The Sunday Times published an article last week with the headline: ‘Blonde women born to be warrior princesses‘.

It claimed:

Researchers claim that blondes are more likely to display a “warlike” streak because they attract more attention than other women and are used to getting their own way — the so-called “princess effect”.
…
The findings about aggression are contained in research by the University of California, Santa Barbara, to discover whether women who are judged more attractive than others are also more likely to lose their tempers to get what they want.

“We expected blondes to feel more entitled than other young women — this is southern California, the natural habitat of the privileged blonde,” said Aaron Sell, who led the study which has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. “What we did not expect to find was how much more warlike they are than their peers on campus.

However, the professor named in the study, Dr. Aaron Sell, has claimed that the article was completely “fabricated” and has demanded the Sunday Times take it down.

In a letter posted on his website he said:

Journalistic ethics requires, at a minimum, that you remove from this article all references to me, and to the research I and my collaborators have conducted. This article consists almost entirely of empirical claims and quotes about blonde women that Mr. Harlow fabricated, and then attributed to me. Please take the article offline immediately. Once your investigation is completed, please issue a retraction. I trust that the Times is committed to being accurate, and the clearest measure of this is the speed with which it removes obvious and demonstrable falsehoods. I have appended the research article, so you can see for yourself.

To be clear, I have _never_ published any research about blonde women, nor have I ever conducted any research on blonde women, or about their supposed differences from other women. Yet I am quoted throughout Harlow’s article as having done research showing that blonde women are more aggressive, are more determined to get their own way, are more militaristic, are less likely to get into fights, are more prone to anger, are more confident, are more entitled, and feel more attractive. None of this is true. The article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that he cites as establishing these claims has no data whatsoever about women with blonde versus non-blonde hair. You can confirm this in 15 seconds by searching on the word “blonde” in the .pdfs I have attached.

Ouch!

The response was picked up by other websites, one of which angrily said:

I hope American and British readers (and readers throughout the world) will finally wake up to the reality of British journalism: You just cannot believe what you read in British newspapers. I’d further call on my academic colleagues on both sides of the Atlantic never to speak to British reporters. You have absolutely no control over what they say about you and your scientific research.

The story by the Sunday Times was also picked up by the BBC, which presumably failed to do any extra fact-checking and was forced to issue a retraction at the end of the article.

The Sunday Times however hasn’t even bothered to amend the original article, let alone taking it down as Aaron Sell demanded.

He is still attributed to having conducted research and making statements he denies doing.

(via Ben Goldacre on Twitter)

Reader comments

1. Liberal Conspiracy

   S. Times article on blonde warriors “fabricated” http://bit.ly/cMumFi

2. Hannah Mudge

   RT @pickledpolitics Sunday Times article on ‘blonde warriors’ was “fabricated”. And they still haven't retracted: http://bit.ly/aHsU9y

3. Two Seven Two

   Again with the "what is it that makes this industry worth saving?" feeling http://bit.ly/cMumFi

4. Lucy Proctor

   RT @libcon: S. Times article on blonde warriors “fabricated” http://bit.ly/cMumFi

5. Ellie Robinson

   What the??? Retract! RT @SamTarry: RT@pickledpolitics Sunday Times article on ‘blonde warriors’ was “fabricated”. http://bit.ly/aHsU9y

6. Ben

   RT @pickledpolitics: Sunday Times article on ‘blonde warriors’ was “fabricated”. And they still haven't retracted: http://bit.ly/aHsU9y

7. asquith

   hails: http://tinyurl.com/yac2wog

8. Jennifer McMahon

   RT @libcon: S. Times article on blonde warriors “fabricated” http://bit.ly/cMumFi

9. sunny hundal

   Sunday Times article on ‘blonde warriors’ was “fabricated”. And they still haven't retracted: http://bit.ly/aHsU9y

10. Samuel Tarry

    RT@pickledpolitics Sunday Times article on ‘blonde warriors’ was “fabricated”. And they still haven't retracted: http://bit.ly/aHsU9y

11. Geoff Hughes

    RT @pickledpolitics: Sunday Times article on ‘blonde warriors’ was “fabricated”. And they still haven't retracted: http://bit.ly/aHsU9y

12. Tweets that mention Liberal Conspiracy » S. Times article on ‘blonde warriors’ was “fabricated” -- Topsy.com

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by sunny hundal, Liberal Conspiracy, Samuel Tarry, Geoff Hughes, asquith and others. asquith said: hails: http://tinyurl.com/yac2wog [...]

13. La ‘mala prensa’ de las secciones de ciencia « RDi Press

    [...] S. Times article on blonde warriors “fabricated” (liberalconspiracy.org) [...]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.