Handedness and the neurocognitive foundations of public attitudes about international laws and norms

State Resident Handedness, Ideology, and Political Party Preference: U.S. Presidential Election Outcomes Over the Past 60 Years

Pearson correlation, partial correlation, and multiple regression strategies determined the degree to which estimates of the level of left-handedness in each of the 48 contiguous American states related to citizen political ideology and to Democratic-Republican presidential popular vote over the past 60 years. Higher state levels of left-handedness were associated significantly with liberal ideology in each of the presidential election years from 1964 to 2016. Comparable ideology data were not available for 2020. Higher state levels of left-handedness also were associated with a greater degree of Democratic candidate popular vote support in each of the presidential election years from 1964 to 2020 except for 1976. The mean size of these 28 significant Pearson correlations involving the two political criteria was .62 (SD = .12) with a range of .38-.80, indicating handedness alone could account for a mean of 40.1% (SD = 14.9) of the variance in the two political preference variables. Corresponding multiple regressions showed that when state-level Big Five personality, White population percent, urbanization, and income variables were given the opportunity to enter the equations, handedness still emerged with a significant regression coefficient in 26 of the 28 equations. The two exceptions occurred for 1968 with either political preference criterion. It is speculated that such relations are grounded in hypothesized but poorly understood genetic links between handedness, personality, and political beliefs and attitudes, and, that a foundational genetic predisposition to left-handedness in a population may have much greater impact on correlates than overt levels of left-handedness.

Why are consistently-handed individuals more authoritarian? The role of need for cognitive closure

Recent studies indicate that individuals with consistent hand preference are more authoritarian than individuals whose preference is relatively inconsistent. We explored the role of epistemic needs in the handedness-authoritarianism relationship. Based on findings that consistent individuals are less cognitively flexible than inconsistent individuals, we hypothesized that consistent-handers would report greater need for definite knowledge. To measure this, we administered the revised Need for Cognitive Closure scale to a sample of undergraduates (N = 235), along with measures of handedness consistency and authoritarian submission. Consistent individuals scored significantly higher on authoritarian submission and need for closure. Need for closure fully mediated the relationship between consistency and submission. Consistent individuals also expressed greater prejudice against authoritarian out-groups such as immigrants and liberals. This effect was partially mediated by authoritarian submission. We theorize that consistent-handers' cognitive inflexibility leads them to covet definite knowledge. These individuals turn to authoritarianism because it promises to stifle dissent and protect existing (conventional) knowledge.