This is a self-funded research project by Lan Tran and Kristin Belessis, in fulfillment of the requirements for PSY 4013 Status, Power, and Dominance at Green Mountain College (VT).

1. WEARING PINK SOCKS
feminine
The Effects of Objects on Physical Sports
Presented at the 12th Annual Stanford Undergraduate Psychology Conference
Lan Tran
Green Mountain College
May 19th, 2012
Joint work with student Kristin Belessis

2. CASE STUDY
Who is the toughest sheriff in the U.S.?
Source: theblaze.com

3. CASE STUDY
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: Eric Vogel vs. Joseph Arpaio
“It was fair to infer that the selection of pink as the color was
meant to symbolize the loss of prisoners’ masculinity.”
Source: AP

4. LITERATURE REVIEW
Gender schema: Women are expected to maintain
their femininity and men are expected to maintain their
masculinity regardless of sports (Koivula, 2001).
Aggression: Men had high needs to maintain their
masculinity, even when their action could physically harm another
person (Cohn, Seibert, & Zeichner, 2009).
Color & Sport: Professional football and hockey teams
that wore black uniforms became more aggressive than teams
that wore non-black uniforms (Frank, Mark, & Gilovich, 1988).

5. HYPOTHESIS
Pink socks will
moderate the level
of anger and
physical aggression
among student
athletes.

6. STUDY 1
Field experiment with deception
 Mixed design
2 (Pink, Without Pink) x 2 (Pre-game, Post-game)
Both surveys:
• 7 items from Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992)
Physical Aggression: “If somebody hits me, I hit back”
Anger: “If I am frustrated, I let my irritation show”
• 7 distracting items: “I think of myself as a creative person”
Behavioral data: black-and-white videos

7. PARTICIPANTS
All participants played in the lacrosse team.
Male game: Female game:
3 with pink 7 with pink
4 without pink 7 without pink

8. STATISTICAL METHOD
Repeated Measures ANOVA separately for the
male and female teams:
Anger or Physical Aggression
Pre-game Post-game
With pink
Conditions No pink
Interactions:
•Anger x Conditions
•Physical Aggression x Conditions

9. MALE ANGER
• Significant interaction Anger x Conditions, F (1,5) = 10.8, p = .022
• Male athletes reported a lower level of anger after the game, F
(1,5) = 34.31, p = .002
• However, those without pink socks were angrier than those with
pink socks, F (1,5) = 11.09, p = .021

10. MALE PHYSICAL
AGREESSION
No significant result, p > .05

11. FEMALE ANGER
Table at the end
Female athletes reported a lower level of anger
after the game, F(1,9) = 3.072, p = .004.

12. FEMALE PHYSICAL
AGREESSION
Female athletes reported a lower level
of physical aggression after the game
F (1,9) = 4.373, p = .002.

13. DISCUSSION
All male and female participants reported lower
level of anger and physical aggression
 Exhausted after the game
Interestingly, the males without pink socks were
angrier than the males with pink socks.
Against group that acts outside of social norms

14. STUDY 2
Behavioral data: black-and-white videos from Study 1
Deception: visual memory test
 Observers (N = 44) watched
black-and-white videotapes and
rated two teams on:
Physically active (run
faster, get the balls more
often, work harder to score
goals, etc.)
Determined to win

15. RESULTS
In general, the observers (N =44) rated the male team
with pink socks more physically active than the male
team without socks.

16. RESULTS
In general, the observers (N =44) rated the female team
with pink socks more physically active than the female
team without socks.

17. DISCUSSION
• Behavioral data: The team with pink
socks were physically active and
determined to win
For males: Assert masculinity
For females: Deny gender stereotypes

18. LIMITATIONS
• The choice of the Aggression
Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992)
• Small sample size
• Situational bias

19. IMPLICATIONS
A matrix between stereotype threats,
gender schema, aggression, and
effects of colors on social behaviors

20. FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Examine the interaction between personality
trait and group identity (Social Dominance
Orientation) in influencing aggression.
Replicate the study with a bigger sample size

21. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
• We thank our advisor,
Dr. Jennifer Sellers.
• We thank Coach Robert
Labate, Coach Seth
Benjamin, Dr. Gordon
Knight, Dr. Mark Dailey,
and Ms. Susanne Claxton
for supporting us in
recruiting participants.
• We thank the male and
female lacrosse teams
and all of our
participants for helping
us make this study
possible.

22. RECAP
• The male team without pink socks: Angrier!
• The male and female team with pink socks:
More physically active and determined to win!
Correspondence
Lan Tran, tranl@greenmtn.edu

23. MALE ANGER
Pre-game Post-game Total
With pink M = 1.89, SD = 1.92 M = 1.00, SD = .00 M = 1.53, SD = .12 Conditions
F (1,5) = 11.095
No pink M = 3.00, SD = .82 M = 2.75, SD = .65 M = 2.90, SD = .74
p = .021
Total M = 2.53, SD = .84 M = 2.00, SD = 1.04
Anger Anger x Conditions
F (1,5) = 34.306, p = .002
F (1,5) = 10.796, p = .022

24. MALE PHYSICAL
AGREESSIONPre-game Post-game Total
With pink M = 2.50, SD = .87 M = 2.00, SD = .53 M = 2.22, SD = .68 Conditions
F (1,5) = .282
No pink M = 2.63, SD = .78 M = 2.45, SD = .75 M = 2.53, SD = .72
p = .618
Total M = 2.57, SD = .75 M = 2.26, SD = .66
Physical Aggression Anger x Conditions
F (1,5) = 3.448, p = .122 F (1,5) = .799, p = .412

25. FEMALE ANGER
Pre-game Post-game Total
With pink M = 2.58, SD = .74 M = 1.63, SD = .75 M = 2.20, SD = .65 Conditions
No pink M = 2.81, SD = .96 M = 2.21, SD = 1.32 M = 2.57, SD = 1.08 F (1,9) = .436
p = .526
Total M = 2.73, SD = .85 M = 2.00, SD = 1.14
Anger Anger x Conditions
F (1,9) = 3.072, p = .004 F (1,9) = .168, p = .385

26. FEMALE PHYSICAL
AGREESSION Pre-game Post-game Total
With pink M = 2.63, SD = 1.13 M = 1.35, SD = .42 M = 1.92, SD = .67 Conditions
No pink M = 2.61, SD = 1.08 M = 2.03, SD = .67 M = 2.89, SD = .83 F (1,9) = .426
p = .530
Total M = 2.61, SD = 1.04 M = 1.78, SD = .66
Physical Aggression Anger x Conditions
F (1,9) = 4.373, p = .002 F (1,9) = 2.485, p = .149