The fighting hypothesis as an evolutionary explanation for the handedness polymorphism in humans: where are we?

Lateral preference in complex combat situations: Prevalence and relationship with general measures of hand and foot preference

Laterality is considered relevant to performance in combat sports with particular emphasis being placed on fighters' handedness and combat stance. Such approach, however, may fall too short to understand the role of laterality in sports where fighters are allowed to use their hands and feet standing and on the ground. Here, we referred to grappling sports (i) to estimate lateral preferences in selected combat situations and (ii) to test for an association between those preferences and common measures of hand and foot preference. Based on the responses of 135 experienced grapplers who participated in an online questionnaire lateral preference, at the group-level, was revealed in 12 out of 18 combat situations. At an item-level, common measures of lateral preference and grappling-specific lateral preference were related in three out of 36 conditions (footedness only, not handedness). Across items, scores in a grappling-specific laterality index were positively related with foot but not with hand preference scores. Implications for the assessment of lateral preference in combat sports and the use of item-specific terminology in this context are discussed. On a broader scale, we also elaborate on potential consequences of our findings with regard to evolutionary explanations of the maintenance of left-handedness in humans.

Who goes where in couples and pairs? Effects of sex and handedness on side preferences in human dyads

There is increasing evidence that inter-individual interaction among conspecifics can cause population-level lateralization. Male-female and mother-infant dyads of several non-human species show lateralised position preferences, but such preferences have rarely been examined in humans. We observed 430 male-female human pairs and found a significant bias for males to walk on the right side of the pair. A survey measured side preferences in 93 left-handed and 92 right-handed women, and 96 left-handed and 99 right-handed men. When walking, and when sitting on a bench, males showed a significant side preference determined by their handedness, with left-handed men preferring to be on their partner's left side and right-handed men preferring to be on their partner's right side. Women did not show significant side preferences. When men are with their partner they show a preference for the side that facilitates the use of their dominant hand. We discuss possible reasons for the side preference, including males prefering to occupy the optimal "fight ready" side, and the influence of sex and handedness on the strength and direction of emotion lateralization.

Recent Advances in Handedness Genetics

Around the world, about 10% people prefer using their left-hand. What leads to this fixed proportion across populations and what determines left versus right preference at an individual level is far from being established. Genetic studies are a tool to answer these questions. Analysis in twins and family show that about 25% of handedness variance is due to genetics. In spite of very large cohorts, only a small fraction of this genetic component can be pinpoint to specific genes. Some of the genetic associations identified so far provide evidence for shared biology contributing to both handedness and cerebral asymmetries. In addition, they demonstrate that handedness is a highly polygenic trait. Typically, handedness is measured as the preferred hand for writing. This is a very convenient measure, especially to reach large sample sizes, but quantitative measures might capture different handedness dimensions and be better suited for genetic analyses. This paper reviews the latest findings from molecular genetic studies as well as the implications of using different ways of assessing handedness.

Is imitational learning a driving factor for the population bias in human hand preference?

Lateral preference is a widespread organizational principle in human and nonhuman animals. In humans, the most apparent lateralized trait (handedness) is unique in the animal kingdom because of a very pronounced bias towards right-handedness on a population level. In this study, based on previous experiments, we test the hypothesis that this bias was-among other factors-shaped by evolution through the facilitation of social learning. We exposed 134 subjects to footage of right- or left-handed knot making and analyzed whether concordant handedness between instructor and student facilitated quicker and more successful imitation. We used a set of nautical knots of different difficulty levels in order to test whether the potential effect of concordance became stronger with increasing knot difficulty. For all three performance measures (time until correct completion, number of attempts needed and correct imitation), we found hand congruency and difficulty level to be significant predictors but not the interaction of the two. We conclude that concordance of handedness between teacher and student of a motor skill enhances the speed and accuracy of imitation, which may have been a beneficial trait for selection to act upon, thereby shaping the human population bias in handedness.

Handedness heritability in industrialized and nonindustrialized societies

In modern societies, there is a decreased usage of traditional weapons to settle interpersonal or inter-group disputes compared to usage in traditional societies, possibly affecting the frequency-dependent selection on the handedness polymorphism. Another societal difference is the extensive automation of hard manual labour (including agriculture) in industrialized societies, relaxing the selection for hand specialization. Thus, selection of handedness is likely to differ between traditional and modern societies. As heritability determines the relative speed of evolutionary dynamics, handedness heritability was compared between industrialized and non-industrialized societies. First, individuals were sampled from a non-industrialized area in Indonesia, where violent conflicts are relatively frequent and tribal wars have been prevalent recently. Handedness was recorded directly or indirectly for 11,490 individuals belonging to 650 independent pedigrees, and handedness heritability was estimated using a pedigree-based animal model. Second, estimates of handedness heritability derived from published sources were collected to compare heritability estimates, accounting for various confounding variables. Non-industrialized countries displayed a significantly higher heritability value (h2 = 0.56) than that of industrialized countries (h2 = 0.20). Heritability decreased with time along the twentieth century in industrialized countries, independently of the frequency of left-handedness, and independently of the method used to measure handedness. In conclusion, the data are consistent with a decrease in handedness heritability following the industrialization process and/or the associated decrease in violence using traditional weapons. The difference in heritability between industrialized and non-industrialized countries suggests that selection of handedness is thus likely to differ between traditional and modern societies.

A function for the bicameral mind

Why do the left and right sides of the brain have different functions? Having a lateralized brain, in which each hemisphere processes sensory inputs differently and carries out different functions, is common in vertebrates, and it has now been reported for invertebrates too. Experiments with several animal species have shown that having a lateralized brain can enhance the capacity to perform two tasks at the same time. Thus, the different specializations of the left and right sides of the brain seem to increase brain efficiency. Other advantages may involve control of action that, in Bilateria, may be confounded by separate and independent sensory processing and motor outputs on the left and right sides. Also, the opportunity for increased perceptual training associated with preferential use of only one sensory or motoric organ may result in a time advantage for the dominant side. Although brain efficiency of individuals can be achieved without the need for alignment of lateralization in the population, lateral biases (such as preferences in the use of a laterally-placed eye) usually occur at the population level, with most individuals showing a similar direction of bias. Why is this the case? Not only humans, but also most non-human animals, show a similar pattern of population bias (i.e., directional asymmetry). For instance, in several vertebrate species (from fish to mammals) most individuals react faster when a predator approaches from their left side, although some individuals (a minority usually ranging from 10 to 35%) escape faster from predators arriving from their right side. Invoking individual efficiency (lateralization may increase fitness), evolutionary chance or simply genetic inheritance cannot explain this widespread pattern. Using mathematical theory of games, it has been argued that the population structure of lateralization (with either antisymmetry or directional asymmetry) may result from the type of interactions asymmetric organisms face with each other.

Intrasexually selected weapons

We propose a practical concept that distinguishes the particular kind of weaponry that has evolved to be used in combat between individuals of the same species and sex, which we term intrasexually selected weapons (ISWs). We present a treatise of ISWs in nature, aiming to understand their distinction and evolution from other secondary sex traits, including from 'sexually selected weapons', and from sexually dimorphic and monomorphic weaponry. We focus on the subset of secondary sex traits that are the result of same-sex combat, defined here as ISWs, provide not previously reported evolutionary patterns, and offer hypotheses to answer questions such as: why have only some species evolved weapons to fight for the opposite sex or breeding resources? We examined traits that seem to have evolved as ISWs in the entire animal phylogeny, restricting the classification of ISW to traits that are only present or enlarged in adults of one of the sexes, and are used as weapons during intrasexual fights. Because of the absence of behavioural data and, in many cases, lack of sexually discriminated series from juveniles to adults, we exclude the fossil record from this review. We merge morphological, ontogenetic, and behavioural information, and for the first time thoroughly review the tree of life to identify separate evolution of ISWs. We found that ISWs are only found in bilateral animals, appearing independently in nematodes, various groups of arthropods, and vertebrates. Our review sets a reference point to explore other taxa that we identify with potential ISWs for which behavioural or morphological studies are warranted. We establish that most ISWs come in pairs, are located in or near the head, are endo- or exoskeletal modifications, are overdeveloped structures compared with those found in females, are modified feeding structures and/or locomotor appendages, are most common in terrestrial taxa, are frequently used to guard females, territories, or both, and are also used in signalling displays to deter rivals and/or attract females. We also found that most taxa lack ISWs, that females of only a few species possess better-developed weapons than males, that the cases of independent evolution of ISWs are not evenly distributed across the phylogeny, and that animals possessing the most developed ISWs have non-hunting habits (e.g. herbivores) or are faunivores that prey on very small prey relative to their body size (e.g. insectivores). Bringing together perspectives from studies on a variety of taxa, we conceptualize that there are five ways in which a sexually dimorphic trait, apart from the primary sex traits, can be fixed: sexual selection, fecundity selection, parental role division, differential niche occupation between the sexes, and interference competition. We discuss these trends and the factors involved in the evolution of intrasexually selected weaponry in nature.

Left-handedness and time pressure in elite interactive ball games

According to the fighting hypothesis, frequency-dependent selection gives relatively rarer left-handers a competitive edge in duel-like contests and is suggested as one mechanism that ensured the stable maintenance of handedness polymorphism in humans. Overrepresentation of left-handers exclusively in interactive sports seems to support the hypothesis. Here, by referring to data on interactive ball sports, I propose that a left-hander's advantage is linked to the sports' underlying time pressure. The prevalence of left-handers listed in elite rankings increased from low (8.7%) to high (30.39%) time pressure sports and a distinct left-hander overrepresentation was only found in the latter (i.e. baseball, cricket and table tennis). This indicates that relative rarity and the interactive nature of a contest are not sufficient per se to evoke a left-hander advantage. Refining the fighting hypothesis is suggested to facilitate prediction and experimental verification of when and why negative frequency-dependent selection may benefit left-handedness.

Left preference for sport tasks does not necessarily indicate left-handedness: sport-specific lateral preferences, relationship with handedness and implications for laterality research in behavioural sciences

In the elite domain of interactive sports, athletes who demonstrate a left preference (e.g., holding a weapon with the left hand in fencing or boxing in a ‘southpaw’ stance) seem overrepresented. Such excess indicates a performance advantage and was also interpreted as evidence in favour of frequency-dependent selection mechanisms to explain the maintenance of left-handedness in humans. To test for an overrepresentation, the incidence of athletes' lateral preferences is typically compared with an expected ratio of left- to right-handedness in the normal population. However, the normal population reference values did not always relate to the sport-specific tasks of interest, which may limit the validity of reports of an excess of ‘left-oriented’ athletes. Here we sought to determine lateral preferences for various sport-specific tasks (e.g., baseball batting, boxing) in the normal population and to examine the relationship between these preferences and handedness. To this end, we asked 903 participants to indicate their lateral preferences for sport-specific and common tasks using a paper-based questionnaire. Lateral preferences varied considerably across the different sport tasks and we found high variation in the relationship between those preferences and handedness. In contrast to unimanual tasks (e.g., fencing or throwing), for bimanually controlled actions such as baseball batting, shooting in ice hockey or boxing the incidence of left preferences was considerably higher than expected from the proportion of left-handedness in the normal population and the relationship with handedness was relatively low. We conclude that (i) task-specific reference values are mandatory for reliably testing for an excess of athletes with a left preference, (ii) the term ‘handedness’ should be more cautiously used within the context of sport-related laterality research and (iii) observation of lateral preferences in sports may be of limited suitability for the verification of evolutionary theories of handedness.