Introduction
The “Blue Eye, Brown Eye” experiment is one of the most famous and controversial studies of the 20th century. Jane Elliot is the person who is generally associated with this test – she was the first teacher to conduct it on children. Although the experiment provided valuable insight into the psychology of discriminative behavior, it has also caused substantial criticism regarding its ethics. Modern scientific standards have been developed to the point where this experiment cannot be replicated under contemporary ethical principles. Understanding what ethical standards were violated by the “Blue Eye, Brown Eye” experiment is essential in ascertaining possible ways of replicating it with higher regard for morality.
Unethical Aspects of the Experiment
There are two primary factors that make this experiment unethical. The first one is the psychological damage done to participating children. The entire premise that made this experiment meaningful was the opportunity to sense negativity directly. Elliot was pursuing pedagogical values when conducting the experiment. However, the most effective way to influence children to change their perception of discrimination was to place them in conditions where they could feel the entirety of negativity stemming from prejudices. As one of the participants of the experiment noted, every child felt intense emotions during the test (A class divided, 48:45). This setup violates the first principle of research with children – non-harmful procedures, which explicitly states that “the investigator should use no research procedure that may harm the child either physically or psychologically” (SRCD Governing Council, 2007, p. 1). However, the experience of negativity was the entire purpose of the experiment.
The second problem was the lack of appropriate consent from the participants. Elliot used her position as a teacher to create the setup for the experiment. However, children were not aware of what kind of psychological impact participation in the experiment would lead to. Principle 2 clearly states that “the investigator should inform the child of all features of the research that may affect his or her willingness to participate” (SRCD Governing Council, 2007, p. 1). Furthermore, the age of children may prevent them from fully comprehending the consequences of participation, which was also not taken into account by Elliot.
Possible Changes
The first change is preventing psychological harm to children by reminding them of the fictitious nature of the scenario. Over the course of the experiment, Elliot was consistent in her role as a discriminating teacher, which put pressure on children who could not distinguish between a game and a real situation. Simple reminders of the real nature of the experiment would help ease the pressure on children, possibly preventing psychological harm.
The second change would be to seek proper consent from both children and their parents. When explaining the rules of the test, the teacher does not inform the children of potential repercussions (A class divided, 4:22). Instead, it would be more ethical to explain the potential impact of the experiment on children’s mental health and acquire the consent of their parents. This change would prevent some children from exposure to stress that they were not prepared to handle.
In all likelihood, the changes would still lead to the same conclusion. Children are vulnerable to impressions, which is why games are effective in communicating with them. In the original experiment, Elliot did explain the rules to children even though she did not elaborate on the specifics of the possible psychological impact. Nevertheless, the children perceived the rules of the experiment as real. Therefore, the addition of reminders would not break the immersion and still teach the lesson.
Conclusion
Altogether, it should be evident that the original experiment did not account for ethical principles of scientific conduct involving children. Specifically, the experiment caused the participants to experience negativity, while the teacher did not acquire proper informed consent. Addressing these problems with reminders of the fictitious nature of the experiment and explaining the rules to children and parents would make it more ethical. Meanwhile, the results would likely be the same due to the highly impressionable nature of children.
References
A class divided(n.d.). Web.
SRCD Governing Council. (2007). Ethical standards for research with children. Web.