Evaluation of Colour Stereotype Profile of the Population of Eastern India

  • Monalisha Banerjee
  • Piyali Sengupta
  • Prakash DharaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)


The phrase “population stereotype” is used to depict the response preference, which refers to long-term behavior and well-ingrained awareness of a particular population. Colour is one of the main features of any visual scene having the potential to improve or spoil the user experience. The aim of the present work was to study and analyze the color stereotypes patterns of the population of Eastern India. To serve this purpose a color chart was prepared with four set of concepts represented by nine colors. 1640 adult female and 1987 male subjects from Eastern India were volunteered. The subjects were asked to choose colors to represent concepts. The color preferences were recorded as results. It was observed that a higher percentage of the female preferred red (66.42%) for “hot”, blue (35.65%) for “cold”, green (54.31%) for “on”, red (47.0%) for “off”, green (38%) for “safe”, red (77.4%) for “danger”, green (75.3%) for “go”, yellow (46.2%) for “caution” and red (76.5%) for “stop” symbols. There was no significant difference in the color preference between male and female subjects (except the female subjects who preferred black over red for “off”). Significant gender difference (p < 0.05 or less) was found for color stereotype strengths. There was no significant difference in color preferences and stereotype strengths between the rural and urban subjects of both sexes but for “cold” concept the urban males predominantly preferred pink color whereas rural males selected blue color. It may be concluded that no rural-urban difference in color stereotype was observed but gender had predominant impact on color stereotype of the population of Eastern India.


Colour stereotype Eastern India Gender difference 



The authors would like to thank Life Sciences Research Board (LSRB), Govt. of India for the funds to carry out the study and the volunteers for their active participation as the subjects.


  1. 1.
    Hopkin VD (1994) Color on air-traffic-control displays. Inf Display 1:14–18Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Darr D, Deshe O (2002) Evaluation of a visual layering methodology for color coding control room displays. Appl Ergon 33:371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Osgood CE, May WH, Miron MS (1975) Cross-cultural universals of affective meaning. University of Illinois Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobs L, Keown C, Worthley R (1991) Cross-cultural color comparisons: global marketers beware! Int Mark Rev 8(3):21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chan AHS, Courtney AJ (2001) Color associations for Hong Kong Chinese. Int J Ind Ergon 28:165–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chan AHS, Han SH, Nanthavanij S (2003) Color associations for Hong Kong Chinese, Korean, and Thai: a comparison. In: IEA 2003 congress, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chan AHS, Shum VWY, Law HW, Hui IK (2003) Precise effects of control position, indicator type, and scale side on human performance. Int J Adv Manufact Technol 22(5–6):380–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chan WH, Chan AHS (2007) Strength and reversibility of movement stereotypes for lever control and circular display. Int J Ind Ergon 37:233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eagly AH, Steffen VJ (1984) Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. J Pers Soc Psychol 46:735–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spence JT, Helmreich RL (1978) Masculinity & femininity: their psychological dimensions, correlates, & antecedents. University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schwartz SH (1999) A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Appl Psychol Int Rev 48:23–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nisbett RE, Peng K, Choi I, Norenzayan A (2001) Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychol Rev 108:291–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rhoads S (2004) Taking sex differences seriously, pp 4–5. Encounter Books, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monalisha Banerjee
    • 1
  • Piyali Sengupta
    • 1
  • Prakash Dhara
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Ergonomics and Sports Physiology Division, Department of Human Physiology with Community HealthVidyasagar UniversityMidnaporeIndia

Personalised recommendations