Pink and Blue revisited
Steve Connor (UK Independent) is only one of dozens of reporters this week misreporting the results of Hurlbert and Ling's (2007) study on sex differences in color preferences. The authors state in the abstract that "there is no conclusive evidence for the existence of sex differences in color preference." While they did find that more male college students preferred blues while female college students preferred reds, they also admit that "while these differences may be innate, they may also be modulated by cultural context or individual experience" -- going on to note that Chinese subjects preferred red more than British Caucasian ones.
Many news sources are reporting this study as a genetic difference in color preference. The authors hypothesize about evolutionary reasons they might have gotten these results, such as hunter/gatherer theory and socio-sexual facial color cues. This is not the same as testing the subjects' genes. In fact, they don't mention even testing the subjects (n = 208) for normal color vision, although they apparently gave some of them the Bem Sex Role Inventory -- surprisingly, men who fit cultural sterotypes of masculinity also prefer blue to red.
I can't even begin on this one. Luckily, I already wrote it, in January, when I pointed out that the pink/blue dichotomy has not been consistent historically, and still isn't in Belgium, according to Color Matters. Instead, I'll give you part of the discussion section, which I'm sure you'll enjoy:girls’ preference for pink may have evolved on top of a natural, universal preference for blue. We speculate that this sex difference arose from sex-specific functional specializations in the evolutionary division of labour. The hunter-gatherer theory proposes that female brains should be specialized for gathering-related tasks .... facilitate the identification of ripe, yellow fruit or edible red leaves embedded in green foliage .... An alternative explanation for the evolution of trichromacy is the need to discriminate subtle changes in skin color due to emotional states and social-sexual signals; again, females may have honed these adaptations for their roles as care-givers and ‘empathizers’.
Many news sources are reporting this study as a genetic difference in color preference. The authors hypothesize about evolutionary reasons they might have gotten these results, such as hunter/gatherer theory and socio-sexual facial color cues. This is not the same as testing the subjects' genes. In fact, they don't mention even testing the subjects (n = 208) for normal color vision, although they apparently gave some of them the Bem Sex Role Inventory -- surprisingly, men who fit cultural sterotypes of masculinity also prefer blue to red.
I can't even begin on this one. Luckily, I already wrote it, in January, when I pointed out that the pink/blue dichotomy has not been consistent historically, and still isn't in Belgium, according to Color Matters. Instead, I'll give you part of the discussion section, which I'm sure you'll enjoy:girls’ preference for pink may have evolved on top of a natural, universal preference for blue. We speculate that this sex difference arose from sex-specific functional specializations in the evolutionary division of labour. The hunter-gatherer theory proposes that female brains should be specialized for gathering-related tasks .... facilitate the identification of ripe, yellow fruit or edible red leaves embedded in green foliage .... An alternative explanation for the evolution of trichromacy is the need to discriminate subtle changes in skin color due to emotional states and social-sexual signals; again, females may have honed these adaptations for their roles as care-givers and ‘empathizers’.