According to a study published last week in the journal Nature athletes wearing red have an advantage over their opponents. But is it really? Russell A.
Hill and Robert A. Barton, researchers at the Evolutionary Anthropology Research Group at the University of Durham, argue in this paper that the color red in dress gives an athlete an advantage that can make a difference when competitors are equal in all other respects. Hill and Barton
extracted this conclusion after examining the results of four disciplines of fighting in the Olympic Games in Athens involving two opponents, who were assigned randomly red or blue for battle. According to their observations, the red garments athlete won the blue dress in 55% of the fighting in the subjects studied (boxing, taekwondo, Greco-Roman wrestling).
The conclusion seems predictable and reasonable. The red color in nature is often associated with increased aggressiveness and intimidation of the opponent situations, so it seems reasonable that "red dress is often linked with a higher probability of winning." But what is significant evidence to this conclusion? Is it enough to fight analysis of results of pairs in an Olympics to conclude that red is an advantage? That
conclusion seems reasonable does not mean it has been demonstrated. More. The authors relate the garments red with red color used as a signal associated with testosterone in several animal species. That is, red dress might similarly increase levels of testosterone and, therefore, the aggressiveness and the possibility of defeat. But the red garments increase testosterone levels of the wearer is a mere hypothesis that the study does not elucidate. On the other hand, the researchers added no little confusion to incorporate into their qualifications comment on teams that choose to compete red garments, ie items that do not come by chance, but of preference. Are they more aggressive to bring these items or chosen because they are more aggressive?
Smoke and Mirrors, also in scientific work
In my opinion, the authors interpreted in a rather superficial correlation between wear red and have a greater chance of winning. But there is a correlation between data does not guarantee that the hypothesis is correct. For example, years ago I saw a table showing a very high mortality from tuberculosis in Segovia, much higher than elsewhere in the Peninsula. A superficial analysis led to the immediate conclusion that the climate Segovia was especially dangerous for patients lung. But further analysis it followed exactly the opposite. Segovia weather was ideal for the treatment of these patients, leading to a greater number of nursing home and, of course, a greater number of deaths from these diseases.
Do not pass the same to the interpretation of color in sportswear? A first analysis suggests that red increases the aggressiveness of the wearer, but is this the only reading? In the absence of data on testosterone or other hormones among the contenders, I would choose me more plausible explanations as to distribute the clothing gives the red color that fierce looks more or less competitive than the more accepting blue or simply that the sample for this study is not statistically significant. I confess I am overlooking the representativeness of the samples when working with complex experiments in which measured variables of human behavior, as is the case.
From what I am sure of is that we must be careful in interpreting these results, it would not be the first time I meet with bold conclusions of studies based on very little data, but in truth, surprise me that a magazine like Nature accept jobs of questionable rigor. Surely it is that I lack the criteria for understanding work this type or that I'm missing some information. In any case, from now on I intend to look a tad more skepticism studies publications with mark of "prestige."
More :
Psychology: Red Enhances human performance in contests
Nature 435, 293 (19 May 2005) doi: 10.1038/435293 to
