did it, in whichever position they were placed.

The Key Finding

A Performance Drop, Decades Early

In retrospect, the performance change was the most important observation. Within hours of being told they were less capable, children declined. Measurable declines, on the same academic tasks. Tasks they had performed well on the day before. This prefigures something the field would formalize decades later. Steele and Aronson named it stereotype threat, in nineteen ninety-five. It is the performance-degrading effect of expecting to be judged through a stereotype. Now note the detail that makes Elliott's version so strange. Performance dropped under the threat of confirming a judgment. A judgment the children knew had been invented that morning. By their teacher. In front of them. So believing the stereotype was not required for it to work. Only expecting to be judged by it.

Why So Fast

The Exercise Compresses a Lifetime

Why did the effects appear so quickly? The exercise compresses, into a single school day, processes that unfold over years. Two design features explain the speed. The first is the arbitrary criterion. Eye color strips away pre-existing beliefs entirely. There were no prior attitudes about eye color to interact with. So it isolates the pure effect of being assigned a status. The second is the authority figure. The teacher's role supplies the normative weight. In ordinary life, that weight comes from family, peers, media, and institutions. All of them acting together, over a lifetime. Elliott delivered both ingredients pure, and at once. Which is why the effect is visible in an afternoon.

In Concert

Four Mechanisms at Once

The exercise illustrates several mechanisms from this chapter at once. Not one at a time, which matters for interpretation. Social categorization is the first. An arbitrary, content-free distinction generated strong ingroup and outgroup behavior. That is section five point four, running live. Status and hierarchy is the second. Asymmetric treatment by the authority produced dominance and subordination. Stereotype threat is the third, as we have just covered. And self-fulfilling prophecy is the fourth. Expectations communicated by the teacher altered the children's behavior. Altered it in ways that then appeared to confirm those expectations. Rosenthal and Jacobson documented that process in nineteen sixty-eight. But notice the interpretive cost of all four firing together. It is what makes the demonstration vivid. And it makes the effect impossible to attribute to any single mechanism.

Critique

The Methodological Objections

The exercise has been criticized on several grounds. The methodological objections are straightforward, and they are correct. There was no comparison classroom. Nothing establishes what would have happened without the manipulation. The observations were largely Elliott's own. And she was also the person delivering the manipulation. That is a serious problem, not a technicality. The performance effects, while suggestive, were not rigorously measured. Not with the rigor a published study would now require. So here is the honest position on all of this. Every one of those objections is correct. And none of them shows the effect is not real. They show that this particular study cannot establish it.

Ethics And Value

What It Is Actually Good For

The ethical objections are equally serious. Contemporary review boards would scrutinize the use of children. And the temporary infliction of distress. And the absence of informed consent from parents, in the original version. Elliott has run adult variants in the decades since. With teachers, corporate trainees, and civic groups. Those partially address the consent question. But they introduce others, and one of them is significant. The risk of re-traumatizing participants who already experience discrimination. Against all that, there is the follow-up evidence. Decades of interviews with her former pupils suggest a lasting change. In how they thought about fairness, authority, and difference. So place the exercise correctly. It is not a substitute for systematic research. Paired with careful debriefing and empirical work, it does something research cannot. It makes vivid how fast an arbitrary status system reshapes behavior.

About Advanced Social Psychology at UPI Study

Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) is a self-paced online course of 85 video lessons in 12 chapters, from attitudes, persuasion and the self to prejudice, attraction and relationships, conformity and obedience, helping, aggression and social life online. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.

Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →

Compare: Social Psychology vs Sociology

Why take it here

Why students take Advanced Social Psychology with UPI Study

How other people shape what we think and doAdvanced Social Psychology explains how people think about, influence and relate to one another: attitudes and persuasion, the self, prejudice and intergroup conflict, attraction and close relationships, conformity and obedience, helping and aggression. It is a common upper-level course in psychology and sociology degrees.
Credit at a fraction of the priceThe same 3 credits can cost $750 or more at a US college. Here it is one payment, self-paced, with lifetime access.
Finish your degree soonerTransfer credits reduce the courses you still owe, so you can graduate earlier or lighten a heavy semester.
Strengthen an applicationA completed college-level course on an official transcript shows admissions and scholarship committees you can do the work.
Study on your own scheduleNo start dates, no deadlines. Watch the lessons, practice, and take the final when you are ready.
130,000+students helped with college creditsACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Where the credit goes

Universities that work with NCCRS

Advanced Social Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Thomas Edison State UniversityThomas Edison State UniversitySigned partnerUniversity of the PeopleUniversity of the PeopleSigned partnerCharter Oak State CollegeCharter Oak State CollegeSigned partnerStrayer UniversityStrayer UniversitySigned partnerColumbia Southern UniversityColumbia Southern UniversitySigned partnerIndiana TechIndiana TechSigned partnerPenn StatePenn StateWorks with NCCRSSouthern New Hampshire UniversitySouthern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRSSUNYSUNYWorks with NCCRS +many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →

Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.

FAQ

Questions students ask us

About A Classroom Divided: The Lasting Lessons of Jane Elliott's Eye Color Experiment

What was Jane Elliott's blue eyes brown eyes exercise?
It was a classroom demonstration in which Iowa teacher Jane Elliott divided her third graders by eye color and treated one group as superior. She ran it in Riceville in April 1968, the day after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. The favored group received privileges such as extra recess, while the other group wore collars marking them as inferior. The next day the roles were reversed, so every child experienced both sides.
Was Jane Elliott's eye color exercise a scientific experiment?
No, it was a demonstration rather than a controlled experiment. Elliott was not testing a hypothesis, had no comparison classroom, and was both the person delivering the manipulation and the main observer, so her reports could be biased. Performance changes were not rigorously measured. Researchers treat it as a quasi-experimental illustration: vivid evidence of what can happen, useful for illustrating mechanisms that other studies establish, but not evidence about effect sizes.
How does the blue eyes brown eyes exercise relate to stereotype threat?
The exercise anticipated stereotype threat, the drop in performance that comes from expecting to be judged through a negative stereotype. Elliott reported that children did worse on timed classroom drills on the day they were labeled inferior. Steele and Aronson named the phenomenon in 1995. The case is striking because the children knew the label had just been invented, suggesting belief in a stereotype is not required for it to affect performance.
What are the ethical criticisms of Jane Elliott's experiment?
The main ethical criticisms are that it deliberately caused distress to young children and, in its original form, lacked informed consent from parents. A modern review board would scrutinize both. Elliott later ran adult versions with teachers, trainees, and civic groups, which ease the consent problem but risk re-traumatizing participants who already face discrimination. Interviews with former pupils over the decades suggest lasting changes in how they think about fairness, authority, and difference.

About the Advanced Social Psychology course

How many college credits is Advanced Social Psychology?
Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
How much does Advanced Social Psychology cost and what is included?
$250, paid once, with lifetime access: all 85 video lessons, a practice quiz after each, the graded work and final exam, and an official transcript when you finish. Students who want several courses choose UPI Study PRO instead.
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
UPI Study has signed partner agreements with universities such as Thomas Edison State University, University of the People and Charter Oak State College, and works with universities such as Penn State, SNHU and SUNY. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities. Use "Find my college" on this page to check yours.
How long does Advanced Social Psychology take?
It is self-paced with no deadlines. The 85 lessons total about 15 hours of video; most students add reading and practice time and finish in a few weeks to a few months, on their own schedule.
How are the exams done?
Quizzes and assignments are online in the course. The final exam is taken online with proctoring; a person on the UPI Study team checks assignments, usually within two days.
How do my credits reach my college?
When the course shows 100% complete, request the official transcript from your dashboard. It is sent to the college you name, and you can send it to more than one. Check your college first with "Find my college" on this page, or ask Athena.

Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Advanced Social Psychology.

85 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.

Enroll in Advanced Social Psychology →Download the syllabusEvery course with PRO →
Advanced Social Psychology
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →