Preferences for pink & blue were tested in children aged 4–11 years in three small‐scale societies; pairing of female & ping seems a cultural phenomenon & is not driven by an essential preference for pink in girls

Cultural Components of Sex Differences in Color Preference. Jac T. M. Davis  Ellen Robertson  Sheina Lew‐Levy  Karri Neldner  Rohan Kapitany  Mark Nielsen  Melissa Hines. Child Development, January 21 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13528

Abstract: Preferences for pink and blue were tested in children aged 4–11 years in three small‐scale societies: Shipibo villages in the Peruvian Amazon, kastom villages in the highlands of Tanna Island, Vanuatu, and BaYaka foragers in the northern Republic of Congo; and compared to children from an Australian global city (total N = 232). No sex differences were found in preference for pink in any of the three societies not influenced by global culture (ds − 0.31–0.23), in contrast to a female preference for pink in the global city (d = 1.24). Results suggest that the pairing of female and pink is a cultural phenomenon and is not driven by an essential preference for pink in girls.

3 Discussion

We found no significant differences between boys’ and girls’ preference for pink in three small‐scale societies in Peru, Vanuatu, and the northern Congo. We found that girls liked pink more than boys did in a global city, confirming earlier research (Jonauskaite et al., 2019; Mohebbi, 2014; Weisgram et al., 2014; Yeung & Wong, 2018). These results support theories that link color preferences to individual experience (Palmer & Schloss, 2010) and gender cognitions (Bem, 1981; Carter & Levy, 1988; Liben & Bigler, 2002; Martin & Halverson, 1981). That is, culture, not inherent biological dispositions, influences the gender difference in children’s preference for pink.

Our findings contradict essentialist positions that pink is linked to female gender through neural color processing or through evolved preferences linked to foraging or mate choices (Alexander, 2003; Ellis & Ficek, 2001; Hurlbert & Owen, 2015). Supporting our findings, other research indicates that children are not born with sex differences in their color preferences, and that infants show no sex differences in preference for pink until they reach at least 2.5 years of age (Franklin, Gibbons, Chittenden, Alvarez, & Taylor, 2012; Jadva et al., 2010; LoBue & DeLoache, 2011; Wong & Hines, 2015; Zemach et al., 2007). Additionally, some studies of adults in societies with limited access to global culture have found no female preference for pink (Groyecka et al., 2019; Sorokowski et al., 2014), although, as noted before, the female preference for pink over blue may be characteristic of children, rather than adults. Thus, our findings provide additional evidence that the pairing of female and pink is a cultural phenomenon and is not innate.

Results suggest that color preferences are the behavioral expression of a complex interaction between underlying biology and cultural context. Genetic, hormonal, and neural indications may predispose children to display gendered behaviors and preferences, such as color preferences (Arnold, 2009; De Vries & Simerly, 2002; Hines, 2010), but the specific expression of these preferences, such as a female preference for pink, may be learned from cultural setting and individual experience (Bandura, 2002; Carter & Levy, 1988; Martin & Ruble, 2004; Palmer & Schloss, 2010). Children in all cultures are exposed to gender role information that influences their preferences and behavior, but not all cultures include information about the color pink. In our study, male and female roles were well defined and separate in the Vanuatu kastom culture (Douglas, 2002; Lindstrom, 2008), while BaYaka (Lewis, 2017) and Shipibo (Hern, 1992) villages were traditionally egalitarian for men and women, although still with typical male and female activities (Ember & Ember, 2003). However, pink was not used in these societies as a marker for female gender. In contrast, in many industrialized settings, boys and girls grow up surrounded by gender color‐coding in marketing, toys, clothing, room decorations, and online (Auster & Mansbach, 2012; Black, Tomlinson, & Korobkova, 2016; Cunningham & Macrae, 2011; Koller, 2008; LoBue & DeLoache, 2011; Pomerleau et al., 1990; Weisgram et al., 2014). Social and cognitive theories would predict that children absorb and integrate this gender color‐coding with a wealth of other gender role information that influences them to show gender differences in color preferences. Indeed, our results suggest that it is cultural norms that influence children’s adoption of gendered preferences and behaviors, such as a female preference for pink.

The specific patterns of color preference seen in our study further suggest that global culture, as well as influencing girls to prefer pink, may influence boys to avoid it. We found that in three small‐scale societies, boys and girls were equally likely to choose a pink option over a blue one. But we found that, like boys in other large industrialized cities (Chiu et al., 2006; Jonauskaite et al., 2019; Mohebbi, 2014; Weisgram et al., 2014; Zentner, 2001), in a large Australian city, boys avoided pink options. This finding supports previous reports that children avoid culturally defined opposite‐sex behaviors (Golombok et al., 2008; Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2007). Previous research additionally finds that boys increasingly avoid pink choices with age (LoBue & DeLoache, 2011; Wong & Hines, 2015), and this pattern appeared in the boys from our City sample but not in any small‐scale samples, supporting the view that culture may influence boys to avoid girl‐type activities in general and pink specifically. Thus, our findings, in combination with previous research, suggest that the pairing of pink with female gender in global culture might influence boys to avoid options that are colored pink.

It is important to address the cultural bias of color‐coding items for boys and girls. Multiple researchers have suggested that gender‐coding toys by color may affect child development (Martin & Halverson, 1981; Weisgram et al., 2014; Wong & Hines, 2015; Yeung & Wong, 2018). For example, differences in boys’ and girls’ play with toys, that are usually color coded, have been hypothesized to cause sex differences in adult social and spatial skills (Auster & Mansbach, 2012; Martin & Halverson, 1981; Pomerleau et al., 1990). Additionally, cross‐cultural research suggests that sex differences in adult social and spatial skills may also relate to culture (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010; Henrich et al., 2012; Trumble, Gaulin, Dunbar, Kaplan, & Gurven, 2016; Vashro & Cashdan, 2015). Together, this evidence suggests that color‐coding items for boys and girls are not only unnecessary, but may be constraining, as children use these cues to signal what they may be interested in, and what they may want to avoid.

Our study combined children’s responses to red and pink. This choice followed essentialist research that tends to group red with pink as “reddish hues” when explaining sex differences in color preference (Hurlbert & Owen, 2015). Yet, as described in non‐essentialist research (Javda et al., 2010), toys marketed to boys tend to be blue and red, and those marketed to girls tend to be pink, so there may be a cultural reason to consider pink separately from more general “reddish hues.” Our study’s results indicated that sex differences are likely related to the specific color pink, and not to reddish hues in general. Although essentialist viewpoints tend to group pink with red according to hue, our results suggest instead that pink is a separate color that functions as a cultural marker for female gender.

This research investigated children’s preference for pink in small‐scale societies with limited access to global culture via mass media, mass communication, and mass‐produced children’s toys. Results suggested that the pairing of female and pink is a cultural phenomenon and is not driven by an essential preference for pink in girls. Instead, children showed a diversity of preferences with culture. This diversity points to the complex flexibility of underlying biology to drive the development of sex‐typed color preferences in non‐essential, context‐appropriate ways.