Rapport technique : 2015/01/S.GIL

Colour and emotion: children also associate with negative valence

Sandrine Gil and Ludovic Le Bigot

Université de Poitiers, France; CNRS (CeRCA UMR7295), France.

A paraître dans / To appear in: Gil, S., & Le Bigot, L.. Colour and emotion: children also associate red with negative valence. Developmental science.

Address for correspondence to the first author at: Sandrine Gil, Université de Poitiers –CNRS Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition et l’Apprentissage (CeRCA) – CNRS UMR 7295 MSHS - Bâtiment A5, 5 rue Théodore Lefebvre, TSA 21103, 86073 Poitiers Cedex E-mail : [email protected] ABSTRACT The association of colour with emotion constitutes a growing field of research, as it can affect how humans process their environment. Although there has been increasing interest in the association of red with negative valence in adults, little is known about how it develops. We therefore tested the red–negative association in children for the first time. Children aged 5–10 years performed a face categorization task in the form of a card-sorting task. They had to judge whether ambiguous faces shown against three different colour backgrounds (red, , ) seemed to ‘feel good’ or ‘feel bad’. Results of logistic mixed models showed that – as previously demonstrated in adults – children across the age range provided significantly more ‘feel bad’ responses when the faces were given a red background. This finding is discussed in relation to colour–emotion association theories.

Research highlights

 This paper deals with a growing field of research (in adults) on how is emotionally loaded, and how colour– emotion associations influence psycho- logical functioning.  This is the first time that the meaning associated with the colour red has been studied from a developmental perspective (ages 5–10 years) and with an experimental design (card-sorting task).  The findings are clear: children across the age range associated red with negative valence, as previously demonstrated in adult studies.

INTRODUCTION As well as having physical and aesthetic qualities, colour is charged with emotional meaning (Elliot & Maier, 2014; Goldstein, 1942; Valdez & Mehrabian, 1994). Inasmuch as they constitute a source of contextual information, colour– meaning associations can dramatically modulate how humans perceive a target stimulus or event. Moreover, as these associations can vary according to context (e.g. Elliot, Maier, Moller, Friedman & Meinhardt, 2007) and culture (e.g. Jiang, Lu, Yao, Yue & Au, 2014), there is every reason to think that their genesis is influenced by people’s experiential background. For theorists, this raises the question of whether colour– meaning associations change across development. We therefore set out to examine this issue by conducting an original developmental study which, for the first time, investigated (1) whether children implicitly associate the colour red with negative meaning, as has already been demonstrated in adults, and (2) whether this association changes across development. In most developmental studies, the emotion–colour link has been investigated through drawings. The idea is that the use of particular colours by children can reflect the emotional charge of their drawings, thus providing a means of accessing an emotional state that can be difficult to verbalize. For instance, studies have used colour to infer the emotional experience of pain during hospitalization (e.g. Unrah, McGrath, Cunningham & Humphreys, 1983) and the quality of parent–child attachment (e.g. Fury, Carlson & Sroufe, 1997). The research by Burkitt and colleagues has provided the best experimentally controlled evidence that the use of colours in drawings is not arbitrary, but instead reflects emotional associations and preferences. In their studies, children were invited to colour in pictures that they had either drawn themselves (Burkitt, Barrett & Davis, 2004) or were predrawn (Burkitt, Barrett & Davis, 2003) of different subjects (e.g. a man, a tree) characterized as positive, negative or neutral. In addition, the children completed a task to assess their colour preferences. Results showed that children used their favourite colours for positive-related characters, their least favorite ones for negative-related characters, and colours with medium preference for neutral characters (see also Burkitt & Sheppard, 2014; Burkitt, Tala & Low, 2007). In the same vein, when Zentner (2001) showed nine coloured cards to 3- and 4-year-old children and asked them to pick the colour they preferred, they found that these young children preferred bright colours (i.e. , red, bright green, bright , and ) to dark ones (i.e. , dark blue, dark green, and ). Red was consistently observed to be their favourite colour, contrasting with the preference for blue in adults (e.g. Valdez & Mehrabian, 1994). In addition, this author adminis- tered a colour–emotion matching task to the same children, asking them to match coloured cards with drawings of emotional faces (i.e. happy, sad, and angry faces). Results showed that happy faces were matched with bright colours, whereas sad faces were matched with dark ones, but no particular results were obtained with angry faces. In contrast to Zentner’s findings with very young children, when Karp and Karp (1988) asked 9- to 10-year-old children to associate 12 concepts with the colours that first came to mind, they found that anger was associated with red. Finally, a recent study in which 5- to 11-year-olds were asked to draw human figures suggested that red is associated with mixed emotions (Burkitt & Watling, 2015). To sum up, developmental studies have mostly investigated the emotional meaning of colour in terms of preference, and

mostly through drawings, which limits the types of measures that can be carried out. Moreover, findings on the development of color–emotion associations are far from clear-cut. The way in which humans associate colour and emotion can be explained by two non-mutually exclusive hypotheses: colour–meaning associations may be the result of (1) evolution (i.e. phylogenetic hypothesis), and (2) learning about contingencies in our environment (i.e. ontogenetic hypothesis). Nevertheless, colour–meaning associations are now being explored in a growing body of adult studies, with the colour red being a particular focus of research in different domains. To the extent that colours are linked to emotion, they can be viewed as having evolved a corollary psychologyical function, and thus of being capable of modulating a variety of human behaviours. Several studies where people were placed in an achievement context and exposed to colour (e.g. the colour of a test cover or progress bar) have shown lower performance when people are exposed to red, rather than another colour (i.e. green or achromatic) (see Elliot, 2015, for a recent review; Elliot et al., 2007; Gnambs, Appel & Batinic, 2010; Houtman & Notebaert, 2013; Mehta & Zhu, 2009; Shi, Zhang & Jiang, 2015; Thorstenson, 2015). In athletics competitions, studies have revealed that red is related to threat that is motivationally positive for those wearing a red shirt (i.e. implying victory) and motiva- tionally negative for those who see their opponent wearing a red shirt (i.e. implying defeat) (e.g. Hill & Barton, 2005; Krenn, 2014; Recours & Briki, 2015; Ten Velden, Baas, Shalvi, Preenen & De Dreu, 2012). Taken together, these findings therefore argue in favour of the colour red being negatively valenced, conveying the notions of threat, dominance and danger. Although the above findings are consistent with the red–negative association, several interesting studies have also directly tested it, using what are known as crossmodal correspondences (Spence, 2011). These suggest that semantic material is processed faster and more accurately (Moller, Elliot & Maier, 2009), or is more convincing (Gerend & Sias, 2009), when it is both negatively valenced and presented in red. Similarly, emotional words appear to be better memorized when the evoked emotion and its ink colour are congruent (e.g. negative/red vs. positive/green) (Kuhbandner & Pekrun, 2013). Interestingly, in order to test the meaning of red, some recent studies have used emotional facial expressions, the most widely studied modality of emotional expression. Palmer and colleagues (2013) found that when participants had to choose the colour (out of a possible 37) that was most/least consistent with an emotional face, angry faces were linked to reddish colours (Palmer, Schloss, Xu & Prado-Leo'n, 2013). In a face categorization task, Young, Elliot, Feltman and Ambady (2013) showed that red priming facilitates the categorization of angry versus happy faces, compared with green or achromatic priming. Finally, Gil and Le Bigot (2015) presented ambiguous faces (e.g. surprised faces; see Adolphs, 2002; Kim, Somerville, Johnstone, Polis, Alexander et al., 2004) against four kinds of coloured background (i.e. red, green, and two controls: mixed and achromatic). Participants had to say as rapidly as possible whether each face expressed a broadly positive or a broadly negative emotion. Findings revealed that when ambiguous faces were shown against the red background, they were categorized as expressing a negative emotion significantly more often than when they were presented with a different background. The fact that the same faces were perceived of as expressing a negative emotion when they were given a red back- ground argues in favour of a powerful negative meaning for red. Based on the above evidence of a red–negative association in adults, we set out to investigate whether this association exists in children. To this end, 5- to 10-year-olds performed a task inspired by Gil and Le Bigot’s (2015) experimental design, but adapted to children: ambiguous face categorization in the form of a card-sorting task. We predicted that the children would exhibit the red–negative association by categorizing faces given a red background as feeling bad more than the same faces given either a green (opposite-valenced colour) or an achromatic background (control colour condition), and that this red–negative association would become stronger across development. We also took gender into account, by neutralizing this factor through the use of mixed models, as previous research had suggested that gender has an impact on face and/or colour processing in adults (Gil & Le Bigot, 2015; Gnambs et al., 2010), and on colour preference in children (e.g. LoBue & DeLoache, 2011).

METHOD

Participant

A total of 136 children were recruited from local nursery and primary schools in Poitiers, France. All the children were administered the short form (i.e. six plates) of the Ishihara Test (Ishihara, 2009), and the instructions were adapted for the youngest children (i.e. they were asked to trace the outline of the figures that appeared in the plates instead of naming them). The data for three children were removed from the final sample, as two of them did not follow the instructions, while the third failed the . The final sample therefore consisted of 42 children (23 boys and 19 girls) aged 5–6 years (mean age = 5 years 5 months, SD = .51), 38 children (12 boys and 26 girls) aged 7–8 years (mean age = 7 years 9 months, SD = .51), and 53 children (27 boys and 26 girls) aged 9–10 years (mean age = 9 years 8 months, SD = .50).

Material

Stimuli consisted of coloured cards (plastic-coated cards measuring 10.2 cm wide and 7.5 cm high) featuring a picture of a face in the centre, measuring 2.5 cm high. The faces were those of 28 different posers (half women, half men) expressing surprise, taken from a validated set of emotional faces (Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces, KDEF; Lundqvist, Flykt & O€ hman, 1998). Threedifferent coloured backgrounds (red, green, and grey) were chosen in accordance with previous studies. These colours were controlled according to the , saturation, and (HSL) system, the only variation being on the hue dimension (100% saturation, 75% lightness): hue was 0° for red and 120° for green. Each face was displayed against each of the three different colour backgrounds. Of the resulting 84 cards, 12 were used in the familiarization phase and 72 in the test phase (for an example, see Figure 1). Two wooden boxes (i.e. no particular colour) were used to collect the data: the cards had to be inserted through a slit, according to the response.

Figure 1 Example of the cards we used: a face expressing surprise, shown against the three colour backgrounds

PROCEDURE

The experimental session took place in a quiet room at the children’s school. The experimenter introduced her/ himself and explained the card task: ‘We’re going to play a game with cards that have photos of men and women on them. In these photos, you can see their faces. By looking at their faces, you have to guess if they feel good or feel bad. To say if a person seems to feel good or bad, you use these two boxes in front of you. In this box, you put all the photos of people who seem to feel good [the experimenter points to one of the boxes in front of the child], and in the other [the experimenter points to the other box] people who seem to feel bad. Before you put a picture in the box, you also have to tell me your answer. Finally, you have to take a good look at each of the pictures, but you also have to try to go fast. Come on, let’s practice first.’ In the familiarization phase, the 12 cards were presented one by one (three men and three women, with two red, green and grey backgrounds). In the test phase that followed, the children had to categorize the 72 test cards in the same way. The position of the boxes (i.e. left vs. right in front of the child) was counterbalanced across participants.

Manipulation check

After the card-sorting task, to assess the children’s understanding, the experimenter asked them ‘What does it mean to feel good?’ and ‘What does it mean to feel bad?’ The children had to give their responses verbally, and the order of the questions was counterbalanced across participants. Analysis of the responses showed that all the children who answered (five did not give any response) cited a negative feeling (e.g. being angry, being afraid, being sad, being disappointed) or a negative experience (e.g. not receiving a gift, not having friends) for ‘feel bad’. By contrast, they all cited a positive feeling (e.g. being happy, being proud) or a positive experience (e.g. receiving a gift, going to the park, giving hugs) for ‘feel good’. Finally, to assess the children’s preferences for the colours we used, the experimental session ended with a preference task: participants had to categorize three faceless colour cards (i.e. red, grey, and green) on a large sheet of paper divided into three columns: colours that ‘I don’t like at all’, ‘Are OK’, and ‘I really like’. They could put

one or more in each column. Results (see Table 1) showed no specific preference, except that red and green both appeared to be liked and grey to be disliked, particularly by the youngest children.

Table 1 Preference responses (in %) for the three colours we used, according to age group

RESULTS

We used a logistic mixed model to examine the data using the GLIMMIX procedure with SAS Version 9.4 statistical software. The dependent variable was participants’ binary responses (‘feel good’ vs. ‘feel bad’). This approach combines participants and items (here, faces) as independent, crossed random effects in the analyses (instead of aggregated measures per participant and per condition), and is widely used in psycholinguistic and psychological sciences (see Baayen, Davidson & Bates, 2008; Barr, 2013; Jaeger, 2008). Furthermore, the analyses enabled us to distinguish fixed effects (variables for which the levels included in the experiment represent all the levels of interest ) from random effects, which are known to introduce systematic variation.

Figure 2 Mean numbers of ‘feel bad’ responses as a function of colour and age group.

The random effects structure included random intercepts to account for potential variability across analysis units (i.e. Participants and faces). Random slopes are used to account for analysis units that potentially differ in their sensitivity to within-unit fixed effects, or to neutralize effects that are known to introduce systematic variation. If the variation associated with one of the units is not statistically significant, it may prevent the G matrix from converging (often suggesting that at least one of the random effects does not significantly con- tribute to the model). One appropriate solution consists in identifying the effect(s) causing the convergence problems and removing it or them from the model (Kiernan, Tao & Gibbs, 2012). This does not affect the output of the analysis. Data analysis proceeded in two steps (in both, the ‘feel bad’ responses were predicted). Details of the two statistical models are provided in the supporting information. (1) The initial model included the two variables of interest (colour and age) and their interactions as fixed effects, together with variables that were likely to introduce systematic variation, namely poser’s and decoder’s gender. This initial model showed that, in addition to the colour and age factors, the Poser’s gender 9 Decoder’s gender interaction was predictive of ‘feel bad’ responses, although gender did not fall within the ambit of our study. (2) The final model reported below only included the two variables of interest (colour and age) as fixed effects, but significant effects of variables likely to introduce systematic variation were included in random slopes. As the number of varied across age groups, we applied the Satterthwaite correction (Keselman, Algina, Kowalchuk & Wolfinger, 1999). In order to specify the difference between modalities for significant results, we ran multiple comparison tests using the least- squares means (LSMEANS) option of the MIXED procedure, with the Bonferroni adjustment and the ADJDFE = ROW option. The statistical model with colour and age as fixed factors (the interaction was removed from th e model as it was not significant) revealed that colour, F(2, 239.6) = 26.15, p < .001, and age, F(2, 139) = 3.76, p = .026, were both predictive of ‘feel bad’ responses. As illustrated in Figure 2, the latter effect reflected the fact that the youngest children gave more ‘feel bad’ responses than the others, even if multiple comparison tests only revealed a significant difference between the 5–6 years and 7–8 years groups (p = .026). More importantly for our purpose, the colour effect revealed that, regardless of age (no Color 9 Age interaction), the red background elicited more ‘feel bad’ responses than either the green (p< .001) or the grey (p < .001) backgrounds. The green and grey backgrounds also differed significantly from each other (p = .022), with green eliciting the fewest ‘feel bad’ responses.

DISCUSSION

The results yielded by the card-sorting task suggest that the children in our study associated the colour red with negative valence, for when the faces were displayed against a red background rather a green or grey one, they were more often categorized as expressing negative feeling. This effect is consistent with the findings of a growing body of research with adults (Elliot & Maier, 2012, 2014). The present study, featuring an adaptation for children of the task used by Gil and Le Bigot (2015), is thus the first one to reveal a similarity between adults and children with regard to the red–meaning association. Consistent with previous developmental studies, our results showed that even children can associate colours and emotions. However, our study also went one step further, as it investigated colour–meaning associations independently of colour preference. The vast majority of previous colour studies with children used tasks featur- ing drawings, and found that children associate their favourite colours (bright colours) with positive represen - tations, and their least favourite colours (dark colours) with negative representations (e.g. Burkitt et al., 2003, 2004; Zentner, 2001). Moreover, they showed that red is one of young children’s favourite colours, in contrast to the preference for blue in adulthood (e.g. Valdez & Mehrabian, 1994; Zentner, 2001). In the present study, in which we controlled the brightness of the colours we used, our manipulation check indicated that children like both red and green, but not grey. Hence, had we formulated our predictions in line with previous studies, given the results of our manipulation check, we would have expected grey to elicit more ‘feel bad’ responses than either red or green. Our results therefore do not support the preference interpretation, and s how that, above and beyond preference, a red–meaning association influences how children perceive targets, as previously shown in adult studies. Current theories about colour–emotion associations suggest two possible sources of this association: evolu- tion and lifetime learning (e.g. Elliot & Maier, 2007; Goldstein, 1942; Palmer & Schloss, 2010). Concerning red, the phylogenetic hypothesis (the idea that colour meaning is biologically fixed) is principally based on ethology research showing that the intensity of red coloration in a variety of animals is linked to male dominance (e.g. Setchell & Wickings, 2005; Waitt, Little, Wolfensohn, Honess, Brown et al., 2003). By contrast, the ontogenetic hypothesis (the idea that colour meaning results from affective responses to colour-associated experiences) is sustained by several intercultural investigations revealing different colour meanings as a function of culture (e.g. Jiang et al., 2014), as well

as by ecological valence theory (EVT; Palmer & Schloss, 2010). Although it is really a colour preference theory, EVT provides an interesting viewpoint on colour–meaning associations, suggesting that humans like/dislike colours according to their degree of association with a liked/disliked object. In this vein, given that intercultural differences ‘should covary with corresponding differences in colour–object associations and/or object valences’ (Palmer & Schloss, 2010, p. 365) we would expect to find differences across development reflecting differences in colour–event associations (e.g. the teacher’s corrections in red ink, the red traffic ). Consistent with these two hypotheses (which are not obviously exclusive), we predicted that the children in our study would exhibit the red –negative association, and that this association would become stronger across development. However, while the current experiment yielded important information about children’s colour–meaning associations, it failed to reveal any changes across development, as red elicited more ‘feel bad’ responses whatever the age group. We cannot, therefore, conclusively adopt a developmental perspective, although it is conceivable that 5-year-olds may already have experienced sufficient contingencies between red and negative valence to exhibit a robust colour– meaning association. Further research involving a broader age range (e.g. does this pattern emerge before 5 years of life?) or longitudinal data would provide a stronger test of the developmental hypothesis. It should be noted here that we did not use a colorimeter to precisely control and match the colours, constituting a limitation (see Elliot, 2015) that will need to be remedied in future studies. In addition, because some adult studies have shown that gender can have an impact on how people react to emotional faces or to the colour red (e.g. Gil & Le Bigot, 2014; Gnambs et al., 2010), and because studies of children’s colour preferences point to the existence of gender-stereotyped colour preferences (e.g. Iijima, Arisaka, Minamoto & Arai, 2001; LoBue & DeLoache, 2011; Picariello, Greenberg & Pillemer, 1990), we chose to take into account the gender of both the posers and the children who performed the task. Using mixed - model analyses, we statistically neutralized these two potential sources of colour–meaning bias, in order to undertake a pure examination of the colour–meaning association. Obviously, based on the present findings, further investigations will be needed to examine whether gender can modulate the red–meaning association and, if so, at what age. Although some studies of colour have highlighted gender differences in childhood, others have not (e.g. Burkitt et al., 2003, 2004; Zentner, 2001). As well as an effect of colour, our findings revealed an effect of age, reflecting the fact that the youngest children tended to respond ‘feel bad’ more than ‘feel good’ when they saw the target faces, independently of their back - ground colour. The processing of surprised faces holds the key to understanding this effect. We used facial expressions of surprise here because they are considered to be ambiguous, capable of signalling either a positive or a negative unexpected event, and because they share features with expressions of both happiness (i.e. open mouth) and fear (i.e. open eyes) (Adolphs, 2002; Kim et al., 2004). However, surprise seems to be more negatively valenced, as some research has shown that the two most confusable expressions are surprise and fear, both for adults (Young, Rowland, Calder, Etcoff, Seth et al., 1997) and for children (Castelli, 2005). Moreover, Kestenbaum (1992) showed that 5-year-old children associate surprise with the semantic category of ‘feeling bad’. In conclusion, the present findings demonstrate for the first time that, like adults, children associate the colour red with negative meaning. This was true across the 5–10 years age range. In the light of the colour-in-context theory developed by Elliot and Maier (2007), it is worth noting that our study was conducted in schools – a context where red may be more likely to convey a negative meaning for children. Future studies should therefore examine this negative–red association in children in other contexts. Our findings have clear applications not just in industry, but also in education. Finally, it will be a challenge for further studies to clarify whether this effect changes across development.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to Am'elie Garnier, Alice Guinamant, Laetitia Pell'e and Michael Andr'e for their valuable assistance in collecting the data, and the many children without whom this study would not have been possible. This research was supported by a grant from the French National Research Agency (Agence Nationale de la Recherche, ANR), under its 2011 Emotion(s) – Cognition – Behaviour (EMCO) programme.

RÉFÉRENCES

Adolphs, R. (2002). Recognizing emotion from facial expressions: psychological and neurological mechanisms. Behav- ioral and Reviews, 1 (1), 21–62. doi:10.1177/1534582302001001003 Baayen, R.H., Davidson, D.J., & Bates, D.M. (2008). Mixed- effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 Barr, D.J. (2013). Random effects structure for testing interactions in linear mixed-effects models. Frontiers in , 4, 328. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00328 Burkitt, E., Barrett, M., & Davis, A. (2003). Children’s colour choices for completing drawings of affectively characterized topics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 445–455. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00134 Burkitt, E., Barrett, M., & Davis, A. (2004). The effect of affective characterizations on the use of size and colour in drawings produced by children in the absence of a model. , 24, 315–342. doi:10.1080/0144341042000211670 Burkitt, E., & Sheppard, L. (2014). Children’s colour use to portray themselves and others with happy, sad and mixed emotion. Educational Psychology, 34 (2), 231–251. Burkitt, E., Tala, K., & Low, J. (2007). Finnish and English children’s colour use to depict affectively characterized figures. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 59–64. doi:10.1177/0165025407073573 Burkitt, E., & Watling, D. (2015). How do children who understand mixed emotion represent them in freehand drawings of themselves and others? Journal of Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Edu- cational Psychology. doi:1080/01443410.2015.1044942 Castelli, F. (2005). Understanding emotions from standardized facial expressions in autism and normal development. Autism, 9 (4), 428–449. Elliot, A.J. (2015). Color and psychological functioning: a review of theoretical and empirical work. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 368. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00368 Elliot, A.J., & Maier, M.A. (2007). Color and psychological functioning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 250–254. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00514 Elliot, A.J., & Maier, M.A. (2012). Color-in-context theory. In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances in experimental , Vol. 45 (pp. 63–125). New York: Academic Press. Elliot, A.J., & Maier, M.A. (2014). Color psychology: effects of perceiving color on psychological functioning in humans. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 95–120. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115035 Elliot, A.J., Maier, M.A., Moller, A.C., Friedman, R., & Meinhardt, J. (2007). Color and psychological functioning: the effect of red on performance attainment. Journal of : General, 136, 154–168. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.154 Fury, G., Carlson, E.A., & Sroufe, L.A. (1997). Children’s representations of attachment relationships in family draw- ings. Child Development, 68, 1154–1164. doi:10.1111/1467-8624. ep9712191525 Gerend, M.A., & Sias, T. (2009). Message framing and color priming: how subtle threat cues affect persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (4), 999–1002. Gil, S., & Le Bigot, L. (2015). Grounding context in face processing: color, emotion, and gender. Frontiers in Psychol- ogy, 6, 322. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00322 Gnambs, T., Appel, M., & Batinic, B. (2010). Color red in web- based knowledge testing. Computers in Human , 26 (6), 1625–1631. Goldstein, K. (1942). Some experimental observations concern- ing the influence of colors on the function of the organism. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 21 (3), 147–151. doi:10.1097/00002060-194206000-00002 Hill, R.A., & Barton, R.A. (2005). Psychology: red enhances human performance in contests. Nature, 435 (7040), 293– 293. Houtman, F., & Notebaert, W. (2013). Blinded by error. Cognition, 128, 228–236. Iijima, M., Arisaka, O., Minamoto, F., & Arai, Y. (2001). Sex differences in children’s free drawings: a study of girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Hormones and Behaviour, 40, 99–104. Ishihara, S. (2009). Ishihara’s Test for Colour-Blindness. Tokyo: Kanehara (Original work published 1917). Jaeger, T.F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and toward logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 Jiang, F., Lu, S., Yao, X., Yue, X., & Au, W.t. (2014). Up or down? How culture and color affect judgments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27 (3), 226–234. Karp, E.M., & Karp, H.B. (1988). Color associations of male and female fourth-grade school children. Journal of Psychol- ogy, 122 (4), 383–388. Keselman, H.J., Algina, J., Kowalchuk, R.K., & Wolfinger, R.D. (1999). The analysis of repeated measurements: a comparison of mixed-model Satterthwaite f tests and a nonpooled adjusted degrees of freedom multivariate test. Communications in Statistics – Theory and Methods, 28, 2967–2999. doi:10.1080/03610929908832460 Kestenbaum, R. (1992). Feeling happy versus feeling good: the processing of discrete and global categories of emotional expressions by children and adults. , 28, 1132–1142. Kiernan, K., Tao, J., & Gibbs, P. (2012). Tips and strategies for mixed modeling with SAS/STAT procedures (Paper 332- 2012). SAS Global Forum, Orlando, FL. Kim, H.Y., Somerville, L.H., Johnstone, T., Polis, S., Alexander, A., et al. (2004). Contextual modulation of amygdala responsivity to surprised faces. Journal of Cognitive Neuro- science, 16 (10), 1730–1745. Krenn, B. (2014). The impact of uniform color on judging tackles in association football. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15 (2), 222–225. Kuhbandner, C., & Pekrun, R. (2013). Joint effects of emotion and color on memory. Emotion, 13, 375–379. doi:10.1037/ a0031821 LoBue, V., & DeLoache, J.S. (2011). Pretty in pink: the early development of gender-stereotyped colour preferences. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29 (3), 656–667. Lundqvist, D., Flykt, A., & O€ hman, A. (1998). The Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces-KDEF [CD-ROM]. Stockholm: Psychology Section, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute. Mehta, R., & Zhu, R.J. (2009). Blue or red? Exploring the effect of color on cognitive task performances. Science, 323 (5918), 1226–1229. Moller, A.C., Elliot, A.J., & Maier, M.A. (2009). Basic hue–meaning associations. Emotion, 9, 898–902.

Palmer, S.E., & Schloss, K.B. (2010). An ecological valence theory of human color preference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 107, 8877–8882. Palmer, S.E., Schloss, K.B., Xu, Z., & Prado-Leon, L.R. (2013). Music–color associations are mediated by emotion. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 110 (22), 8836–8841. Picariello, M.L., Greenberg, D.N., & Pillemer, D. (1990). Children’s sex-related stereotyping of colors. Child Develop- ment, 61, 1453–1460. Recours, R., & Briki, W. (2015). The effect of red and blue uniforms on competitive anxiety and self-confidence in virtual sports contests. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/ European Review of Applied Psychology, 65 (2), 67–69. Setchell, J.M., & Wickings, E.J. (2005). Dominance, status signals and coloration in male mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx). Ethology, 111 (1), 25–50. Shi, J., Zhang, C., & Jiang, F. (2015). Does red undermine individuals’ intellectual performance? A test in China. International Journal of Psychology, 50, 81–84. doi:10.1002/ ijop.12076 Spence, C. (2011). Crossmodal correspondences: a tutorial review. Attention, & , 73, 971–995. doi:10.3758/s13414-010-0073-7 Ten Velden, F.S., Baas, M., Shalvi, S., Preenen, P.T., & De Dreu, C.K. (2012). In competitive interaction displays of red increase actors’ competitive approach and perceivers’ with- drawal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48 (5), 1205–1208. Thorstenson, C.A. (2015). Functional equivalence of the color red and enacted avoidance behavior? Social Psychology, doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000245 Unrah, A., McGrath, P., Cunningham, S.J., & Humphreys, P. (1983). Children’s drawings of their pain. Pain, 17, 385–392. Valdez, P., & Mehrabian, A. (1994). Effects of color on emotions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 394–409. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.123.4.394 Waitt, C., Little, A.C., Wolfensohn, S., Honess, P., Brown, A.P., et al. (2003). Evidence from rhesus macaques suggests that male coloration plays a role in female primate mate choice. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 270 (Suppl. 2), S144–S146. Young, A.W., Rowland, D., Calder, A.J., Etcoff, N.L., Seth, A., et al. (1997). Facial expression megamix: tests of dimensional and category accounts of emotion recognition. Cognition, 63, 271–313. Young, S.G., Elliot, A.J., Feltman, R., & Ambady, N. (2013). Red enhances the processing of facial expressions of anger. Emotion, 13, 380–384. doi:10.1037/a0032471 Zentner, M.R. (2001). Preferences for colours and colour– emotion combinations in early childhood. Developmental Science, 4 (4), 389–398.