| Title |
Ecological influences on individual differences in color preference
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13414-015-0954-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karen B. Schloss, Daniel Hawthorne-Madell, Stephen E. Palmer |
| Abstract |
How can the large, systematic differences that exist between individuals' color preferences be explained? The ecological valence theory (Palmer & Schloss, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:8877-8882, 2010) posits that an individual's preference for each particular color is determined largely by his or her preferences for all correspondingly colored objects. Therefore, individuals should differ in their color preferences to the extent that they have different preferences for the same color-associated objects or that they experience different objects. Supporting this prediction, we found that individuals' color preferences were predicted better by their own preferences for correspondingly colored objects than by other peoples' preferences for the same objects. Moreover, the fit between color preferences and affect toward the colored objects was reliably improved when people's own idiosyncratic color-object associations were included in addition to a standard set of color-object associations. These and related results provide evidence that individual differences in color preferences are reliably influenced by people's personal experiences with colored objects in their environment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Romania | 1 | 33% |
| India | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 63 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 17% |
| Researcher | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Professor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 13 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 29 | 45% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2016.
All research outputs
#7,720,144
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#404
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,370
of 267,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#5
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,931 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.