Biological components of sex differences in color preference

Hurlbert, Anya; Ling, Yazhu

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.022

Cited by 349 publications

(505 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

439

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Differences in colour preferences between males and females have also been demonstrated (Saito, 1994;Saito, 1996;Saito, 1999;Hurlbert & Ling, 2007); as have differences in unique-hue judgments for yellow and red (Kuehni, 2001). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Sex-related differences in chromatic sensitivity

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link AbstractGenerally women are believed to be more discriminating than men in the use of colour names and this is often taken to imply superior colour vision. However, if both Xchromosome linked colour deficient males (~8%) and females (<1%) as well as heterozygote female carriers (~15%) are excluded from comparisons, then differences between men and women in red-green colour discrimination have been reported as not being significant (e.g., Pickford, 1944;Hood et al., 2006). We re-examined this question by assessing the performance of 150 males and 150 females on the Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD)test (Rodriguez-Carmona, 2005). This is a sensitive test that yields small colour detection thresholds. The test employs direction-specific, moving, chromatic stimuli embedded in a background of random, dynamic, luminance contrast noise. A four-alternative, forced-choice

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Sex-related differences in chromatic sensitivity

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The EVT is related to but is different from both previous theories. Consistent with Humphrey's (9) and Hurlbert and Ling's (10,11) ideas, the EVT is grounded on the premise that human color preferences are fundamentally adaptive: People are more likely to survive and reproduce successfully if they are attracted to objects whose colors "look good" to them and avoid objects whose colors "look bad" to them. This ecological heuristic will, in fact, be adaptive, provided that how good/bad colors look reflects the degree to which objects that characteristically have those colors are advantageous/disadvantageous to the organism's survival, reproductive success, and general well-being.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Hurlbert and Ling (10) reported findings that they interpreted as support for the kind of evolutionary/behaviorally adaptive theory of color preferences that Humphrey suggested would arise based on behavioral adaptations. They suggested that color preferences are wired into the human visual system as weightings on cone-opponent neural responses that arose from evolutionary selection.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…They suggested that color preferences are wired into the human visual system as weightings on cone-opponent neural responses that arose from evolutionary selection. Their hypothesis is essentially that the color vision system adapted to improve performance on evolutionarily important behavioral tasks (e.g., females finding ripe red fruits and berries against green leaves) and that genetic tuning to optimize such behaviorally significant discriminations resulted in preferences for the colors of those objects against the colors of their backgrounds, independent of their original context (10,11).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hurlbert and Ling (10) analyzed their preference data in terms of the two cardinal dimensions of opponent cone-contrasts: the LM-axis (L-M) that runs roughly from red to blue-green and the S-axis [S-(L+M)], that runs roughly from violet to yellow-green (12,13), where "S," "M," and "L" refer to the outputs of short-, medium-, and long-wavelength cone types, respectively. The conecontrast model explained 70% of the variance in Hurlbert and Ling's preference data on a limited gamut of colors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An ecological valence theory of human color preference

Palmer

Schloss

2010

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

507

778

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Color preference is an important aspect of visual experience, but little is known about why people in general like some colors more than others. Previous research suggested explanations based on biological adaptations [Hurlbert AC, Ling YL (2007) Curr Biol 17:623–625] and color-emotions [Ou L-C, Luo MR, Woodcock A, Wright A (2004) Color Res Appl 29:381–389]. In this article we articulate an ecological valence theory in which color preferences arise from people’s average affective responses to color-associated objects. An empirical test provides strong support for this theory: People like colors strongly associated with objects they like (e.g., blues with clear skies and clean water) and dislike colors strongly associated with objects they dislike (e.g., browns with feces and rotten food). Relative to alternative theories, the ecological valence theory both fits the data better (even with fewer free parameters) and provides a more plausible, comprehensive causal explanation of color preferences.

show abstract

References

2023

Aesthetics in Digital Photography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological components of sex differences in color preference

Cited by 349 publications

References 12 publications

Sex-related differences in chromatic sensitivity

Sex-related differences in chromatic sensitivity

An ecological valence theory of human color preference

References

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About