Just the color of the room can play a huge role in how we feel and act. Paint the walls blue, and studies show you may be more creative. Paint them red, and you may be more vigilant or more sexy. Change to green to calm yourself down. But if you really want something off the wall, paint those walls a certain shade of pink.

I call Bullshit.

This is a quote from a CBS News segment posted online last year.

They are hardly the first to make such claims. My husband, who is an art director by trade, was taught many of these myths as fact in his color theory course at Savannah College of Art and Design. You can find claims like these in books, magazines (including self-described science-based magazines), and all over the internet. They are so ubiquitous that I made the effects of color on emotion my first research project as a psychology undergrad, then continued the work for more than a decade, including a Master’s thesis on the topic.

But 95% of them are bullshit.

What you’ll find when you look up the sources cited (if there are any) for most of these claims is usually a book written by a man named Faber Birren, which includes a list of citations of journal articles, most of which were written by him. And what you’ll find when you read these articles is that his research methods are seriously, seriously flawed. In fact, most research on color is seriously flawed, usually because the researcher(s) failed to consider the anatomy of the eye and the very meaning of “color”–what it is and how it is produced. One need not earn PhDs in physics and physiology, but some basic knowledge of the visible light spectrum is needed, as is an understanding of the way cells in the retina are structured.

I won’t go into those things here, of course, but I will warn you that once you’re armed with that knowledge, a lot of these claims don’t make much sense.

When I set out to study this problem all those years ago, I noted three fundamental challenges that most researchers failed to meet:

1. Defining colors: Much of the older research uses simple terms like “blue” and “red”, which ignores properties of color such as saturation and brightness. There is no way for another researcher to replicate a study without very specific information about the colors used, how they were produced, and how they were displayed. It is also rare in the literature to find control of ambient lighting.



2. Defining emotions: Emotion is not as simple as most of us tend to think. For example, think about what “grief” means to you. Is it a quiet, calm feeling? Is it the urge to curl up in a ball? Or is it a loud, angry feeling–the urge to hit something?
3. Eliminating alternative hypotheses for outcomes: This is perhaps the most important and most challenging issue for any research, but it is especially challenging in the social sciences. Much of the research on color fails miserably when it comes to eliminating other, more plausible explanations for outcomes. For example, in some studies, people were simply asked, “How does this color make you feel?” The participant then provides a cognitive appraisal that includes learned associations of the color with emotions. They think about what that color means to them and make a decision about it. That’s not an emotional reaction to color. It’s an emotional reaction to associations they have with the color.

Once I addressed these issues in my own research, my findings were fairly consistent across experiments and over time, even when I addressed them in different ways. If you are interested, you can find an explanation of some of my experiments here.

What’s more, what I found certainly does not support the vast majority of claims about how color affects emotion and it does not support most of what was stated in this CBS piece. Let’s look at each claim and compare them to what I found in repeated experiments.

Just the color of the room can play a huge role in how we feel and act.

Well, that’s just a presumptuous and vague statement and, in my opinion, it is simply not true.

Paint the walls blue, and studies show you may be more creative.

Uh, no. I’m not even sure where this one came from. I’ve never seen a study with that outcome and I’d be very surprised if there was one that couldn’t be ripped to shreds by a mild critique. Many of these myths seem to have sprung from cultural associations.

While I was studying the effects of color on emotion as a psychology undergrad, I studied cultural associations with color as part of a minor in anthropology. It’s a fascinating topic. Data from the original World Color Survey in the 1970s suggested that the more complex a society, the more colors distinct colors they recognized with different names. I suspected that their associations with color (e.g., red with anger) would follow a similar pattern. I used a wonderful tool called the Human Relations Area Files [HRAF] to search ethnographies for references to color associations.

My hypothesis was supported, but what I also found interesting was that associations for a few basic colors were very similar. Red was almost always associated with vitality of some sort, black with danger or evil, and white with goodness and purity. This would make sense, given that darkness can be dangerous and blood, which is essential for life, is red. However, as the colors moved away from these basic colors, the associations were more and more diverse. In some cultures blue was associated with calm, in some with energy.

Paint them red, and you may be more vigilant or more sexy.

This is perhaps the only claim that even comes close to reality. The findings of my studies have not always shown effects, but when they do, red is always the most arousing. It usually produces more arousal than yellow and blue. But “arousing” does not mean “sexy”. Sexual arousal is only one type, one context, of arousal. All arousal means is that your heart is beating a little faster than when you are not aroused (and there other physical, measurable responses).

Change to green to calm yourself down.

And this is where they totally blow it. Another consistent finding in my research is that green is often more arousing than yellow and blue. It sometimes not statistically different from red, in fact. It does differ from red in that it is usually rated as more pleasant (participants don’t know that they are rating a color).

When you understand the opponent properties of retinal ganglion cells, this makes sense. The idea that red is arousing while green is calming does not.

But if you really want something off the wall, paint those walls a certain shade of pink.

And this is where I have to laugh. As the piece notes, there are entire books written about “Baker-Miller Pink”, the shade of pink used to paint a set of prison cells because the warden was certain that the color was responsible for a calmer inmate population. The problem? No well-designed and replicated research supports this claim. Furthermore, given that pink is simply a light shade of red, this effect would contradict all of my findings.

But what you really want to know is how color affects emotions, right? You want to know what color to paint your bedroom walls?

Paint them any color you like.

You see, while I have found reliable differences in emotions due to hue (and sometimes brightness), the effects are fleeting. The human visual system adapts so quickly that once you’ve spent a few minutes, or even a few seconds, in a room, any effects the color had on your body are pretty much gone. In fact, when you’re paying attention to another person, a television, a computer screen, a task, or anything else, you’re no longer even processing the color of the walls.

Dragon*Con is now just over three weeks away and the schedule is as solid as these things get, so I’m giving you the highlights as promised. I will be one BUSY Skeptic! [Edit: By the way, Dragon*Con will take place over Labor Day weekend, September 3rd through 6th.]

For those who have not heard of it, Dragon*Con an enormous SciFi/Fantasy convention held in Atlanta over Labor Day weekend. Skeptrack, the skeptic fan track, is the brainchild of Derek Colonduno and Robynn McCarthy (A.K.A., “Swoopy”), hosts of Skepticality. As usual, they work their butts off and many skepticism activists do their best to make that work count by participating in talks and panels designed to spread the critical thinking bug to geeks everywhere.

Dragon*Con is very different from conventions like The Amaz!ng Meeting, and not just the costumes. TAM is, at heart, a Dog-and-Pony-Show for skepticism. At Dragon*Con activists do the work of activism and education. There are a number of fan tracks, including a Podcasting Track directed by Swoopy, and Space & Science Tracks, who work closely with Derek and Swoopy. In addition to the obvious Star Wars Track, Trek Track, and Whedonverse Track, there are literature, costuming, and writing tracks. There are also two tracks related to Skeptrack: Paranormal Track and X Track.

The former is self-explanatory, I hope, and this year I will be attending a workshop on that track by Ben Radford on investigating the paranormal (details below). I am very interested in the methods used for this kind of thing as they differ a great deal from the kind of work that I do.

Last year most of Skeptrack was streamed live, but there were some problems. I believe they will try this again this year with, hopefully, fewer headaches. If so, I will provide a link on Facebook and Twitter as soon as it is available, which might be as late as the first day.

If you are attending or planning to stream it live, here is where and when you can find me:

Skepticism, Scams, & Consumerism: Ranging from psychology behind sales to consumer rights, we discuss how as skeptics we identify and challenge dodgy products and pseudosciences.
Time: Friday 2:30pm – 3:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
I will be moderating this panel and talking about the psychology of purchasing behavior. Panelists include Matt Lowry, Rachael Dunlop, Richard Saunders, & Tom Merritt.

The Calculus Diaries – Lose Weight, Win in Vegas, Survive a Zombie Apocalypse: Fun examples of math applications in the real world and why it’s important to understand even just the basic concepts.
Time: Friday 5:30pm – 6:30pm
Location: Hilton 202
This panel is on the Science Track and will mostly be the work of Jennifer Ouellette, whose book with that title will be released August 1st, just in time for me to read it on the plane. As a statistician, I hope I can contribute something worthwhile to the discussion.

How Your Brain Works, and How to Fool It: Our perception of reality is driven more by expectation, belief, and desire than by sensory input. An examination of how we fool ourselves.
Time: Friday 8:30pm – 9:30pm
Location: Hilton 202
NOTE: This is not the original title and I think it is a little misleading. The original title was “What You See Is [not always] What You Get (or WYSInaWYG)”. The topic is not about how to fool your brain, but how your brain fools you. I believe Jason Schneiderman plans to join me and would be a welcome addition.

Skepticism and Sexuality: When do we get skeptical about sex, the media? When alien cults want to save African clitorises, this panel is here to discuss the facts.
Time: Friday 10:00pm – 11:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
I will bring with me some of the most interesting myths about the psychology of sex, courtesy of my friend a colleague who teaches the best course on the topic evah. My fellow panelists include Heidi Anderson, Ben Radford, Kylie Sturgess, & Ginger Campbell. Desiree Schell will moderate.

Naturally Skeptical? The Psychology Behind Being a Skeptic: A round table discussion on the factors that do (and don’t!) contribute to becoming a questioner of the paranormal and pseudoscientific.
Time: Saturday 10:00am – 11:00am
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
I will once again take the reigns as moderator and lead a discussion of the psychology of critical thinking and open-mindedness. I am very pleased that Scott Lilienfeld has decided to join us. He has written quite a bit about pseudoscience in our field, including his latest collaboration, 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions about Human Behavior. Other panelists, who are not exactly chopped liver themselves, include D.J. Grothe, Matt Lowry, Kylie Sturgess, & Pamela Gay.

Mathematical Modeling Pitfalls: Model don’t always accurately reflect messy reality, particularly where human behavior is concerned. Algorithms can only mimic human behavior, and there is a lot of room for bias and error as a result.
Time: Sunday 11:30am – 12:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
I am not actually on the schedule for this, but Jennifer Ouellete invited me to contribute when I mentioned my love-hate relationship with modeling and my frustrations in teaching that models are not what they model. If I get it together in time, I will present what I think is a cool visual of what you can do with a simple model that shows how they can be effective science. Well, I think it’s cool, anyway!

Raising Skeptical Geeks: A few known skeptical parents talk about issues and how they a raising their kids to be better rational thinkers.
Time: Sunday 2:30pm – 3:30pm
Location: Hilton Crystal Ballroom
This is sure to be the highlight of my Dragon*Con experiences as I love to talk about my kids. I am collecting stories and funny quotes to share. I am also thrilled that fellow panelists will be three good friends and one of the geekiest dads (by all appearances) around: Daniel Loxton, Heidi Anderson, Desiree Schell, & Adam Savage.

Skepticism and Education: JREF now has a Director of Educational Programs – what else is being done out there and how can skeptics help educate the next generation?
Time: Sunday 4:00pm – 5:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Of course this is on my list of favorites as well as one of the most important of the panels on which I will serve. Other panelists include D.J. Grothe, Michael Blanford, Daniel Loxton, Pamela Gay, & Matt Lowry. Kylie Sturgess will moderate.

Women: Myths, Feminism And Skepticism: Puzzled by feminine mystique? Searching for your ‘Inner Velma’? Join investigators on gender, pop-culture and what science REALLY tells us!
Time: Monday 2:30pm – 3:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Oh, so many myths, so little time! This topic is rich and Heidi Anderson, Desiree Schell, Pamela Gay, Kylie Sturgess, and myself are looking forward to a fact-packed dicussion.

Skeptrack Sign-Off Wrap Up and Feedback: Join the skeptrack guests and speakers for a discussion about how things went, last minute news, and how we can make things better next year!
Time: Monday 4:00pm – 5:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Unfortunately, I will not make this discussion and also make my flight home. I am sure, though, that there will be much greatness in the room.

That wraps up my obligations. Here are just a few the events I am looking forward to attending as an audience member (if possible – the * indicates an event I cannot attend due to a scheduling conflict, but recommend):

CSI: Paranormal
Time: Friday 1:00pm – 2:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Joe Nickell

*Skeptically Speaking Live!
Time: Friday 8:30pm – 9:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Desiree Schell

Skeptical Coffee Talk
Time: Saturday 8:30am – 9:30am
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: James Randi, D.J. Grothe, & Joe Nickell

Paranormal Investigation Workshop
Time: Saturday 1:00pm – 3:30pm
Location: Sheraton
Presenters/Panel Members: Ben Radford

*I Very Much Doubt That!
Time: Saturday 1:00pm – 2:00pm
Location: Hilton Crystal Ballroom
Presenters/Panel Members: James Randi

*Mystery Investigators Children’s Show
Time: Saturday 2:30pm – 3:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Richard Saunders & Rachael Dunlop

Monster Talk Podcast Live
Time: Saturday 4:00pm – 5:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Blake Smith & Ben Radford

Skeptic Zone Live!
Time: Sunday 7:00pm – 8:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Richard Saunders, Rachael Dunlop, Kylie Sturgess, & Brian Brushwood

Skepticism 2.0: Blogging
Time: Monday 11:30am – 12:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Daniel Loxton, Rebecca Watson, Brian Dunning, Rachael Dunlop, & Kylie Sturgess

Martial Arts Mysticism
Time: Monday 1:00pm – 2:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: John Clements

You can find the full schedules as they become available on the track websites. I hope to see you there!

Since health care reform has been in the news lately (wonder why?) and NCCAM has been popping up on the blogosphere, I thought it might be a good time to repost this one.

Originally posted on February 16, 2009

NCCAM = National Scam

Reading the blogs of others I have noticed that one entry often sparks another and chains of commentary develop. I now understand how this works; one quickly has more to say than is appropriate for a simple comment when a hot topic is discussed. This, IMO, is a great way to converse and spread the word about important issues that warrant wide attention. Alternative medicine is certainly one of these areas and a recent post stirred my anger.

Today I read a blog entry by Z at It’s the Thought That Counts which was apparently inspired by yet another blog entry by Orac, at Respectful Insolence. Z’s links then led me to some findings of my own that I feel compelled to share.

When I first heard of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), I thought it was a good thing. I believed that an agency governed by the NIH would be responsible. I believed that good science which investigated the claims made by these snake oil salesmen would be conducted, and public education regarding these products would be the result. I now think that I was wrong. I am angry that my tax dollars are being spent propagating propaganda and ignorance, spreading BS and allowing swindlers make money off of the American public.

What changed my mind? Well, you can read about where the money is going and about the types of studies funded by the agency by going to the blog entries I mentioned. In the meantime, let me tell you about the “educational information” being produced by this government agency.

One of the NCCAM’s four “primary areas of focus” is “sharing news and information”. Their website describes their approach to this task:

We provide timely and accurate information about CAM research in many ways, such as through our Web site, our information clearinghouse, fact sheets, Distinguished Lecture Series, continuing medical education programs, and publication databases.

This got me thinking. What information are they sharing? Are they sharing, in their fact sheets for example, the reason why these things are classified as “complementary” or “alternative” to conventional medicine? The difference is simple to explain — medicine that has been shown through scientific evidence to the safe and effective is conventional medicine. Everything else is “alternative” (it is considered “complementary” when conventional medicine is also used). When and if evidence suggests that any treatment is effective, it is no longer considered “alternative”; it becomes “conventional”.

Let me note, however, that some of the dictionary definitions are inaccurate. For example, American Heritage Dictionary defines “alternative medicine” as:

A variety of therapeutic or preventive health care practices, such as homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic, and herbal medicine, that do not follow generally accepted medical methods and may not have a scientific explanation for their effectiveness.

which is misleading in that it clearly implies that these practices are effective; we just don’t know why. That’s simply untrue. There are many conventional medicines and practices that are effective, but lack strong scientific explanations for their effectiveness. The causal agents in the successful treatment of rosacea with antibiotics and many of the uses of antidepressants are not well understood, but we hardly classify them as “alternative”. That term is reserved for unproven treatments of any kind.

This definition makes one of the NCCAM other primary areas of focus utterly moot. “Supporting integration of proven CAM therapies” (never mind that they do not state what they mean by integration) is described as follows:

Our research helps the public and health professionals understand which CAM therapies have been proven to be safe and effective.

Um, by definition this statement is self-contradictory.

So, which of these therapies are they claiming are safe and effective (and should then be reclassified)? To find out, I took a look at some of their fact sheets.

Under “Herbs at a Glance”, I started with the first entry that is not considered conventional, Astragalus.

The fact sheet includes a section titled What the Science Says. There were three bullet points:

• The evidence for using astragalus for any health condition is limited. Results from small or preliminary studies suggest that astragalus may benefit heart function and help the immune system fight infections.
• A few studies have shown potential benefits for using astragalus—in combination with another herb, glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidum)—as an adjunctive therapy for cancer. In general, however, these studies were not well designed.
• NCCAM-funded investigators are studying the effects of astragalus on the body, particularly on the immune system.

The third point hardly tells anyone “what the science says”. The first two, however, immediately threw up red flags. Despite the careful wording (I may sprout wings and fly, too), it is misleading at best. Where did this information come from?

The fact sheet sites three sources, none of which are research reports published in peer-reviewed academic journals:

• Astragalus. Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database Web site. Accessed May 10, 2007.
• Astragalus (Astragalus membranaceus). Natural Standard Database Web site. Accessed May 9, 2007.
• Upton R. Astragalus. In: Coates P, Blackman M, Cragg G, et al., eds. Encyclopedia of Dietary Supplements. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 2005:25–30.

Could these be biased? Maybe a little?

Okay, let’s try another. How about feverfew?

Under What the Science Says we find:

• Some research suggests that feverfew may be helpful in preventing migraine headaches; however, results have been mixed and more evidence is needed from well-designed studies.
• One study found that feverfew did not reduce rheumatoid arthritis symptoms in women whose symptoms did not respond to conventional medicines. It has been suggested that feverfew could help those with milder symptoms.
• There is not enough evidence available to assess whether feverfew is beneficial for other uses.
• NCCAM-funded researchers are studying ways to standardize feverfew; that is, to prepare it in a consistent manner. Standardized preparations could be used in future studies of feverfew for migraines.

And again the sources cited fall far short of reliable or reputable:

• Awang DVC, Leung AY. Feverfew (Tanacetum parthenium). In: Coates P, Blackman M, Cragg G, et al., eds. Encyclopedia of Dietary Supplements. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 2005:211–217.
• Feverfew. Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database Web site. Accessed on July 5, 2007.
• Feverfew (Tanacetum parthenium L. Schultz-Bip.). Natural Standard Database Web site. Accessed on July 3, 2007.

Can you imagine citing resources like these to support your theory in application for a research grant? Or in a scientific journal article? Any otherwise respectable researcher would lose all credibility.

The fact sheet on Echinacea presents the findings as mixed:

• Study results are mixed on whether echinacea effectively treats colds or flu. For example, two NCCAM-funded studies did not find a benefit from echinacea, either as Echinacea purpurea fresh-pressed juice for treating colds in children, or as an unrefined mixture of Echinacea angustifolia root and Echinacea purpurea root and herb in adults. However, other studies have shown that echinacea may be beneficial in treating upper respiratory infections.
• Most studies to date indicate that echinacea does not appear to prevent colds or other infections.
• NCCAM is continuing to support the study of echinacea for the treatment of upper respiratory infections. NCCAM is also studying echinacea for its potential effects on the immune system.

And, finally, it actually cited two peer-reviewed research reports among the six sources. However, both reported null findings (must be those pesky studies they funded, so they had to cite them). One published in JAMA also noted an increased risk of rash and children ages 2 through 11. Findings are not “mixed” when quality research agrees and one must consult pseudoscience or research of questionable quality to find disagreement.

What I found next was comical. I followed a link to “10 things to know about evaluating medical resources on the Web“. I’ll let you peruse that on your own.

The NCCAM’s annual budget has been around $120 million for the past few years and, although I do not know how funds in the new “stimulus package” will be distributed (does anyone?), there is money for science and it seems unlikely that the NCCAM’s budget will be cut.

I wonder about NCCAM’s history and the guise under which it was built. If a special interest lobby — namely the dietary supplement and CAM industry — was primarily responsible for its birth, then it is no wonder that the only thing this agency has accomplished so far is lending false credence to the products of that industry.

In the weeks since I stopped posting regularly and while I was reconstructing last year’s posts, a lot of interesting things have happened.

• Two of my posts will be included in the 2009 Young Australian Skeptics Blog Anthology. This will be available in both eBook and printed form, similar to Open Laboratory. The list is impressive and I am looking forward to what will clearly be a great sample of skepticism and critical thinking.
• I am now on the official Guest list for Dragon*Con 2010! As such, I will participate in at least as many panels and/or talks as last year, maybe more. I hope I am able to participate in both Skeptrack and the Science Track as both offer great opportunities for fun and outreach in addition to the opportunity to work with some amazing people.
• The biggest news is that The Lancet finally fully retracted the article that Andrew Wakefield used to start a panic over the safety of vaccines in 1998. It took several years and many examples of clear ethics violations, but the anti-vaccination movement is in a tailspin over it and the catalyst, a ruling made by the General Medical Council after a fitness to practise hearing that Wakefield acted “irresponsibly and unethically”. In the wake of this:
  • Wakefield was forced to resign from his position at Thoughtful House, a group he co-founded in 2005. Another founder, Arthur Krigsman, was not far behind.
  • A paper scheduled for publication in the journal Neurotoxicology with Wakefield as its author has been withdrawn after the editor took a closer look.
  • Of course, none of this stopped Jenny McCarthy and her sidekick from proposing a ridiculous explanation which would allow them to maintain their delusional stance on the relationship between vaccines and autism.
• Meryl Dorey announced that she will probably step down as head of the Australian Vaccination Network, a particularly vile anti-vax propaganda mill that she founded. The group is likely to close its doors as well, citing a lack of funding. I have had confrontations with her online myself and find this less than surprising. It does not help that the AVN is currently under investigation for their particularly disgusting practices.
• Rachael Dunlop beat out CAM artist Joe Mercola for a Shorty Award in Health after a campaign launched by woo peddler Mike Adams hit the skids when he was disqualified for cheating (well, somebody cheated on his behalf at least).
• Podblack Cat Kylie Sturgess is now a columnist for the Skeptical Inquirer website and created a new podcast, Token Skeptic.
• Heidi Anderson has created “a place to discuss, promote, encourage, and celebrate women in science, skepticism, and critical thinking.” She Thought will launch on Pi Day and I hope to contribute on a regular basis. I wonder how Heidi will feel about that…?

Coming soon: the CTEG website is about to experience a major overhaul and I will soon announce a new organization to be feared by all who choose to peddle woo.