Schyler Hoard

Professor Lauer

Developmental Psychology

21 April 2022

Research Review on Cultural Components of Sex Differences in Color Preference

Section 1: Summary

As gender exists as a culturally constructed schema that is ever-present and unavoidable, its exploration from a developmental psychological perspective is necessary. Gender permeates the inner workings of human society on smaller daily scales, through larger historical frames across time, and individualistically, throughout every human lifespan. The need to understand the impact of gender through these general scopes provides preliminary foundation for research that is situated between gender and childhood development. This is why, superficially, developmental psychologist Jac T.M. Davis and their colleagues conducted in-depth research and analysis with their study and article, Cultural Components of Sex Differences in Color Preference.

Cultural Components of Sex Differences in Color Preference commences by delineating the  divided discourse concerning the use of the color pink as an indicator of female gender and femininity within practically every large sector of human society: academic, in government, and in pop and general culture. As this divide is supported with previous research, it becomes increasingly clear that the question lying at the core of this debate is centered around whether pink as a seemingly female-correlated color preference is caused by cultural influence or an innate desire? Further, are these apparent sex differences in color preferences due to a true female gravitation to pink, or to a male-avoidance of pink in its entirety?

The particular question of the innate nature of color preferences in the context of gender is important as prior to the research presented in this article, there already existed a wide array of analysis, research, studies, and theories that either supported or argued against this innate nature. Davis and their colleagues outline differentiating evidence for two leading psychological perspectives on color preference as an innate trait, explaining that some researchers advocate for an essentialist theory while others (non-essentialists), do not. As essentialism is defined as a theory that states certain groups and categorizations have an inherent, self-evident internal essence, it can be applied to the debate on sex differences and color preferences through a lens that argues for biological and evolutionary processes that have made women inherently predisposed to the color pink. Essentialist theories such as the cone-contrast theory and the hypothesis that pink as a preference for women is a biological adaptation, suggest that individual neural differences in visual perception and early hunter-gatherer and mating behavior focused on red hues for female humans, provide sufficient reasoning for why sex-related color preference is rooted within the genetics of gender and not in culture. However, as this research has only been performed on adults and not infants and children, it is difficult for developmental psychologists to determine the full extent of this innate theory across the human lifespan.

Contrasting non-essentialist theories thus supplement and provide for the other components that make the debate on sex differences with color preferences such an enriching conversation. Theories upholding non-essentialist views include schema theory and ecological valence theory. Schema theory posits that social and global culture directly and heavily influence children’s formation of gender schemas, in which they constantly consume media, messages and environmental interactions that associate female gender with the color pink, thus causing children to subconsciously form constructed ideas of pink and femininity and how they should act accordingly. Likewise, ecological valence theory is similar to schema theory in that it prioritizes the importance of experience in terms of the development of gender and the ideas surrounding it, but it is dissimilar as it upholds that color preference is due to pleasant experience, and thus, has less to do with gender. Regardless, the research conducted in this article appears to generally advocate for a non-essentialist approach, fixating on the extent of experience and exposure to global culture as a launching point for exploring female-associative preferences for pink and sex differences.

Global culture may be defined as the flow of mass media, mass-communication and mass-production that incorporates gendered color preferences. Thus, in order to emphasize the “global” nature of the “global” culture which they were investigating, Davis and their colleagues looked at four distinct children’s populations that spanned the Western to Eastern hemispheres: 1) Shipibo people of Lake Imiria, Peru, 2) BaYaka people of northern Republic of the Congo, 3) Kastom villagers of Tanna Island, Vanuatu, and 4) children in the Brisbane City, Australia. The Shipibo, BaYaka, and Kastom villagers contrasted with the children in Brisbane City, Australia, as via the parameters of the research, these people and their locations were remote and far-removed from the global, polarizing, gendered, and industrialized cultures of metropolitan cities such as Brisbane. Using Brisbane as a reference, the children of the Shipibo, BaYaka, Kastom village, and Brisbane City populations were asked their color preference using translators (except for Brisbane) and five pairs of color-contrasting red and blue hued stimuli in the form of laminated cards (ie; pink and blue, red and blue, pink and pale blue etc.). While being questioned, researchers took into account factors such as the number of participants, their ages, the places and customs of the children’s communities, the amount of education the children received/were receiving, their proximity to urban centers, the extent of mass media, communication, and production within their societies, and, the culture-specific understandings of gender.  

As this research analyzed multiple factors and variables in relation to the complexity between color-preference, gender, sex difference, and global culture, the results proved to be simplistic and straight-forward. Statistical analysis supported that there was no significant difference for preferences between the colors pink and blue between male and female children in the Shipibo, BaYaka, and Kastom village populations - all which had no access to global culture and no exposure to cultural norms that associated pink color and female gender. By comparison, Brisbane City, the only population to have full exposure to global culture and color associative gender norms, did see a significant difference between color preferences and gender: girls seemed to prefer pink and boys seemed to prefer blue. Further, as Brisbane City was the only population to demonstrate these significant sex differences, follow-up research revealed that an interesting cause of this phenomenon may be due to boys within the population producing significant avoidance of the color pink, rather than girls simply having more preference for the color.

Based on the candid results, the authors of this study concluded that associating the color pink with female gender is a product of cultural influence and phenomena, and therefore, is not an innate trait. In aligning with this conclusion, the implications of these findings can encourage the leaders of other societal sectors other than research and academia to critically consider how normalized interpretations of visual imagery, color, and cultural bias can affect child development. As this research roots itself in analyzing the effects of global culture, these results can help change global culture to make it less divisive, more open-minded, and more welcoming of variation in personal identities that involve gender.

Section 2: Critique

While reviewing Cultural Components of Sex Differences in Color Preference, I began to think critically about how this study approached the nuances of such a complex task as researching color preferences and sex differences on a global scale. Though I generally appreciated the majority of how the study was conducted and the choices the authors made, I could not help but question the ambiguity of the phrase “global culture” and the nature of the conclusive claim that culture, not innateness, is the primary cause for female preferences for pink.

I would first like to critique the ambiguity of the phrase “global culture”. Throughout this article, this term was used as a key frame of reference as the research analyzed the proximity of some small-scale societies to global culture at large. Understanding the accessibility of a restricted society to global culture is necessary for understanding the relationship between how the extent of exposure to color preference gender norms can affect whether sex differences among color preferences arise. Thus, having a refined understanding of what is defined as “global culture” and what that details is necessary for clearer research and supporting arguments.

As this logic follows, the issue with the definition of “global culture” as described in this article is that there was no clear definition provided. Davis and their colleagues appear to provide context by first suggesting that mass media, mass communication, mass production and the promotion of female gender and pink color associations, all entail global culture. However, this definition proves to be malleable as the article progresses. As Brisbane City is aligned within the same scope of reference as global culture, readers of this research can start to expound upon this already vague definition by incorporating elements such as industrialization, urbanization, and education, and even Westernization, as well. Expounding upon an obscure definition such as this is problematic as any one of these minor components making up the entirety of a global culture can be varied and subject to interpretation - what forms of media are included in mass media? What forms of media are not included? Is industrialization only defined by large-scale societies? Can small-scale societies still be industrialized despite having less access to modern technology and “global” infrastructures? Questions such as these are ones I propose when thinking about the variability of global culture as such a necessary and framing element of this research - a more structured definition would lend itself to less questioning and less leeway for critiques on the credibility of the study as well.

Furthermore, I would also like to critique the nature of the conclusion that culture, not an innate trait, is responsible for sex differences in color preferences and the associations of pink and femininity. I make this critique because while I agree that the research was sufficient enough to draw reliable conclusions, I do not think that the conclusions and follow-up discussion addressed how culture influences these sex differences. Although addressing the “how” of this psychological debate was not the central goal of this research, it needs to be extended, especially because the authors acknowledged in the “Discussion” section of the article that while gendered color preferences are not innate, they are behavioral expressions of biological predispositions that encourage children to portray themselves according to culturally constructed genders. As this is acknowledged, it should be more comprehensive, as it goes slightly beyond the scope of research and into the biological and genetic mechanisms that explain the “how” of why cultural influences cause a gendered color preference phenomenon.

Section 3: Follow-Up Study

In order to propose a hypothetical follow-up study, I would extend the research within the article by asking whether the phenomenon of culture influencing color preferences changes between Western and Non-Western cultures? Further, is the cultural association between pink and female gender reflective of all global cultures, or only within Western ones?

I am motivated to propose this study because the prior research conducted by Davis and their colleagues in Cultural Components of Sex Differences in Color Preference, uses Brisbane City, Australia as a holistic frame of reference for defining any other industrialized cultures removed from and outside of the three remote, un-globalized populations (Shipibo, BaYaka, Katsom village) used in their study. It is important to make note that while Brisbane City, Australia is used as an example of a “global culture” that these authors were measuring against, its “globalness” is still conflated with its Westernization and white dominance. These are factors that are necessary to consider, as “global cultures'' exist all across the world in different forms - in which many are Non-Westernized - and exploring these factors in a follow-up study will only add to the diversity within research and the solidification of the authors’ initial conclusions.

Through a similar method, I would propose to either use the same participants (Shipibo, BaYaka, Kastom Village, Brisbane City populations) in addition to two Non-Westernized cities or populations that represent a global culture; or to use populations that are all global cultures with some Westernized and some not. This would look like, for example, using children from Brisbane City and London as Western populations, and using Tokyo, Japan, Lagos, Nigeria, and Seoul, South Korea as Non-Western populations. As I am still measuring the innateness of gendered color preferences to come degree, I would keep the other parameters as defined in the initial research the same (ie; the number of participants, their ages, the places and customs of the children’s communities, the amount of education the children received/were receiving, their proximity to urban centers, the extent of mass media, communication, and production within their societies, and, the culture-specific understandings of gender).

Seeing as Davis and their colleagues concluded preliminary findings that stated that sex differences for color preference do arise in global culture-exposed areas, I would initially predict that these findings would be consistent with global culture-exposed areas that are Non-Westernized, as I am aiming to research. However, I am not entirely confident that this would be the case, and also predict that there may be a chance that some of the Non-Western global cultures would instead be consistent with the remote cultures that were not exposed in the original study (Shipibo, BaYaka, Kastom Village). I think that a result such as this would be due to culture-specific norms superseding generalized gender norms, as the cities I proposed -  Tokyo, Japan, Lagos, Nigeria, and Seoul, South Korea - are all similar as they are Non-Western and industrialized, but moreso different as so much of their individual population identity and norms is due to their specific cultures.

I would hope that the hypothetical findings concluded from this follow-up study would provide insight into how psychology can change over time and across cultures.  

References

Davis, Jac T., et al. “Cultural components of sex differences in color preference.” Child Development, vol. 92, no. 4, 2021, pp. 1574–1589, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13528.