Relationship between birth order, birth stress, and lateral preferences: A critical review.

Searleman, Alan; Porac, Clare; Coren, Stanley

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.397

Cited by 111 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results are consistent with previous findings in chimpanzees for a measure of coordinated bimanual actions . There is evidence that birth order and maternal age or both influence handedness in humans (Searleman et al, 1989), and the pattern of results is similar to that reported here. Of course, the operational definition of latter-born subjects differs between species, with human latter-born individuals being typically defined as subjects with parities of either 3 or 4 and beyond.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Simple Reaching Is Not So Simple: Association Between Hand Use and Grip Preferences in Captive Chimpanzees

Hopkins

Russell²,

Hook

et al. 2005

Int J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assessed the relationship between grip preference and hand use in chimpanzees in 2 experiments. In experiment 1, we evaluated consistency in hand use and grip preference across 4 food types. The chimpanzees showed population-level right-handedness and there are significant positive associations for both hand and grip use across food types. In experiment 2, we assessed validity of hand use in relation to grip preference in 2 colonies of chimpanzees via the same methodology. Differences in hand preferences between colonies were associated with variation in the observed grip preferences. There was no evidence of rearing effects on handedness in either colony. We discuss the overall results in the context of the evolution of handedness in relation to increasing motor demands as manifest in variation on grasping behavior. KeywordsChimpanzee; hand preference; grip preference There has been considerable historical (Ettlinger, 1988;Fagot and Vauclair, 1991;Marchant and McGrew, 1991;Warren, 1980) and contemporary (Corballis, 1992, in press; Hopkins and Cantalupo, in press;McGrew and Marchant, 1997;Palmer, 2002) debate regarding the presence or absence of population-level hand preferences in nonhuman primates and the factors that influence the expression of handedness in nonhumans. The question of whether nonhuman primates express population-level asymmetries is of considerable theoretical interest because of the alleged role of hemispheric specialization in the evolution of complex human behavior including tool-use, bipedalism and language (Bradshaw and Rogers, 1993). In the absence of a clear transition from no handedness to handedness throughout the evolutionary continuum, we can only postulate how handedness and hemispheric specialization evolved. Further understanding of factors that influence the expression of handedness in nonhuman primates is important to evaluate various models of the evolution of hemispheric specialization in primates.6To whom correspondence should be addressed to William D. Hopkins, Division of Psychobiology, Living Links Center, Yerkes Primate Research Center, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322; e-mail: Ircbh@rmy.emory.edu.. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptInt J Primatol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2007 December 27. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptThe most commonly used measure of hand preference in nonhuman primates is simple reaching (Lehman, 1993). Despite numerous studies in a variety of nonhuman primate species, there is little evidence that it induces population-level handedness. However, recent studies suggested that posture can influence the expression of directional biases in hand use for simple reaching (Fagot and Vauclair, 1991;MacNeilage et al., 1987;Westergaard et al., 1998). In prosimians, preferential use of the left hand is increased when they adopt an upright versus a tripedal posture . This is also the case in some New and Old World monkeys and lesser apes (Hook-Costigan and Rogers, 1997;Olson et al., 1990). H...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Simple Reaching Is Not So Simple: Association Between Hand Use and Grip Preferences in Captive Chimpanzees

Hopkins

Russell²,

Hook

et al. 2005

Int J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Maternal age did not significantly correlate with either gestation length, r(75) = −.081, ns, or birth weight, r(75) = .136, ns. Taken together, these data suggest that early born chimpanzees have lower birth weights, which may be interpreted as indicators of prenatal birth stress or prematurity, factors that are known to correlate with hand preference in humans (Petridou et al, 1994;Searleman et al, 1989).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Birth order and hand preference in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Implications for pathological models of handedness in humans.

Hopkins¹,

Dahl²

2000

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of birth order on hand preference was assessed in a sample of 154 captive-born chimpanzees. Subjects were classified as first, middle, or latter born using 2 classification criteria based on their birth order. Hand preference was measured using a task that elicited coordinated bimanual actions. Significant birth-order effects were found for both classification criteria, with firstand latter-born subjects exhibiting a lesser degree of right-handedness compared with middle-born subjects. These data suggest that biological rather than sociological factors play a greater role in explaining the observed birth-order effects on hand preference in humans.Approximately 85% to 90% of humans report themselves as being right-handed (Annett, 1985;Porac & Coren, 1981). Explaining the pervasive degree of right-handedness in the human species has fostered considerable theoretical debate and empirical investigation. Genetic, biological, and environmental models have been proposed to explain this population-level right-handedness, each with varying amounts of empirical support (Annett, 1999;Collins, 1985;Corballis, 1997;Laland, Kumm, Van Horn, & Feldman, 1995;Previc, 1991;Provins, 1997;Trevarthen, 1996). Equally important are theoretical models proposed to explain the occurrences of left-handedness or non-right-handedness in human populations. That genetic factors may play a role is supported by the observation that approximately 70% of individuals born to two left-handed parents are right-handed, which is significantly lower than the proportion of fight-handed individuals born to two right-handed parents (McGee & Cozad, 1980;McManus & Bryden, 1992). Genetic explanations account for only part of the variance, however, leaving error or other factors to explain the remaining variability. Rather than emphasize genetic factors, others have suggested that both pre-and postnatal environmental factors play a role in determining non-right-handedness. Such factors include but are not limited to birth season, birth order, maternal age, and prenatal hormones. In these models, righthandedness is perceived as being the normative path of development, and therefore non-righthandedness reflects a deviation from normal development that is due to pathological factors (see Satz, Soper, & Orsini, 1988). Of specific interest to this study are the reports focusing on the effect of birth order on hand preference in humans.Bakan and colleagues (Bakan, 1971;Bakan, Dibb, & Reed, 1973) first reported and theorized about the relationship between birth order and hand preference in humans. Bakan (1971) reported that there was a higher percentage of left-handedness in first-and latter-born offspring (defined as more than 4 birth orders) and postulated that the effects were due to birth trauma experienced by offspring born to primiparous or older women. Bakan (1971) proposed that birth trauma is more likely in women who are giving birth for the first time or for older women who present a higher risk group for prenatal insult. Researchers who ...

show abstract

“…The historic stability of right hand dominance led Bakan [9]to the hypothesis that the genetic predisposition in humans is towards right-handedness, and that deviation from this was a result of neurological insult associated with the prenatal environment or delivery factors. In support of Bakan’s hypothesis, many studies, reviewed by Searleman et al [10], have since reported associations between left-handedness and low birth weight, prematurity, birth trauma and birth order. Left-handedness has also been linked to pubertal delay [5]and it has been found that LH populations are shorter than similar right-handed (RH) populations [11, 12]suggesting that LH subjects fail to reach their genetic height potential.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Hormones and Handedness

Mulligan

Stratford²,

Bailey

et al. 2001

Horm Res Paediatr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Wessex Growth Study has monitored the growth and psychological development of short normal (SN) and average height control subjects since they entered school in 1985/1986. During psychometric testing, we found that 25% SN compared to 9% control subjects wrote with their left hand. The short group also attained significantly lower scores on measures of IQ and attainment and displayed less internalisation of control. Laterality, however, is thought to be influenced by the intrauterine environment and has been associated with pubertal delay. At recruitment, short children had a relatively low birth weight, delayed bone age and were more likely than controls to be short for family. Objectives: To determine if birth conditions were associated with lateral preference and whether laterality could account for the differences found during the psychometric assessment or predict pubertal timing of SN children. Methods: Subjects were classified as right- (RH) or left-handed (LH) according to the writing hand and the data were investigated examining the effect of handedness and stature. Results: RH and LH SN children were no more likely to suffer birth complications than those of average height. Psychometric testing did not reveal any significant differences between RH and LH SN children and their patterns of growth appeared to be similar. However, both RH and LH SN children scored less well on tests of cognitive ability and analyses of covariance revealed significant gender/handedness effects for both the timing of puberty and final height. Conclusions: The increase in left-handedness among SN children did not appear to be related to adverse birth conditions, but it may be that the hormones responsible for growth and development also play some part in brain laterality and cognitive development.

show abstract

Relationship between birth order, birth stress, and lateral preferences: A critical review.

Cited by 111 publications

References 60 publications

Simple Reaching Is Not So Simple: Association Between Hand Use and Grip Preferences in Captive Chimpanzees

Simple Reaching Is Not So Simple: Association Between Hand Use and Grip Preferences in Captive Chimpanzees

Birth order and hand preference in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Implications for pathological models of handedness in humans.

Hormones and Handedness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About