Handedness and Accidents with Injury

Hicks, Robert A.; Pass, Karen; Freeman, Hope; Bautista, Jose; Johnson, Crystal

doi:10.2466/pms.1993.77.3f.1119

Cited by 40 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Coren and Previc (1989) and Coren (1996) show a higher incidence of accidents occurring to left-handers in samples of US military personnel and university students respectively 'though this finding has not been found in other studies e.g. Hicks et al (1993), Barnes et al (1998) and Pekkarinen, Salminen and Järvelin (2003), so it is far from clear that this holds generally.…”

Section: Lateralitymentioning

confidence: 68%

The economic consequences of being left-handed: some sinister results

Denny¹,

O’Sullivan²

2006

Working Paper Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides the first estimates of the effects of handedness on hourly earnings. Augmenting a conventional earnings equation with an indicator of left handedness shows there is a well determined positive effect on male earnings with non-manual workers enjoying a slightly larger premium.These results are inconsistent with the view that left-handers in general are in some sense handicapped either innately or through experiencing a world geared towards right-handers. The results for females however reveal the opposite, left-handed females are paid significantly less. This is consistent with some psychological evidence which suggests that left-hander males have particular talents such as enhanced creativity and some evidence on brain morphology which also suggests advantages for left-handed males.Keywords: earnings, brain, left-handed, laterality The economic consequences of being left-handed: some sinister results

show abstract

Section: Lateralitymentioning

confidence: 68%

The economic consequences of being left-handed: some sinister results

Denny¹,

O’Sullivan²

2006

Working Paper Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Genetic models of lateral preference and bias in both humans (e.g., Annett, 1985;Morgan & Corballis, 1978) and non-humans (Collins, 1985), for example, suggest that degree of lateral bias is at least as (if not more) important in heredity as direction. Similarly, while few behavioral studies have explicitly distinguished between direction and degree of handedness, those that do typically find that strongly left-and strongly right-handed subjects are more similar to each other than either are to mixed-handers (e.g., Barnett & Corballis, 2002;Burnett, Lane, & Dratt, 1982;Christman, 1993;Christman & Ammann, 1995;Hicks et al, 1993;Kim, Raine, Triphon, & Green, 1992;Ponton, 1987;Porac, 1993;Schacter, 1994). Furthermore, strongly left-handed people only make up about 2% of the population (Lansky, Feinstein, & Peterson, 1988), making comparisons between strongly left-versus right-handed individuals logistically problematic.…”

Section: Possible Mechanisms Of Handedness Differences In Interhemispmentioning

confidence: 99%

A neuropsychological dimension for anchoring effects

Jasper

Christman

2005

J. Behav. Decis. Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown that strength of handedness predicts differences in sensory illusions, Stroop interference, episodic memory, and beliefs about body image and the origin of species. Recent evidence also suggests handedness differences in the susceptibility to information framing and persuasion. The present paper extends this line of work to decision anchoring effects. In Experiment 1, 131 introductory psychology students responded to 12 real-world knowledge questions after being given random, uninformative high or low anchors. Results indicated that ''strong-handers'' showed larger anchoring effects than ''mixed-handers.'' In Experiment 2, 89 introductory psychology students responded to 6 real-world knowledge questions in a modified, two-step anchoring task in which participants were given a credible source for the anchored information and asked to give pre-and post-anchor estimates. In contrast to Experiment 1, results revealed that mixed-and strong-handers were affected similarly by anchoring. In Experiment 3, 158 students were asked to estimate the answer to one of two versions of 8! (8 Â 7 Â 6 Â 5 Â 4 Â 3 Â 2 Â 1 or 1 Â 2 Â 3 Â 4 Â 5 Â 6 Â 7 Â 8)-a multiplication problem in which the high and low anchors are inherently informative. Here, mixedhanders showed larger anchoring effects than strong-handers. A theory centered around the notion of hemispheric specialization and the communication between the two halves of the brain as well as arguments about the informativeness of anchors, metacognition, and recent theorizing in the anchoring literature are used to account for these data.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, given evidence that degree of handedness (i.e., mixed versus strong) may be more important than direction (i.e., left versus right) of handedness (e.g., Burnett, Lane, & Dratt, 1982;Christman, 1993;Hicks, Pass, Freeman, Bautista, & Johnson, 1993;Ponton, 1987;Schacter, 1994;Weinrich, Wells, & McManus, 1982), the performance of strongly right-and mixed-handed individuals was compared. As Schacter (1994) points out, handedness analyses can often lose statistical power when right-handed groups include both strongly and weakly right-handed subjects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mixed- versus strong right-handedness is associated with biases towards "remember" versus "know" judgements in recognition memory: Role of interhemispheric interaction

Propper

Christman

2004

Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growing evidence supports the hypothesis that episodic versus semantic memories rely primarily on interhemispheric versus intrahemispheric processing, respectively. For example, a recent study found that individuals with presumed greater interhemispheric interaction were superior in episodic recall but inferior at semantic word fragment completion; however, tests of recognition memory yielded no group differences. Interestingly, recognition memory can be based on either explicitly remembering a stimulus or implicitly knowing that a stimulus had been presented. The current experiments administered recognition memory tests to strongly versus mixed handed participants who judged for each recognised item whether their response was based on remembering (episodic memory) or knowing (semantic memory) (Tulving, 1983). Results indicate that strong versus mixed handers are biased towards basing recognition responses on judgements of knowing versus remembering, respectively. As strong versus mixed handedness is associated with greater versus lesser interhemispheric processing, the results support the original hypothesis.

show abstract

Handedness and Accidents with Injury

Cited by 40 publications

References 6 publications

The economic consequences of being left-handed: some sinister results

The economic consequences of being left-handed: some sinister results

A neuropsychological dimension for anchoring effects

Mixed- versus strong right-handedness is associated with biases towards "remember" versus "know" judgements in recognition memory: Role of interhemispheric interaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About