The Sciences

Did Boys Use To Wear Pink? Revisited

Neuroskeptic iconNeuroskepticBy NeuroskepticJul 2, 2017 2:37 PM

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news
 

Five years ago I blogged about the debate over whether the blue-for-boys, pink-for-girls color convention used to be the other way around. My post focused on a 2012 paper by psychologist Marco Del Giudice arguing that the idea of a cultural "pink–blue reversal" in the English-speaking world in the early 20th century is a myth. Now, Del Giudice has published an 'update' revisiting the issue. Based on text data from late 19th and early 20th century American newspapers and magazines, Del Giudice says that there's still no evidence that pink-for-boys, blue-for-girls was ever the dominant pattern. Del Giudice admits however that the periodicals do reveal that in the period before 1920, both blue-for-boys, pink-for-girls and the reverse scheme were mentioned, roughly equally often. In other words, the genders of these colors were inconsistent before this point.

However, Americanbooks from the same period (and afterwards) overwhelmingly mentioned blue-for-boys, pink-for-girls. There were negligible mentions of the reverse scheme.

British books showed a similar pattern. Del Giudice says that he's not sure how to interpret this discrepancy between books and newspapers/magazines. I wonder if it reflects differences in the demographics of periodical vs. book authors during this period? Del Giudice concludes that overall, there is still no evidence for a "pink–blue reversal", although the situation before 1920 may have been somewhat complex. This seems sensible to me. In the second part of the new paper, Del Giudice discusses cross-cultural evidence of a female preference for pinker hues, although he acknowledges that the evidence on this topic mostly comes from small studies. Del Giudice goes on to review possible evolutionary explanations of a sex-based color preference, though he says that these hypotheses are "rather speculative and may well be incorrect." I have to say that they do seem like just-so stories to me, taking a historically contingent fact and working backwards to explain how it plays a biological function:

The color red is implicated in sexual choice in many animal species; in humans, skin redness is a cue of health and attractiveness and - intriguingly - has a sexually dimorphic distribution, with men showing higher average levels of redness than women... This raises the possibility that women may be more sensitive than men to skin redness in potential sexual partners... The skin of newborns and infants also shows elevated redness compared with that of adults and takes a pink coloration in areas that are especially rich in capillary loops (e.g.,cheeks). Preferences for red and pink may be partly linked to female preferences for babies.

1 free article left
Want More? Get unlimited access for as low as $1.99/month

Already a subscriber?

Register or Log In

1 free articleSubscribe
Discover Magazine Logo
Want more?

Keep reading for as low as $1.99!

Subscribe

Already a subscriber?

Register or Log In

More From Discover
Recommendations From Our Store
Shop Now
Stay Curious
Join
Our List

Sign up for our weekly science updates.

 
Subscribe
To The Magazine

Save up to 70% off the cover price when you subscribe to Discover magazine.

Copyright © 2023 Kalmbach Media Co.