Handedness predicts motivation to switch from the status quo

The Pen Is Not Always Mightier: Different Ways of Measuring Handedness With the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory Yield Different Handedness Conclusions

Although consistency of handedness (the strength of dominant hand preference) is increasingly recognized as an important individual difference, there are questions about how to best measure it. A recent meta-analysis showed that researchers have often failed to report details of responses and response formats to handedness test items. In addition to measuring handedness direction (i.e., left versus right handedness), there can be utility to dichotomizing the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (EHI) into consistent and inconsistent dominant handedness, despite controversy over the best means of doing so. In this study, we performed a discriminant function analysis of EHI items to determine which items best predicted handedness consistency versus handedness direction. Although the same discriminant function accounted for most of the variance for both dependent measures, writing and drawing EHI items were the strongest predictors of handedness direction and combing and opening jars items were the strongest predictors of handedness consistency. As different items on the EHI predicted these different handedness dimensions, we discuss the implications of dichotomizing EHI items into both relevant dimensions for both biological and environmental theories of the basis of handedness and for future handedness research.

No Evidence That Lateral Preferences Predict Individual Differences in the Tendency to Update Mental Representations: A Replication-Extension Study

A growing body of evidence suggests that inconsistent hand preference is indicative of an increased disposition to update one’s beliefs upon exposure to novel information. This is attributed to a facilitated exchange of information between the two brain hemispheres among inconsistent handers, compared to consistent handers. Currently available studies provide only indirect evidence for such an effect, were mostly based on small sample sizes, and did not provide measures of effect size. Small sample size is a major factor contributing to low replicability of research findings and false-positive results. We thus attempted to replicate Experiment 1 of Westfall, Corser and Jasper (2014), which appears to be representative of research on degree of handedness and belief updating in terms of the employed methods. We utilized data from a sample more than 10 times the size (N = 1243) of the original study and contrasted the commonly applied median-split technique to classify inconsistent and consistent handers with an empirically grounded classification scheme. Following a replication-extension approach, besides handedness, footedness was also explored. Only one out of 12 chi-squared tests reached significance and supported the original hypothesis that inconsistent handers stay with, or switch more often from, the status quo than consistent handers, depending on the valence of novel information. A small-telescopes analysis suggested that the original study had too low analytic power to detect its reported effect reliably. These results cast doubt on the assumption that inconsistent and consistent-handers differ in the tendency to update mental representations. We discuss the use of the median-split technique in handedness research, available neuroscientific evidence on interhemispheric interaction and inconsistent handedness, and venues of future research.

Sex-Differences, Handedness, and Lateralization in the Iowa Gambling Task

In a widely used decision-making task, the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), male performance is observed to be superior to that of females, and is attributed to right lateralization (i.e., right hemispheric dominance). It is as yet unknown whether sex-differences in affect and motor lateralization have implications for sex-specific lateralization in the IGT, and specifically, whether sex-difference in performance in the IGT changes with right-handedness or with affect lateralization (decision valence, and valence-directed motivation). The present study (N = 320; 160 males) examined the effects of right-handedness (right-handedness vs. non-right-handedness) as a measure of motor lateralization, decision valence (reward vs. punishment IGT), and valence-directedness of task motivation (valence-directed vs. non-directed instructions), as measures of affective lateralization on IGT decision making. Analyses of variance revealed that both male and female participants showed valence-induced inconsistencies in advantageous decision-making; however, right-handed females made more disadvantageous decisions in a reward IGT. These results suggest that IGT decision-making may be largely right-lateralized in right-handed males, and show that sex and lateralized differences (motor and affect) have implications for sex-differences in IGT decision-making. Implications of the results are discussed with reference to lateralization and sex-differences in cognition.