Content uploaded by Marco Del Giudice
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marco Del Giudice on Oct 08, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Pink, Blue, and Gender: An Update
Marco Del Giudice
1
Received: 16 June 2017 / Accepted: 21 June 2017 / Published online: 29 June 2017
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017
The role of pink and blue as gender markers is a source of end-
less fascination for both academics and the broader public. Five
years ago I documented how a narrative that I labeled the‘‘pink–
blue reversal’’(PBR) had become entrenched in contemporary
culture (Del Giudice, 2012). The PBR maintains that, in the U.S.,
pink was associated with malesand blue with females until the
1940s, when the convention underwent a rapid and complete
reversal. At the time, the PBR was treated as established fact
in the media and the scientific literature. However, its originator—
American Studies researcher Jo Paoletti—never argued that the
convention was reversed prior to the 1940s, but only that it was
inconsistent (Paoletti, 1987,1997,2012). I suggested that this
disconnectbetween the reports and the original claim qualified
the PBR as a scientific urban legend. I also noted that the idea
that gendercoding had been inconsistentprior to the 1940s was
based on a handful of quotes from newspapers and magazines,
and performed a more systematic searchin the extensive book
database provided bythe Google Books NgramViewer (https://
books.google.com/ngrams). The search failed to identify any
inconsistent associations (most likely, they were too few to be
included in the Ngramcorpus), but returned many occurrences
of the standard convention of‘‘blue for boys’’and ‘‘pink for girls’’
between 1880 and 1980. Based on this finding, I suggested that
even Paoletti’s original argument might have been overstated,
and noted that the gender associations of pink and blue appeared
to have been more stable than previously believed (Del Giudice,
2012). Even if the PBR as usually described never occurred, it
continues to be mentioned uncritically in academic papers (e.g.,
Al-Rasheed, 2015) as well as in the media—most recently in an
essay published in the New York Times (Miller, 2017).
The use of pink and blue in relation to gender is more than a
sociological curiosity. Some researcher s have suggested that sex-
differentiated color preferences may have a biological basis and
reflect evolved predispositions in addition to social learning
(Hurlbert & Ling, 2007); the PBR has been used to dismiss evo-
lutionary speculations on this topic as baseless‘‘just so stories’’
(e.g., Fine, 2010). Indeed, the idea of an evolved basis for pink
versus blue preferences is hard to reconcile with a rapid histori-
cal reversal, though it may be compatible with a phase of incon-
sistent or conflicting conventions. Investigating the biological
foundations of color preferences could reveal new facts about
the functioning of the human visual system and shedlight on
fascinating aspects of our cognitive and social evolution. It would
be unfortunate if progress in this area was hampered by the per-
sistence of inaccurate historical narratives.
Since the publication of my 2012 Letter, more sources of infor-
mation have becomeavailable and the existing ones have con-
siderably expanded. To begin, the 2009 corpus of the Ngram
Viewer was updated in 2012 to include more books (about 8
million compared with the initial 5 million) and correct early
problems with text recognition. The U.S. Library of Congress
offers Chronicling America, a searchable historical archive
of U.S. newspapers (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov). I learned
about this archive in a recent online discussion of pink-blue
coding (https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/38606/).
The coverage of Chronicling America has increased from about 5
million newspaper pages in 2012 to about 12 million today.
Finally, a recently created Wikipedia page compiles quotes about
the use of pink and blue as gender markers throughout history
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_sources_
for_pink_and_blue_as_gender_signifiers). Research on sex-
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(doi:10.1007/s10508-017-1024-3) contains supplementary material,
which is available to authorized users.
&Marco Del Giudice
marcodg@unm.edu
1
Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Logan
Hall, 2001 Redondo Dr. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA
123
Arch Sex Behav (2017) 46:1555–1563
DOI 10.1007/s10508-017-1024-3
differentiated color preferences and their development has also
made significant advances, with several relevant papers
published over the last few years. In this Letter, I update the
results of the 2012 search and supplement them with new data
on pink–blue gender coding in U.S. newspapers and magazines.
I then review some recent studies of color preferences and discuss
their potential biological implications. My goal is not to settle the
issue or provide definitive answers, but to stimulate further
reflection and highlight some promising directions for research.
I searched theGoogle BooksNgram Vieweron June 7, 2017,
using the 2012 American English corpus (identifier: google-
books-eng-us-all-20120701) and the 2012 British English cor-
pus (identifier: googlebooks-eng-gb-all-20120701). The follow-
ing search phrases were used (case insensitive): ‘‘pink for a girl,’’
‘‘blue for a boy,’’‘‘blue for a girl,’’‘‘pink for a boy,’’‘‘pink for girls,’’
‘‘blue for boys,’’‘‘blue for girls,’’‘‘pink for boys,’’‘‘pink for the
girls,’’‘‘blue for the boys,’’‘‘blue for the girls,’’ and‘‘pink for the
boys’’ (see Del Giudice, 2012). The search was repeated on six
20-year intervals spanning the range 1881–2000, with smooth-
ing set to 20 years to obtain the mean percentage of occurrences
over each time interval. Percentages were summed across search
phrases corresponding to the present-day standard convention
(pink =F, blue =M) and phrases corresponding to the reverse
convention (pink =M, blue =F). Finally, total percentages
were multiplied by 10
7
for readability. The results are shown in
Fig. 1(raw data are available as supplementary material).
In line with the original search reported in Del Giudice (2012),
English-language books showed virtually no evidence of either
reversed or inconsistent usage prior to the 1940s. The few
instancesof reverse gender coding were foundin the American
corpus and were all matches to the phrase‘‘blue for girls.’’Note
that this search was not predicated on the assumptions that all
matches found inthe Ngram corpora necessarilyrefer to gender
conventions, or that the chosen phrases correctly identified all
the relevant occurrences in the database. Instead, the point of the
search was to obtain a roughestimate of the relative frequency
of occurrences suggesting standard versus reverse coding, using
the same phrases but switching color terms to make the results
maximally comparable. One should also remember that the rep-
resentation of different kinds of books in the corpora (e.g., pro-
fessional texts, popular books, novels) is not constant over time;
for example, the proportion of scientific books in the Google
database increases steadily throughout the twentieth century
(Pechenick, Danforth, & Dodds, 2015). This limits the inferences
that can be drawn from the historical trends depicted in Fig.1.
Despite these limitations, the figure clearly shows an over-
whelming asymmetry in favor of the standard convention
throughout the period considered. Furthermore, the pattern of
occurrences is very similar in the U.S. and UK corpora, contra-
dicting the notion that pink–blue coding was especially incon-
sistent in North American culture.
For newspapers, I searched the Chronicling America data-
base on June 7, 2017. On that date, the database included
11,980,448 digitized pages spanning the period from 1789 to
1924. The search was performed with the string‘‘blue pink boy
girl,’’and returned 62 matches rangingfrom 1889 to 1922.Each
match was inspected individually, and the relevant text was
extracted and coded (see the Appendix section). Of the 62
matches returned by the search, 27 were unique, informative
quotes; 13 were duplicate quotes (articles or advertisements
reproduced verbatimin more than onenewspaper);and 22 were
uninformative matches unrelatedtogendercoding(notreported
here).The 27 unique quotes contained 14 instancesof standard
coding(pink =F, blue =M) and 14 instancesofreversecoding
(pink =M, blue =F; one of the quotes featured a debate between
proponents of opposite conventions). To further increase cover-
age, I supplemented the search results with additional quotes
from newspapers and popular magazines obtained from the
Wikipedia page cited above (also retrieved on June 7, 2017).
For consistency, quotes from scientific books and trade magazi-
nes were not included in the count. After removing duplicate
entries,the Wikipedia page provided 20 additional instancesof
standard coding and 14 additional instances of reverse coding
over the period 1881–1930 (see the Appendix section). In total,
the database of quotes from newspapers and magazines com-
prised 34 instances of standard coding and 28 instances of reverse
coding. The combined data are plotted in Fig. 2. While the num-
ber of occurrences in the figure is too small to draw confident con-
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
1881-1900 1901-1920 1921-1940 1941-1960 1961-1980 1981-2000
% occurrences 107
Pink-blue gender coding in English-language books
U.S.
UK
Pink = M, Blue = F
Pink = F, Blue = M
Fig. 1 Pink–blue gender codingin English-languagebooks (1881–2000).
Source Google Books Ngram Viewer. See the main text for details
0
2
4
6
8
10
1881-1890 1891-1900 1901-1910 1911-1920 1921-1930
Occurrences
Pink-blue gender coding in U.S. newspapers and magazines
Pink = M, Blue = F
Pink = F, Blue = M
Fig. 2 Pink–blue gender coding in U.S. newspapers and popula rm agazines
(1881–1930). Sources Chronicling America, Wikipedia. See the main text for
details
1556 Arch Sex Behav (2017) 46:1555–1563
123
clusions, the distribution of standard versus reversed gender
coding looks approximately even, at least until about 1920.
The discrepancy between thetwo searches raises an intrigu-
ing historical puzzle. While the PBR account remains unsup-
ported, quotes from newspapers and magazines suggest a pattern
of variable and/or conflicting conventions in the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries (see the Appendix section). How-
ever, the marked inconsistency observed in newspapers is virtu-
ally absent from the books published in the same period; instead,
the pattern found in books overwhelmingly conforms to the stan-
dard convention of pink for girls and blue for boys. It is notewor-
thy that Paoletti (1987) relied on excerpts from newspaper and
magazines to support her original argument (see Del Giudice,
2012). To summarize, there is evidence that, at least in the U.S.,
pink–blue gender coding showed a certain degree of inconsis-
tency (though not a reversal) between the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries; however, the true extent of that inconsistency
is still unclear,as different kinds of sourcesreturn dramatically
different pictures. A satisfactory account ofwhy the content of
newspapers and magazines diverges from that of books will
require in-depth investigation beyond the scope of this Letter.
Before moving on to the literature on color preferences, it is
important to ask whether the existence of sex-related biological
biases is compatible with any degree of inconsistency in gender
coding throughouthistory. I suggest that the answer is likely to
depend on the intensity of the putative biases: subtle differences
in aesthetic preferences between males and females may take a
relatively long time to drive the evolution of cultural norms,
resultingin an initial phaseof conflicting conventions followed
by a shift toward the preferred, stable equilibrium. In this regard,
it is interesting to note how fast the present convention of pink–
blue coding has spread across the world, seemingly encountering
little resistance even in non-Western cultures. Two additional
factors that are rarely considered in this context might have
further contributed to slow down the initial diffusion of what
has eventually become the established norm. First, the ability
of children to choose their own toys and clothes used to be much
more limited in the past; to the extent that those choices were pri-
marily made by mothers and other females (e.g., grandmothers),
they may have been partly shaped by female-typical biases regard-
less of the child’ssex. As an illustration,consider the following
quote:
That is the usual custom, pink for a girl, blue for a boy. Bu t
many mothers whoare fond of pinklet their babies wearit
whether they are boys or girls. (Evening Public Ledger,
December 30, 1919)
Second, color printing, textile dyeing, and other coloring
technologies made spectacular advances in the twentieth cen-
tury, allowing an ever-expanding range of bright and unusual
colors to be applied to mass-produced items (e.g., Nassau, 1998).
It is possible that the pink and blue hues available in the early
decades of the century were only imperfectly matched to evolved
preferences; as technology improved, the distance between
actual and preferred colors may have progressively narrowed,
amplifying the initial bias and eventually triggering a rapid tran-
sition toward a stable convention. If this is the case, the bright,
saturated pink and blues that are commonplace in today’s gen-
dered products might work as‘‘supernormal stimuli’’that exploit
a preexisting preference to trigger an exaggerated, evolution-
arily novel response (see Arak & Enquist, 1993; Barrett, 2010).
So what do we know about sex-differentiated color prefer-
ences? Ten years ago, the topic was brought under the spotlight
by Hurlbert and Ling (2007), who found a similar pattern in two
samples of British and Chinese participants—a strong female
preference for reddish-purple hues and a weaker male prefer-
ence for colors in the blue–green region. Hurlbert and Ling sug-
gested that their findings could be explained by evolved sex dif-
ferences in low-level visual processes such as cone-opponent
contrasts. The same general pattern of female preferences
fo r re dd ish -purple colors and (weaker) male preferences for blue
has emerged from large-scale analyses of color choices in
social media; females also tend to prefer brighter colors
across the board (Alowibdi, Buy, & Yu, 2013; Fortmann-Roe,
2013). While social learning clearly plays an important role in
the development of aesthetic preferences, sex differences in
this domain may be driven—at least in part—by biological pre-
dispositions that transcend the peculiarities of individual cultures.
Subsequent research has compared Western samples with
other populations,including the Yaliof Papua New Guinea,the
Himba of Namibia , as well as Japanese and Arab part icipants
(Al-Rasheed, 2015; Sorokowski, Sorokowska, & Witzel, 2014;
Taylor, Clifford, & Franklin, 2013; Witzel, 2015; Yokosawa,
Schloss, Asano, & Palmer, 2016). Research in this area is limited
by the small size of most samples, which—for the relevant com-
parisons—range from N=80 in Taylor et al. (2013)toN=308
in Sorokowski et al. (2014). In light of this, it is remarkable tha t a
common pattern of sex differences along a blue versus reddish-
purple gradient seems to emerge cross-culturally in most studies.
Commonalities become especially clear when sex differences are
analyzed while controlling for overall differences between cul-
tures (Witzel, 2015). The main contradictory finding in this area
comes from a study by Taylor et al. (2013), which found a
mixed pattern wit h stronger preference for red in Himba men;
however, this is also th e smallest study in the set, and replication
would be highly desirable. Taken together, cross-cultural studies
offer promising support for the existence of sex-related biases
that may have a biological origin, even if the low-level visual
processes emphasized by Hurlbert and Ling (2007) are probably
insufficient to explain the empirical findings (see Al-Rasheed,
2015; Sorokowski et al., 2014).
Turning to possible evolutionary explanations for sex-dif-
ferentiated color preferences, to my knowledge there has been
virtually no research on this topic after Hurlbert and Ling’s
contribution. They advanced two tentative hypotheses to explain
women’s preference for reddish-purple hues. First, perceptual
Arch Sex Behav (2017) 46:1555–1563 1557
123
specializatio ns for gathering (e.g., enhanc ed identification of
fruit against greenbackgrounds) may havebeen under stronger
selection in females (see also Alexander, 2003). Second, females
may have been selected for enhanced detection of emotional sig-
nals, some of which involve subtle changes in skin redness
(indicating changes in peripheral blood circulation).
While these particular hypotheses are rather speculative
and may well be incorrect, the general idea that reddish-purple
colors have a different signal value for males and females is far
from implausible. Consistent with Hurlbert and Ling’s sugges-
tions, there is evidence that both fruit detection and sensitivity
to social signals have shaped the evolution of trichro matic vision
in primates (Hiramatsu, Melin, Allen, Debuc, & Higham,
2017; Melin et al., 2014); they should not be discounted too
quickly as potential contributing factors. Thecolor red is impli-
cated in sexual choice in many animal species; in humans,
skin redness is a cue of health and attractiveness and—intrigu-
ingly—has a sexually dimorphic distribution, with men show-
ing higher average levels of redness than women (e.g., Hen-
derson et al., 2017; Pazda, Thorstenson, Elliot, & Perrett, 2016;
Re, Witehead, Xiao, & Perrett, 2011; Stephen, Oldham, Perrett,
&Barton,2012; Thorstenson, Pazda, Elliot, & Perrett, 2017).
This raises the possibility that women may be moresensitive
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) (Pie
´rard, Paquet,
&Pie
´rard-Franchimont, 2003). Preferences for red and pink
may be partly linked to female preferences for babies (Maestrip-
ieri & Pelka, 2002), especially if these colors relia bly signal in fant
health (Alexander, 2003). This explanation would be consistent
with the strong‘‘cute’’connotation of pink. I have been unable to
find out whether the sexual dimorphism in skin redness is
already present at birth—if so, average differences in skin
color between male and female babies might have suggested
an association between males and the color pink, which would
conflict with the female-pink association based on the direc-
tion of visual preferences. Note that my goal here is not to
advocate a particular hypothesis, but to point out that this promis-
ingareaofresearchhasyettobeexploredinanydetail.
If color preferences in adults are a robust phenomenon (what-
ever their ultimate cause), their development remains poorly under-
stood. Sex-differentiatedpreferences for pink and blueemerge
between 2 and 3 years of age;the strongest effects are observed
for pink, which becomes more attractive for girls but begins to
be activelyavoided by boys(Jadva, Hines, & Golombok, 2010;
LoBue & DeLoache, 2011; Wong & Hines, 2015). A study of
children with gender dysphoria (3–12 years old) found a pattern
of reversed preferences: gender-dysphoric boys preferred pink
and brighter shades of blue, whereas gender-dysphoric girls
avoided pink and tended to choose the darker blues. Interestingly,
when children explained their choices they almost neverreferred
to their preferred colors’ associations with gender (Chiu et al.,
2006). In toddlers, color preferences are temporally unstable and
largely uncorrelated with preferences for gender-typed toys,
which emerge very early and are already established before
9 months of age (Alexander, Wilcox, & Woods, 2009;Wong&
Hines, 2015).While this finding doesnot negate the possibility
of a biological influence, it suggests that the development of
color preferences follows a distinct and perhaps more complex
trajectory. In principle, it is evenpossible that earlypreferences
are mainlydue to socializationeffects (as suggestedby parent–
child correlations in Wong & Hines, 2015), whereas later pref-
erences increasingly come to reflectthe influence of unfolding
hormonal processes. If this were the case, children with sex-
atypical hormonal profiles should show systematic shifts in their
color preferences over time. The transition between early and
middle childhood is marked by the secretion of adrenal andro-
gens and the emergence or intensification of sex differences in
multiple domains (see Del Giudice, 2014); it would not be sur-
prising if this transition turned out to be an important node in the
development of color preferences. Clearly, there is more to pink
and blue than meets the eye—and a wealth of fascinating ques-
tions that we have barely started to answer.
Appendix: Quotes from Newspapers and Magazines
Unique Quotes (Chronicling America)
St. Paul Daily Globe, October 22, 1889. First and foremost there
is the basket, an elaborate affair of gilded wicker work upon a
stand just conveniently high for daily use. This is lined with
silk or satin, pure white or palest pink or blue— pink for boys
and blue for girls, the gossips say; but that’s a matter of taste.
[Pink = M, Blue = F]
Evening Star, September 20, 1890. Ribbons run in drawn work
are favorite ornaments on long dresses, white ribbons for the first
three months, afterward pink for a boy and blue for a girl—clover
pink for a blonde boy, and very pale blue for a dark baby girl.
[Pink = M, Blue = F]
The RoanokeTimes, November16, 1890. If any coloris used
for infants,let it be blue for boys and pink for girls. [Pink = F,
Blue = M]
The Sun, July03, 1892. Then theselater-day babiesmust not
be rocked, so say the physicians and nurses, and the old-time
cradle is replaced by a willow basket bed, which is covered with
lace-edged linen or lawn ruffles, and casings put on over pink
for a boy, or blue for a girl, according to the French fashion.
[Pink = M, Blue = F]
Lawrence Democrat, September 29,1893. Pink for a boy and
blue for a girl is a generally accepted dictum, though why nobody
quite knows, unless a boy’s outlook is so much more roseate that
the girl is fairly tipified by blue. [Pink = M, Blue = F]
The Salt Lake Herald, July 26, 1896. Again the celluloid toilet
articles will be in a delicate tint to match the basket ribbons,
1558 Arch Sex Behav (2017) 46:1555–1563
123
which are generally pink for a boy and blue for a girl. [Pink = M,
Blue = F]
The Daily Morning Journal and Courier, March 01, 1900.
‘‘Jennie, she told me not to put the border on until we knew,’’
again spreading out the jacket,‘‘for It’spink for a boy and blue
for a girl, you know, ma’am, and Jennie said it wasn’t right to
tempt Providence by selecting the wrong color.’’ [Pink = M,
Blue = F]
The Times, August 19, 1902.‘‘Please informme which is the
baby girl’sand which the babyboy’s color? Pinkis for boys and
blue for girls? Or vice versa?’’ REDDY. Blue for boysand pink
for girls. The question was settled more than forty-seven years
ago by Eugenie, Empress ofthe French, who had the layette, of
her hoped-for heir fitted up with blue. She refused to consider
the possibility that it would not be a son. [Pink = F, Blue = M]
The Evening World, July 26, 1905. Rosie.—Blue for boy
babies; pink for girls. [Pink = F, Blue = M]
The Morning Journal-Courier, October 22, 1908. Let it be
printed in colors, blue fur boys, pink for girls, yellow for twins, red,
white and blue for tr iplets, etc., to match the baby ribbo n with
which the cards inside are tied. [Pink = F, Blue = M]
The Tacoma Times, September 08, 1909. Dear Miss Grey:
What clothing is required for a new baby? And is blue for boys
and pink for girls? MRS. A. H. A.: […] Yes, blue is popularly
supposed to be the color for boys and pink for girls. [Pink = F,
Blue = M]
The Tacoma Times, May 17, 1910.‘‘Dear Miss Grey: (1) Is
Itbadlucktohaveone’sweddingringmadesmaller?(2)Which
is proper, Adele or Adelle? (3) Is pink a baby girl’s color?’’
READER. A.—(l) No. (2) Adele. (3) Pink for boys, and blue for
girls. [Pink = M, Blue = F]
University Missourian, June 28, 1910. Pink for Girls, Blue
for Boys. Mrs. Up-to-Date (in Infants’ Wear Department)—You
may send me this cap, please. Clerk—Yes, madam. Do you wish
the ribbons pinkor blue? Mrs.Up-to-Date—Oh, paleyellow, of
course! The dear little thing is a suffragette.—Judge. [Pink = F,
Blue = M]
The San Francisco Call, September 04, 1910. THERE are
many thingswhich can be embroidered or entirely made by the
clever aunt or best friend of the new arrival’s mother. Usually
they should be in white, although pink for a boy and blue for a
girl are also sanctioned. [Pink = M, Blue = F]
The Spokane Press, October 2 0, 1910. Blue for Boy; Pink for
Girl. Editor The Press: Which color stands for a boy baby, pink
or blue. [Pink = F, Blue = M]
The Evening World, September 12, 1911. We have literally
sold thousands of these tender, beautiful Pictures since they were
published in their original form. Now they appear in an attractive
panel style, artistically framed in blue (for boys), or pink (for
girls),also in gilt; with anappropriate verseby Burges Johnson.
[Pink = F, Blue = M]
El Paso Herald, December 11, 1912. Dear Miss Fairfax: To
settle an argument, would you kindly tel l what colors are used
for babies in sending out birth notices? Whether it is pink for
boys and blue for girls, or blue for boys and pink for Girls?
M. A. B. It is not important which color is used, but custom
has given blueto the girl baby and pink to the boy. [Pink = M,
Blue = F]
The Bridgeport Evening Farmer, March 17, 1913. Baby books
in complete variety at Jackson’s Book Shop, 986-988 Main Street,
blue for girls and pink for boys. [Pink = M, Blue = F]
The Washington Herald, June 01, 1914. Pink is the fashion-
ablecolorinbabylandnow.Theoldsayingwas,‘‘Pinkforagirl,
blue for a boy,’’ but as most of the exclusive baby outfitsprovided
by the special shops now are pink, one must conclude that as this
is the age of the feminists and the suffragists, pink for girls rules
the day. [Pink = F, Blue = M]
El Paso Herald, August 06, 1914. Dear Miss Fairfax: Will you
kindly tell me the color used for baby boys? Anxious Mother.
Pink is for boys.Blue for girls. It used to be just the opposite but
this arrangement seems more suitable. [Pink = M, Blue = F]
The Seattle Star, November 27, 1916. Q–A short time ago,
one of your readers asked you to tell them the proper color to
prepare in anticipation of a girl or a boy baby. You stated that
pink was forboys and blue for girls.This is not right. There is an
old Dutch legend that establishes that, and it means blue for boys
and pink for girls. D. D. A—According to the authorities at the
public library, the way thatI statedthe answer is correct. Pinkis
for boys and bluefor girls. This is an old Dutch custom. When a
boy baby was born, a pink ball was hung out, and when a girl baby
was born a blue ball was displayed. [Pink = F, Blue = M] 1
[Pink = M, Blue = F]
Norwich bulletin, September 09, 1916. A double faced Turkish
set consisting of a lap blanket, about one and one-half yard sq uare,
two face cloths and two bath towels can be purchased for one
dollar; pinkfor a girl, bluefor a boy, latest arrangementof colors
iscarriedoutinacrochetededgeoneachpieceanddaintycross
stitch design, one in each corner of the lap blanket and one on
each other article. [Pink = F, Blue = M]
Ottumwa Semi-weekly Courier, October 23, 1917. Make your
embroidery in white or a very delicate shade of pink or blue.
‘‘Blue for girls: pink for boys’’ holds good in these little‘‘affairs
of the heart.’’[Pink = M, Blue = F]
Evening Public Ledger, December 30, 1919. To the Editor
of Woman’s Page: Dear Madam—What colors are usually worn
by a girl baby, is it pink for a girl and blue fora boy? That is the
usual custom, pink for a girl, blue for a boy. But many mothers
who are fond of pink let their babies wear it whether they are boys
or girls. [Pink = F, Blue = M]
East Oregonian, December 27, 1919. Oh, shades of Polly
Chase, as the pink pajama girl, the blue pajama boy promises to
be the bright particular star of thissartorial season. [Pink = F,
Blue = M]
The Review, September 22, 1921. There wasn’t any question
about‘‘blue for a boy, pink for a girl.’’[In a column about the
behavior of baby turtles.] [Pink = F, Blue = M]
Arch Sex Behav (2017) 46:1555–1563 1559
123
The Bennington Evening Banner, May 03, 1922. In SWEA-
TERS, pink trimmed for the boy, blue for the girl [Advertise-
ment.] [Pink = M, Blue = F]
Duplicate Quotes (Chronicling America)
The Indianapolis Journal, September 21, 1890. Ribbons run
in drawn work are favorite ornaments on long dresses, white
ribbons for the first three months, afterward pink for a boy and
blue for a girl—clover pink fora blondeboy, and very pale blue
for a dark baby girl.
The LafayetteGazette, October 28, 1893. Pink for a boy and
blue for a girl is a generally accepted dictum, though why nobody
quite knows, unless a boy’s outlook is so much more roseate that
the girl is fairly tipified by blue.
The Citizen-Republican, September 29, 1910. There aremany
things which can be embroidered or entirely made by the clever
aunt or best friend of the new arrival’s mother. Usually they
should be in white, although pink for a boy and blue for a girl
are also sanctioned.
The Prince George’s Enquirer and Southern Maryland Adver-
tiser, July 29, 1910. Pink for Girls, Blue for Boys. Mrs. Up-to-Date
(in Infants’ Wear Department)—You may send me this cap, please.
Clerk—Yes, madam. Do you wish the ribbons pink or blue?
Mrs. Up-to-Date—Oh, pale yellow, of course! The dear little thing
is a suffragette.—Judge.
The Tacoma Times, November 28, 1916. Q–A short time ago,
one of your readers asked you to tell them the proper color to pre-
pare in anticipation ofa girl or a boy baby. You stated that pink
was for boys and blue for girls. This is not right. There is an old
Dutch legend that establishes that, and it means blue for boys
and pink for girls. D. D. A—According to the authorities at the
public library, the way that I stated the answer is correct. Pink
is for boysand blue for girls.This is an old Dutch custom. When
a boy baby was born, a pink ball was hung out, and when a girl baby
was born a blue ball was displayed.
The Topeka State Journal, December 27, 1919. Oh, shades of
Polly Chase, as the pink pajama girl, the blue pajama boy promises
to be the bright particular star of this sartorial season.
The EveningMissourian,December 30, 1919.Oh, shades of
Polly Chase, as the pink pajama girl, the blue pajama boy promises
to be the bright particular star of this sartorial season.
The Chickasha Daily Express, January 09, 1920. Oh, shades
of Polly Chase, as the pink pajama girl, the blue pajama boy
promises to be the bright particular star of this sartorial season.
The St. Charles Herald,October 15, 1921. Therewasn’t any
question about‘‘blue for a boy, pink for a girl.’’
The L’Anse Sentinel, October 7, 1921. There wasn’t any ques-
tion about‘‘blue for a boy, pink for a girl.’’
Clearwater Republican, October 28, 1921. There wasn’t any
question about ‘‘blue for a boy, pink for a girl.’’
The Bennington Evening Banner, May 4, 1922. In SWEA-
TERS, pink trimmed for the boy, blue for the girl [Advertise-
ment.]
The Bennington Evening Banner, May 5, 1922. In SWEA-
TERS, pink trimmed for the boy, blue for the girl [Advertise-
ment.]
Additional Quotes (Wikipedia)
Harper’s Bazaar, volume 20, page 874, December 31, 1887.
ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS—U.—Pink is the color
for baby girls’ ribbons, and blue for boys. There is no new form
of announcing the birth of an infant. [Pink = F, Blue = M]
Atchison Daily Globe, Wednesday, July 18, 1888. New York
Fashion—Magnificent colors will be seen this fall. New York,
July 12—…The newest style in infants’ robes is to use valenci-
ennes lace instead of embroideries, as they are finer and more
delicate. Blue satin ribbons are for boys, pink for girls.[Pink =
F, Blue = M]
Ladies’ Home Journal, November 1890. Hints on Home Dress-
Making by Emma M. Hooper. SELECTIONS OF COLORS
AND STUFFS.Pure white is used for allbabies—blue for girls
and pink for boys, when a color is wished. [Pink = M, Blue = F]
The Peterson Magazine, 1892. BABY’S BLANKET:‘‘Blue
is used for boys’, pink is for girls.’’[Pink = F, Blue = M]
San Antonio Daily Light April 29, 1892. The Baby’s Dainty
Blanket. The French think blue the most appropriate for boys,
and pink for girls. [Pink = F, Blue = M]
New York Times, July 23, 1893. FINERY FOR INFANTS.‘‘Oh,
pink for a boy and blue for a girl!’’ exclaims a young woman who is
preparing some gifts for a newly arrived nephew. [Pink = M,
Blue = F]
Hornellsville Weekly Tribune November 17, 1893. New York
Fashions. Mate Leroys discusses the revival of ancient styles.
There was a mite of a hoof of cashmere to go with it. Pink ribbons
are for girls and blue for boys. Loving mothers prefer making t he
garments for the little strangers…[Pink = F, Blue = M]
Los Angeles Times, July 19, 1893. From Our Regular New
York Fashion Correspondent. The very latest nursery fad is a
silkeyhammock for the new baby…First on thenet is laid a silk
quilted blanket, pink for a girl, blue for a boy…byline DALPHINE
[Pink = F, Blue = M]
New York Times, 24 January 1897. BABY’S FIRST WARD-
ROBE. There are, in the first place, six knitted shirts, made of
the finest Saxony; six knitted bands, and a dozen socks,
assorted sizes. These are of fine, soft wool, and may be either all
white or varied with pink and blue—no other colors for a little
baby. The pink is usually considered the color for a boy and the
blue for a girl,but mothers use theirown taste in such matters…
[Pink = M, Blue = F]
Table Talk (Philadelphia), volume 14, number 11, November
1899. AllThroughtheYearbyMrs.M.C.Myer.‘‘Cuddledown
1560 Arch Sex Behav (2017) 46:1555–1563
123
Town.’’ A marked color-line now exists in the toilets and appoint-
ments of the boy and girl-baby. If a flutter of pink is noticeable as
the royal carriage passes, it is safe to conclude that His Majesty
‘‘the K ing’’is taking an airing. If light blue decorations are in
evidence, behold! It is the Queen! [Pink = M, Blue = F]
Home MissionMonthly, 1900. When thedues are paid, each
child receives a badge—pink for girls, and blue for boys. [Pink =
F, Blue = M]
Woman’s Work for Woman—volume 16, 1901. Mrs. Wells
of Utica excited great interest in her Baby Band and their badges,
pink for boys and blue for girls. [Pink = M, Blue = F]
New York Times, 17 March 1901. For Baby’s Layette.With
wool in which there is a little silk, the little sock has the lower
part of blue for a girl baby and pink for the small boy, usually
combined with white…[Pink = M, Blue = F]
The Hutchinson News, February 26, 1903. It is customary
to trim the little clothes preparatory to the stork’s visit with blue,
if a girl is wanted, and pink for a boy.—Atchison Globe [Pink =
M, Blue = F]
New York Times, 25 April 1904. In the Shops. The velvet used
with them is one of two colors, pink or blue, the two colors usually
see in the cradles or layettes of babies, pink for the boys, blue for
the small girls. [Pink = M, Blue = F]
New York Times, 26 March 1905. Cost of the American Baby.
During their early months the littleman and little woman dress
exactly alike unless Master Baby should have pink forthe pre-
vailing color in his wardrobe and its accessories—the baby
boy color; while Miss Baby will have blue, as that is supposed
to be the girl baby color. [Pink = M, Blue = F]
The New York Times, May 20, 1906. Dreamland reopens and
shows new glories. The Coney Island season received added
impetus yesterday. Dreamland threw open its doors with the
annual flourishof trumpets…One of theold features the crowd
liked best yesterday was the infant incubator exhibit. Seven ster-
ilized infants under glass in regulated temperatures and antisep-
ticised atmosphere slept peacefully in their little white blankets.
The boys had blue ribbons tied around them and the girls pink,
and not one was over two weeks old. A model sterilized nursery
goes with this exhibit. [Pink = F, Blue = M]
San Francisco Chronicle, March10, 1909. Oneof the Silver
Cups Be Givento a Prize Baby of Los Gatos.All boy babies are
to wear a pink ribbonand all girl babies will weara blue ribbon.
[Pink = M, Blue = F]
Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, August 21, 1910. Luxurious
Preparations for the AUTUMN BABY…and the white bassinette
is trimmed with a big ribbon bowe—blue for a boy, according to
the old tradition, and pink for a girl. [Pink = F, Blue = M]
San Francisco Chronicle, April 14, 1912. Birth Announcement.
The correct announcement card which is sent out to intimate
friends within twenty-four hours after baby’s arrival is a beveled
edge six-inch square of highly glazed card board…‘‘N a m e , D a t e
of Birth, and Signature,’’in blue lettering if the recent arrival is a
boy and in pink for a girl. [Pink = F, Blue = M]
Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, July 6, 1913. The World of
Fashion—Luxuries for King Baby. Of course everyoneknows—
or soon discovers—the tradition about ‘‘blue for a boy and pink
for a girl’’ and trims her baskets according to her hopes—though
many a lusty boy has had to endure girlish pink belongings, and
many a lovely wee girl has gone through babyhood suffering the
indignity of masculine blue. [Pink = F, Blue = M]
The Los Angeles Sunday Times, February 7, 1915. The Bright
Side of Sunshine Land—People and Their Doings—a Hundred
Happy Affairs: A DEBUTANTE’S LETTER. We are tremen-
dously interested in Clara’scoming event—is she banking on
pink or blue? Pink for a boy, blue for a girl, you know. Lavender
for twins. [Pink = M, Blue = F]
New York Times, May 24, 1916. 20,000 WOMEN MEET
IN ARMORY TONIGHT § Mrs. W. J. Bryan a Guest.They are
talking of fixing up a day nursery to accommodate club babies
at the armory so the mothers and grandmothers who have brought
the babies along can attend the convention and feel that the chil-
dren are safe. It will be decorated in blue, blue being the color for
little girls, while pink is for boys. This is a woman’s convention.
[Pink = M, Blue = F]
San Francisco Chronicle, September 14, 1920. Opening of
Livingston Bros.’ New Store Is Colorful Event. Mod ern Nursery.
A little away from the beaten path of the models the newly
installed modern nursery held a group of women enthralled
with the daintiness of its appointments in‘‘pink for girls and
blue for boys.’’[Pink = F, Blue = M]
Good Housekeeping, volume 71, October1920. Advertise-
ment for Rogers, Lunt & Bowlin Co.,Silversmiths, Greenfield,
Massachusetts Illustration shows a three-piece Baby Set in special
Gift Box—blue for girls, pink for boys. [Pink = M, Blue = F]
Popular Science, August 1921…maternity hospital in New
York City…Thesex of the baby is indicated by the color of the
beads—bluefor a boy and pink for a girl. [Pink = F, Blue = M]
Woman’s Home Companion—volume 49, 1922. An Indian
Maid with bow and arrows presided at the tree, and agreeably
explained that the articles in blue were for boys, and pink for girls.
Each person, on payment of five cents, was permitted to shoot at
the tree with bow and arrow till…[Pink = F, Blue = M]
Vogue—volume59, May 1, 1922. Vogue essays on e tiquette:
Questions and answers. What are the proper colours for the dif-
ferent sexes? Blue for boy. Pink for girl. [Pink = F, Blue = M]
The Golden Book Magazine, volume 2, 1925. Blue is for
boys; pink for girls. [Pink = F, Blue = M]
Everybody’s Magazine—volume 53, 1925. ‘‘…Why should
mothers buy blue for boy babies and pink for girl babies? The
psychology of colors has always interested me.’’[Pink = F,
Blue = M]
Los Angeles Times, July 7, 1928. NANCY PAGE: Re-peter
Gets Bank Book and Kodak in Color by Florence La Ganke.
The kodak seemed very much a gift since it came in a colored
case and had a colored frame of its own. It was dainty enough
for a small baby. The color of the case was blue. That is because,
Arch Sex Behav (2017) 46:1555–1563 1561
123
thought Nancy, the baby is a boy. Thank goodness, it is now con-
sidered correct to use blue for boys and pink for girls. The other
color scheme always seemed wrong. Pink is a little girl’s color,
always. And anyway, B stands for blue and for boy. Had the baby
been a girl the friend would have sent a kodak in a shade of rich
rose. [Pink = F, Blue = M]
New York Times, 30 March 1929. Macy’s Display Ad. Blue
for a Girl and Pinkfor a Boy. (footnote):Some say,‘‘pink for a
girl and blue for a boy.’’ Our advice is still: choose pink—it’s
prettiest. [Pink = F, Blue = M] 1[Pink = M, Blue = F]
San Francisco Chronicle, April 18, 1930. Conduct and Com-
mon Senseby Anne Singleton, The Christening. An angelcake,
which is all white, inside and out, would be more suitable. The
baby’s name might appear on it in blue letters for a boy, or pink
letters for a girl, and the baby’s mother would cut it. [Pink = F,
Blue = M]
References
Alexander, G. M. (2003). An evolutionary perspective of sex-typed toy
preferences: Pink, blue, and the brain. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
32, 7–14. doi:10.1023/A:1021833110722.
Alexander, G. M., Wilcox, T., & Woods, R. (2009). Sex differences in
infants’ visual interest in toys. Archives of Sexual Behavior,38, 427–433.
doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9430-1.
Alowibdi, J. S., Buy, U. A., & Yu, P. (2013). Language independent
gender classification on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/
ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis
and mining (pp. 739–743). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2492
517.2492632.
Al-Rasheed, A. S. (2015). An experimental study of gender and cultural
differences in hue preference. Frontiersin Psychology,6, 30. doi:10.
3389/fpsyg.2015.00030.
Arak, A., & Enquist, M. (1993). Hidden preferences and the evolution of
signals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
B, 340, 207–213. doi:10.1098/rstb.1993.0059.
Barrett, D. (2010). Supernormal stimuli: How primalurges overran their
evolutionary purpose. New York, NY: Norton.
Chiu, S. W., Gervan, S., Fairbrother, C., Johnson, L. L.,Owen-Anderson,
A. F., Bradley, S. J., & Zucker, K. J. (2006). Sex-dimorphic color
preference in children with gender identity disorder: A comparison
to clinical and community controls. Sex Roles, 55, 385–395. doi:10.
1007/s11199-006-9089-9.
Del Giudice, M. (2012). The twentieth century reversal of pink-blue gender
coding: A scientific urban legend? [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 41, 1321–1323. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-0002-z.
Del Giudice, M. (2014). Middle childhood: An evolutionary-developmen-
tal synthesis. Child Development Perspectives, 8, 193–200. doi:10.11
11/cdep.12084.
Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism
create difference. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Fortmann-Roe, S. (2013). Effects of hue, saturation, and brightness on
color preference in social networks: Gender-based color preference
on the socialnetworkingsite Twitter. ColorResearch & Application,
38, 196–202. doi:10.1002/col.20734.
Henderson, A. J., Lasselin, J., Lekander, M., Olsson, M. J., Powis, S. J.,
Axelsson, J., et al. (2017). Skin colour changes during experimentally-
induced sickness. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 60, 312–318. doi:10.
1016/j.bbi.2016.11.008.
Hiramatsu, C., Melin, A. D., Allen, W. L., Dubuc, C., & Higham, J. P.
(2017). Experimental evidence that primate trichromacy is well suited
for detecting primate social colour signals. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London B, 284, 20162458. doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.2458.
Hurlbert, A. C., & Ling, Y. (2007). Biological components of sex differ-
ences in color preference. Current Biology, 17, R623–R625. doi:10.
1016/j.cub.2007.06.022.
Jadva, V., Hines, M., & Golombok, S. (2010). Infants’ preferences for
toys, colors, and shapes:Sex differencesand similarities.Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 39, 1261–1273. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9618-z.
LoBue, V., & DeLoache, J. S. (2011). Pretty in pink: The early development
of gender-stereotyped colour preferences. British Journal of Devel-
opmental Psychology, 29, 656–667. doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.
02027.x.
Maestripieri, D., & Pelka, S. (2002). Sex differences in interest in infants
across the lifespan. Human Nature, 13, 327–344. doi:10.1007/s12110-
002-1018-1.
Melin, A. D., Hiramatsu, C., Parr, N. A., Matsushita, Y., Kawamura, S.,
& Fedigan, L. M. (2014). The behavioral ecology of color vision:
Considering fruit conspicuity, detection distance and dietary impor-
tance. International Journal of Primatology, 35, 258–287. doi:10.1007/
s10764-013-9730-8.
Miller, C. C. (2017). How to raise a feminist son. The New York Times.https://
www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/upshot/how-to-raise-a-feminist-
son.html.
Nassau, K. (Ed.). (1998). Color for science, art and technology.Amsterdam,
NL: Elsevier.
Paoletti, J. B. (1987). Clothing and gender in America: Children’s fashions,
1890–1920. Signs, 13, 136–143.
Paoletti, J. B. (1997). The gendering of infants’ and toddlers’ clothing in
America. In K. A. Martinez & K. L. Ames (Eds.), The material culture
of gender/The gender of material culture (pp. 27–35). Hanover, NH:
University Press of New England.
Paoletti, J. B. (2012). Pink and blue: Telling the boys from the girls in
America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Pazda, A. D., Thorstenson, C. A., Elliot, A. J., & Perrett, D. I. (2016).
Women’s facial redness increases their perceived attractiveness:
Mediation through perceived healthiness. Perception, 45, 739–754.
doi:10.1177/0301006616633386.
Pechenick, E. A., Danforth, C. M., & Dodds, P. S. (2015). Characterizing
the Google Books corpus: Strong limits to inferences of socio-cultural
and linguistic evolution. PLoS ONE, 10, e0137041. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0137041.
Pie
´rard, G. E., Paquet, P., & Pie
´rard-Franchimont, C. (2003). Aesthetics
of newbornskin: Biophysicalaspects. In S. B. Hoats & H. I. Maibach
(Eds.),Neonatal skin: Structure and function (2nd ed., pp. 239–251).
New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
Re, D. E.,Whitehead, R. D., Xiao,D., & Perrett, D. I.(2011). Oxygenated-
blood colourchange thresholds for perceived facialredness, health,
and attractiveness.PLoS ONE, 6, e17859.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.
0017859.
Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., & Witzel, C. (2014). Sex differences in
color preferences transcend extreme differences in culture and ecology.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1195–1201. doi:10.3758/s13423-
014-0591-8.
Stephen, I. D., Oldham, F. H., Perrett, D. I., & Barton, R. A. (2012). Red-
ness enhances perceived aggression, dominance and attractiveness
in men’s faces. Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 1474704912010003
12. doi:10.1177/147470491201000312.
Taylor, C., Clifford, A., & Franklin, A. (2013). Color preferences are
not universal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142,
1015–1027. doi:10.1037/a0030273.
Thorstenson, C. A., Pazda, A. D., Elliot, A. J., & Perrett, D. I. (2017).
Facial redness increases men’s perceived healthiness and attractive-
ness. Perception, 46, 650–664. doi:10.1177/0301006616680124.
1562 Arch Sex Behav (2017) 46:1555–1563
123
Witzel, C. (2015). Commentary: An experimental study of gender and
cultural differences in hue preference. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,
1840. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01840.
Wong, W. I., & Hines, M. (2015). Preferences for pink and blue: The
development of color preferences as a distinct gender-typed behavior
in toddlers. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1243–1254. doi:10.
1007/s10508-015-0489-1.
Yokosawa, K., Schloss, K. B., Asano, M., & Palmer, S. E. (2016). Ecological
effects in cross-cultural differences between US and Japanese color
preferences. Cognitive Science, 40, 1590–1616. doi:10.1111/cogs.12
291.
Arch Sex Behav (2017) 46:1555–1563 1563
123
