top of page

Psychological Encyclopedia

Hair Color Psychology: What Science Says About Personality, Stereotypes, Attraction, and Identity

Sep 27
18 min read

Updated: 3 days ago

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: September 27, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Hair Color Psychology · Written by Artificial Sapiens

 

Hair color can influence how a person is perceived, but current evidence does not show that natural hair color determines a stable personality type. The strongest research concerns social perception: observers may attach stereotypes, expectations, age cues, attractiveness judgments, or competence judgments to visible hair color. When people dye or otherwise modify their hair, color can also function as a tool of self-presentation and identity expression. Those are different psychological questions from whether pigmentation itself causes personality.

 

The most useful distinction is simple: hair color can say more about what observers may assume than about who a person actually is. A blonde, brunette, red-haired, gray-haired, or brightly dyed version of the same person may receive different judgments even though the person has not acquired a new personality. That gap between visible cue and inferred character is the center of hair color psychology.

 

Hair color psychology in one sentence

 

Hair color psychology studies how natural or chosen hair color becomes a visible social cue that can shape categorization, stereotypes, first impressions, attraction, self-presentation, identity, and appearance-based bias; it does not establish hair color as a biological personality test.

 

Evidence status: reasonably supported for some stereotype and social-perception effects; established for the biology of pigmentation as a physical phenotype; mixed and context-dependent for attraction; limited but developing for hair color as self-presentation; unsupported as a general method for inferring personality, intelligence, morality, or mental-health diagnosis.

 

The distinction that prevents bad hair-color psychology

 

Several concepts are routinely collapsed into one another online. Separating them changes the answer to almost every question about hair color.

 

A biological hair-color phenotype is a physical pigmentation trait. Human hair color is produced through melanin biology and a complex genetic architecture. A dyed or otherwise modified hair color is a chosen alteration of visible appearance. Both natural and modified hair can become visible appearance cues, meaning features that other people notice and use when forming impressions.

 

Social categorization occurs when an observer places someone into a familiar category. A stereotype is a socially learned expectation associated with that category. Attributed personality is what an observer thinks a person is like. Actual measured personality is the person's own pattern of traits assessed through appropriate psychological methods. A first impression is a rapid evaluation. Social perception is the broader process through which others interpret a person. Self-presentation concerns how people manage the impressions they make. Identity expression concerns how appearance may be used to communicate, explore, affirm, or negotiate a sense of self. Appearance-based bias arises when judgments or treatment are influenced by visible appearance rather than relevant evidence about the person.

 

These processes can interact, but they are not interchangeable. An experiment showing that observers rate a blonde image as less intelligent than a brunette image demonstrates an attribution effect. It does not demonstrate that changing hair color changes intelligence, or that naturally blonde people have a different intelligence distribution because they are blonde.

 

What the research is actually strong enough to say

 

The evidence is uneven. Hair-color research is not one large, modern, unified literature. It includes pigmentation genetics, older stereotype experiments, person-perception studies, attraction studies, age-perception experiments, workplace-vignette research, and smaller studies of self-concept or appearance management. The safest synthesis is an evidence map rather than a list of personality meanings.

 

Established evidence: natural hair color is a biological pigmentation phenotype with a highly polygenic basis. Reviews of pigmentation genetics describe melanogenesis and many loci involved in human hair-color variation; a genome-wide association meta-analysis of almost 300,000 people of European ancestry identified more than one hundred associated loci. See Pavan and Sturm's review of human pigmentation genetics and Hysi and colleagues' large GWAS meta-analysis.

 

Reasonably supported evidence: in particular experimental and survey contexts, visible hair color can alter attributed traits and social judgments. Classic studies found hair-color stereotypes, and manipulated-image designs are especially informative because the depicted person can be held constant while hair color changes.

 

Mixed or context-dependent evidence: attractiveness and approach behavior vary across studies, methods, populations, observer characteristics, and settings. A nightclub approach study can answer a different question from a static photograph rating, and neither establishes a universal ranking of hair colors.

 

Limited or emerging evidence: chosen hair color can participate in self-presentation, impression management, and self-concept. This is psychologically plausible and supported by some empirical work, but motives are heterogeneous and culturally situated.

 

Not established: that a natural hair color causes a particular personality, intelligence level, temperament, moral character, sexuality, political outlook, or mental disorder. Claims of that kind usually transform stereotypes into supposed facts about the person.

 

Hair color as a biological phenotype

 

Natural hair color begins as biology, not personality. Pigmentation depends largely on the production, type, amount, ratio, and distribution of melanins in hair follicles. Eumelanin contributes brown-to-black pigmentation, while pheomelanin contributes yellow-to-reddish pigmentation. The genetic pathways involved are complex and polygenic rather than a one-gene, one-color system.

 

The genetics matter because they define what kind of inference is justified. A gene associated with pigmentation is evidence about pigmentation. It is not automatically evidence about psychological traits. The 2019 Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics summarizes the melanogenesis pathways and the expanding set of pigmentation loci. The 2018 Nature Genetics GWAS meta-analysis likewise demonstrates the polygenic architecture of hair color in European-ancestry samples.

 

This also places a boundary around racial interpretation. A literal pigment category such as very dark or black hair in a pigmentation study is not equivalent to Black racial identity, natural or textured Black hair, cultural hair identity, or hair racism. Those involve distinct histories, identities, textures, discrimination mechanisms, and legal or workplace contexts. They should not be reduced to a symmetric color category beside blonde, brunette, and red hair.

 

Does hair color affect personality?

 

There is no established scientific basis for treating hair color as a general cause or reliable predictor of personality. The better-supported literature concerns what people attribute to others after seeing a hair color.

 

That distinction is visible in the titles and methods of classic studies. Lawson's 1971 study investigated stereotypes associated with hair color using semantic-differential ratings from 240 participants. It found that stereotypes varied with the observer's sex and hair-color group. This is evidence that people hold hair-color stereotypes; it is not a personality assessment of people grouped by pigmentation.

 

A still clearer demonstration comes from Weir and Fine-Davis's 1989 person-perception experiment. Different groups of participants saw versions of the same woman depicted as brunette, blonde, or red-haired. Male participants attributed lower intelligence to the blonde version than to the brunette version, and both male and female participants showed the 'temperamental redhead' effect. Because the target person was the same person across manipulated versions, the logical conclusion concerns attributed traits. Her actual intelligence and temperament did not change with the image manipulation.

 

Population data can also challenge a stereotype without proving the reverse stereotype. Zagorsky's 2016 analysis of the NLSY79 examined intelligence-test data and self-reported hair color among White women and men and did not support the familiar 'dumb blonde' claim. The result is useful as a rejection of a stereotype; it should not be converted into a new biological claim that one hair color makes people smarter.

 

Evidence status: the claim that observers sometimes make hair-color-based personality attributions is reasonably supported. The claim that pigmentation determines stable personality is not established.

 

Why the same person can look psychologically different after a color change

 

The cleanest person-perception studies manipulate appearance while holding much of the person constant. They are valuable because they separate the target's actual characteristics from the observer's response to a cue.

 

In the Weir and Fine-Davis experiment, changing the depicted hair color changed some judgments of the same target. In Kyle and Mahler's 1996 experiment, 136 college students reviewed an identical résumé for a female staff-accountant applicant paired with a photograph varying in hair color and cosmetics. The brunette condition received higher capability ratings and a higher assigned salary. The applicant's résumé did not become stronger when her hair became brunette; evaluators changed their judgments.

 

This is a basic rule for interpreting appearance research: if one variable in a photograph changes and observers respond differently, the result is evidence about perception under that experimental condition. It is not evidence that the visual feature created the target person's underlying trait.

 

The same reasoning applies outside hair color. Social judgments often use visible cues as shortcuts, especially when observers have little individuating information. For a broader account of how stereotypes can shape attention and social judgment, see Power and Stereotyping: Attention, Individuation, and Social Judgment.

 

Blonde, brunette, and red hair: stereotypes are findings about observers

 

Color-specific stereotypes have a long research history, but much of it is dated, culturally narrow, and centered on women's appearance. That makes the evidence historically informative rather than a timeless map of how everyone in every culture thinks.

 

The 'dumb blonde' stereotype is the best-known example. The Weir and Fine-Davis experiment found lower attributed intelligence for the blonde version of a female target among male participants. Kyle and Mahler found a professional-evaluation advantage for the brunette condition in their 1990s applicant experiment. These findings document stereotype-driven judgments in specific samples and eras.

 

Red hair has often been linked to a 'fiery' or temperamental stereotype. Weir and Fine-Davis found that the red-haired version of the same target was rated as more temperamental. Again, the finding concerns the observer's attribution. It does not demonstrate an innate red-haired temperament.

 

Brunette hair frequently functions as a comparison category in this literature. Positive competence or intelligence judgments toward brunette versions of a target should therefore be read as comparative stereotype effects within particular experimental designs, not as evidence of a brunette personality.

 

The deeper psychological point is that a socially familiar label can supply expectations before sufficient personal information is available. Hair color can become one input into that process. The content of the stereotype may differ by culture, gender, age, historical period, and setting.

 

Hair color and attraction: there is no universal winner

 

For a focused comparison of rating studies, approach behavior, age cues, and the reasons no universal color wins, see Hair Color and Attractiveness: What Research Says About Blonde, Brunette, Red, and Gray Hair.

 

Attraction research does not support a single universally most attractive hair color. Findings depend on what is being measured: ratings, approach behavior, face-hair matching, perceived age, observer preferences, or contextual cues.

 

A useful example is Swami and Barrett's 2011 research with British men. In a nightclub field study, the same female confederate was approached more often in the blonde condition. In a second study using images, however, the brunette version was rated as more physically attractive as well as more intelligent, approachable, and competent, while the blonde version was rated as more needy. Approach frequency and attractiveness ratings therefore did not produce the same hierarchy.

 

That divergence matters. People approach others for many reasons besides a global attractiveness judgment, and experimental settings can activate different stereotypes or expectations. A finding about British men in nightclubs should not be exported as a universal law of attraction.

 

Hair color can also interact with the face rather than operate as an isolated property. Saegusa and Watanabe's 2014 study of hair-color suitability and perceived attractiveness found that self-evaluation and evaluation by others used different criteria for judging whether a hair color matched a face, and that perceived attractiveness interacted with judged color suitability.

 

Gray hair shows a different mechanism because it carries a strong age cue. In Nutt, Thorstenson, and Yorzinski's 2025 experiment, 120 participants rated faces shown with non-gray versus manipulated gray hair. Gray-haired versions were perceived as older and less attractive; male observers also rated them as less trustworthy, while social-status and aggression judgments did not significantly change. This is a precise demonstration that one visible cue can affect some social judgments without changing all judgments.

 

Evidence status: hair color can influence attraction-related judgments or behavior in some contexts. A universal most-attractive hair color is not established.

 

Hair color, competence, and workplace judgment

 

Workplace questions require the same separation between actual ability and perceived ability. Hair color is irrelevant to most job competencies, but visible appearance can still influence evaluators when stereotypes become part of impression formation.

 

Kyle and Mahler's experiment is a direct historical example: an identical résumé received different evaluations when paired with different versions of the applicant's appearance. The result supports an appearance-bias interpretation in that sample. It does not show that brunette applicants are more capable. It shows that participants attributed more capability to the brunette condition.

 

The study also has clear limits. It used a female target, college-student evaluators, one professional role, a 1990s cultural context, and a factorial manipulation that also included cosmetic use. Those features constrain generalization to contemporary hiring systems, different occupations, different countries, or male and nonbinary applicants.

 

For the same reason, advice such as 'dye your hair X color to get hired' overstates the evidence. A workplace norm can vary by organization, industry, region, generation, and role. Bright or unconventional hair colors introduce another set of appearance norms, but perceived professionalism still should not be mistaken for objective competence.

 

Chosen hair color: identity, self-presentation, and impression management

 

Natural pigmentation and chosen hair color raise different psychological questions. When a person changes hair color, the act may be part of self-presentation: an attempt to alter how they are seen, to align appearance with a preferred image, to explore identity, to mark a transition, to follow or resist a norm, or simply to enjoy an aesthetic change.

 

For a dedicated evidence-based treatment of chosen hair color as identity expression and impression management—while keeping self-presentation separate from personality inference—see Hair Color, Identity, and Self-Presentation: How Appearance Becomes a Social Signal.

 

Hair-color choice does not have one psychological meaning. The same blonde, blue, pink, brown, red, silver, or black dye can be selected for completely different reasons by different people. Personal preference, fashion, cost, maintenance, workplace rules, subculture, social feedback, cultural conventions, age, and the person's current goals can all matter.

 

Some empirical work supports a self-presentation interpretation. Saegusa and Watanabe's 2013 exploratory study of Japanese women found that self-evaluations of hair-color matching were related to intended impressions, and colors judged as fitting the self were also evaluated as socially desirable and interpersonally likable. The sample and cultural setting matter: this is evidence about Japanese women in that study, not a universal theory of why people dye their hair. For the dedicated evidence review of hair-dye motives, see Why Do People Dye Their Hair? Psychology of Identity, Self-Expression, and Control.

 

A recent Korean study also illustrates the breadth of motives. Kong's 2026 study of college students identified image/harmony, trend/self-expression, and psychological/emotional dimensions of hair-color selection motives, with associations involving appearance satisfaction and self-esteem. The design supports associations among reported motives and outcomes; it does not establish that changing hair color causes higher self-esteem.

 

Gray-hair decisions show identity negotiation from another angle. Cecil and colleagues' study of women who stopped dyeing gray hair identified a tension between authenticity and perceived competence in the context of gendered ageism. Participants could experience going gray as more authentic while also managing concern about being perceived as old or less competent. That finding is about lived meaning and social context, not a universal psychological law of going gray.

 

Natural hair, dyed hair, and unusual colors are not the same variable

 

A natural hair-color phenotype is inherited and biologically produced, although age and environment can alter pigmentation over time. A dyed color is a modification of appearance. An unusual or non-naturalistic color such as blue, pink, green, or purple is especially likely to be interpreted as a deliberate styling choice, but even then its meaning cannot be read directly from the color.

 

It is tempting to turn conspicuous color into a personality test: blue means rebellious, pink means attention-seeking, green means creative, and so on. Direct scientific support for fixed mappings of this kind is weak. A visible choice can provide material for observers' stereotypes and can be used intentionally in self-presentation, but it does not validate a personality type, ideology, sexuality, intelligence level, or mental-health inference.

 

Color symbolism is also culturally variable. A color can carry one association in a fashion scene, another in a workplace, another in a historical tradition, and no special meaning to the person wearing it. Psychological interpretation has to distinguish the wearer's intended meaning from the observer's attributed meaning.

 

Gray hair: an age cue with psychological and social consequences

 

Gray hair deserves separate attention because it is closely linked to perceived age. That makes it different from many blonde-versus-brunette comparisons. When gray hair changes an observer's judgment, age categorization may be part of the mechanism.

 

The 2025 Nutt et al. study is valuable because the researchers manipulated grayness while holding the underlying faces constant. The gray versions were judged older and less attractive, while effects were selective rather than global. This supports a cue-based interpretation: gray hair contributed information observers used for age-related evaluation.

 

Cecil et al.'s qualitative work adds the identity side. For some women, stopping gray coverage was experienced through a conflict between authenticity and anticipated competence judgments. Together, these studies show why a single visible feature can be both personally meaningful and socially consequential without revealing the person's underlying worth or capability.

 

Can hair color reveal mental health?

 

Hair color, hair dye, and the decision to change appearance are not diagnostic tests. A color choice by itself does not establish depression, bipolar disorder, trauma, a personality disorder, ADHD, autism, psychosis, or another mental disorder.

 

A behavior can have personal meaning without being a symptom. A person might change hair after a stressful event, during a life transition, for experimentation, for pleasure, for group belonging, for identity expression, for convenience, or for reasons they cannot easily summarize. A clinician evaluating mental health relies on patterns of symptoms, duration, severity, context, functional impact, history, and appropriate assessment—not a hair-color code.

 

This is especially important with conspicuous or unconventional colors. Observers may make mental-health inferences because a choice violates their expectations about age, gender, workplace appearance, or conformity. The existence of that inference is a fact about social perception; it is not evidence that the inference is clinically valid.

 

Culture, gender, age, and historical period change the meaning of a finding

 

Hair-color psychology is unusually sensitive to context. Much of the classic literature used Western college samples, often judged female targets, and was conducted decades ago. Stereotypes can persist, weaken, reverse, or become relevant only in particular settings.

 

Gender matters because many historical hair-color stereotypes were sexualized or tied to expectations about femininity. That does not justify assuming that the same effects apply to men, nonbinary people, or all observers. Age matters because gray hair changes perceived age and because hair-color choices can interact with age norms. Culture matters because natural color distributions, beauty norms, dyeing practices, and symbolic associations vary between populations.

 

Method matters too. A photograph-rating experiment measures judgments in a controlled setting. A field study measures behavior in a real setting but controls fewer variables. A correlational survey can identify associations but cannot establish causation. A qualitative interview can illuminate meaning and lived experience but is not designed to estimate a universal population effect. A genetics study can establish pigmentation biology without answering a social-psychological question.

 

Evidence status should therefore travel with the finding. 'Participants in this study rated the brunette version as more competent' is much stronger and more accurate than 'brunettes are more competent.'

 

Common myths and what the evidence says instead

 

Myth: hair color reveals personality. Evidence-based answer: hair color may activate stereotypes and shape attributed personality, but it is not an established readout of actual personality.

 

Myth: blondes are less intelligent. Evidence-based answer: this is a cultural stereotype documented in person-perception research; large observational data do not support treating blonde hair as a marker of lower intelligence.

 

Myth: redheads are biologically more temperamental. Evidence-based answer: experiments have documented a 'temperamental redhead' attribution, which demonstrates a stereotype rather than innate temperament.

 

Myth: brunettes are naturally more competent. Evidence-based answer: some historical experiments assigned higher competence to brunette versions of the same target, demonstrating evaluator bias rather than a competence difference.

 

Myth: one hair color is universally most attractive. Evidence-based answer: attraction findings differ by method and context, and approach behavior can diverge from attractiveness ratings.

 

Myth: dyeing hair after a major life event proves a need for control. Evidence-based answer: identity transition, agency, novelty, or control can be plausible personal meanings, but a single universal causal mechanism has not been established.

 

Myth: bright hair indicates instability or a mental disorder. Evidence-based answer: color choice alone is not a clinical indicator or diagnosis.

 

How stereotypes can matter even when they are false

 

A stereotype does not need to be biologically true to have social effects. If observers expect a person to be less intelligent, more approachable, more temperamental, older, less professional, or more sexually available because of appearance, those expectations can influence attention, interaction, opportunity, and evaluation.

 

That is why the scientific question has two levels. Level one asks whether hair color corresponds to an underlying trait. For stable personality claims, the evidence is not established. Level two asks whether people treat hair color as if it carried psychological information. Here, several studies show that they sometimes do.

 

The distinction also prevents circular reasoning. If a blonde employee is underestimated, the bias cannot later be used as proof that blonde hair predicts lower ability. If a brightly dyed person is judged unconventional, the observer's judgment cannot by itself establish that the person chose the color in order to appear unconventional.

 

Practical implications

 

For individuals, hair color can be understood as part of appearance rather than as a psychological verdict. Changing color may alter how you feel about your appearance and how some people respond to you, but neither outcome provides a fixed definition of your personality.

 

For employers and educators, appearance cues should be separated from relevant performance evidence. A hairstyle or hair color can trigger an impression quickly; structured criteria, standardized evaluation, and attention to individuating information reduce the chance that an appearance stereotype substitutes for competence evidence.

 

For clinicians and helping professionals, appearance change can be discussed as context when the person considers it meaningful. The clinical task is to understand the individual's reasons, emotions, behavior pattern, and functioning. Hair color itself is not a diagnosis.

 

For researchers and readers, the most important habit is to ask what was actually measured. Was the study measuring pigmentation genetics, observer ratings, real-world approach behavior, self-reported motives, self-concept, workplace judgments, or diagnosed symptoms? The answer determines what the study can legitimately support.

 

What hair color can and cannot tell you

 

Hair color can tell you something about visible pigmentation or styling. In a social context, it can sometimes tell you what stereotypes an observer may activate. If the color was chosen, it may be part of self-presentation, but its personal meaning has to be learned from the person rather than decoded from a color chart.

 

Hair color cannot, by itself, tell you a person's Big Five profile, intelligence, moral character, trustworthiness, professional competence, mental-health diagnosis, sexuality, political ideology, or the reason they changed their appearance.

 

This is the central scientific conclusion of hair color psychology: visible hair color can change perception without changing the person.

 

Frequently asked questions

 

What does hair color say about your personality?

 

Scientifically, natural hair color does not provide a validated personality profile. It can trigger stereotypes in observers, so it may affect what other people assume about you. That is a social-perception effect, not a direct measurement of your personality.

 

Does changing your hair color change your personality?

 

Changing hair color does not itself demonstrate a personality change. It can be part of a broader identity transition, aesthetic experiment, or self-presentation strategy, and it may change how other people respond to you. Those experiences can matter without implying that pigment changed your underlying personality.

 

Why do people judge blondes, brunettes, and redheads differently?

 

Culturally learned stereotypes can attach traits to visible categories. Classic experiments show that the same target can receive different ratings when hair color is manipulated. The size and content of these effects depend on context, observer characteristics, culture, and historical period.

 

Are blondes really seen as less intelligent?

 

The 'dumb blonde' stereotype has been documented in historical person-perception research, including among male participants in the Weir and Fine-Davis study. That documents a stereotype. It does not establish lower intelligence among blonde people, and population evidence does not support treating blonde hair as a marker of low intelligence.

 

Are redheads more temperamental?

 

Research has documented a 'temperamental redhead' stereotype. It has not established red hair as a biological cause of temperament.

 

What hair color is most attractive?

 

Research does not identify a universal most-attractive color. Findings vary across ratings, real-world approach behavior, face-hair matching, age cues, populations, and settings.

 

Can dyed hair reveal identity?

 

Dyed hair can be used for self-expression and impression management, but the meaning is not fixed. A chosen color may relate to aesthetics, identity, social belonging, experimentation, fashion, conformity, distinction, or many other motives.

 

Does bright hair mean someone is rebellious or mentally unstable?

 

No fixed inference is scientifically warranted. Bright hair is a visible choice that observers may interpret through cultural stereotypes. It is not a personality diagnosis or mental-health test.

 

Does gray hair make people look older?

 

In a 2025 manipulated-image experiment, gray hair increased perceived age and reduced attractiveness ratings. The effect demonstrates age perception under that study's conditions, not a change in the person's actual competence or character.

 

Can hair color affect hiring?

 

Historical experiments show that hair color can influence perceived professional ability in some settings. That is evidence of appearance-based judgment, not evidence that color predicts job performance.

 

For the general mechanism by which visible hair-color categories become stereotypes, attributed traits, and social judgments, see Hair Color Stereotypes: How Hair Shapes Social Perception.


 

 

Related Articles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Cecil, V., Pendry, L. F., Salvatore, J., Mycroft, H., & Kurz, T. (2022). Gendered ageism and gray hair: Must older women choose between feeling authentic and looking competent? Journal of Women & Aging, 34(2), 210–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2021.1899744

 

Hysi, P. G., Valdes, A. M., Liu, F., et al. (2018). Genome-wide association meta-analysis of individuals of European ancestry identifies new loci explaining a substantial fraction of hair color variation and heritability. Nature Genetics, 50, 652–656. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0100-5

 

Kong, C. S. (2026). A study on the impact of hair color selection motives on appearance satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of the Korean Society of Beauty and Art, 27(1), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.18693/jksba.2026.27.1.249

 

Kyle, D. J., & Mahler, H. I. M. (1996). The effects of hair color and cosmetic use on perceptions of a female's ability. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(3), 447–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00311.x

 

Lawson, E. D. (1971). Hair color, personality, and the observer. Psychological Reports, 28(1), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1971.28.1.311

 

Nutt, K. M., Thorstenson, C. A., & Yorzinski, J. L. (2025). Gray hair influences perceived age and social perceptions. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1541836. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1541836

 

Pavan, W. J., & Sturm, R. A. (2019). The genetics of human skin and hair pigmentation. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 20, 41–72. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-083118-015230

 

Saegusa, C., & Watanabe, K. (2013). Hair-color matching and self-concept: An exploratory study on Japanese women. 2013 International Conference on Biometrics and Kansei Engineering, 289–292. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBAKE.2013.30

 

Saegusa, C., & Watanabe, K. (2014). Hair color suitability and perceived attractiveness: Self-evaluation versus evaluation by others. Transactions of Japan Society of Kansei Engineering, 13(1), 253–258. https://doi.org/10.5057/jjske.13.253

 

Swami, V., & Barrett, S. (2011). British men's hair color preferences: An assessment of courtship solicitation and stimulus ratings. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52(6), 595–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00911.x

 

Weir, S., & Fine-Davis, M. (1989). 'Dumb blonde' and 'temperamental redhead': The effect of hair colour on some attributed personality characteristics of women. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03033910.1989.10557730

 

Zagorsky, J. L. (2016). Are blondes really dumb? Economics Bulletin, 36(1), 401–410. Boston University open-access record

 
 
bottom of page