When left means right: an explanation of the left cradling bias in terms of right hemisphere specializations

Abstract

Previous research has indicated that 70-85% of women and girls show a bias to hold infants, or dolls, to the left side of their body. This bias is not matched in males (e.g. deChateau, Holmberg & Winberg, 1978; Todd, 1995). This study tests an explanation of cradling preferences in terms of hemispheric specialization for the perception of facial emotional expression. Thirty-two right-handed participants were given a behavioural test of lateralization and a cradling task. Females, but not males, who cradled a doll on the left side were found to have significantly higher laterality quotients than right cradlers. Results indicate that women cradle on the side of the body that is contralateral to the hemisphere dominant for face and emotion processing and suggest a possible explanation of gender differences in the incidence of cradling.

Lateralization of infant holding by mothers: A longitudinal evaluation of variations over the first 12 weeks

“…In contrast, a link between left holding and left visual field advantage in the perception of face stimuli has been found in studies using dolls (Bourne & Todd, 2004;Huggenberger, Suter, Reijnen, & Schachinger, 2009;Vauclair & Donnot, 2005) though no equivalent right visual field advantage appears to be associated with right holding (Bourne & Todd, 2004;Harris et al, 2010). However, when mothers held infants, no correlation between visual field advantage and holding side was found (Donnot & Vauclair, 2007;Vauclair & Scola, 2009;Scola & Vauclair, 2010b).…”

“…If this model were applied to the data from this study, the group of mothers who showed an inconsistent lateral bias would be presumed to have higher levels of fluctuating asymmetry. This kind of variability may go some way towards explaining inconsistencies and discrepancies within the literature regarding associations between infant/doll holding side and measures of hemispheric specialisation (Bourne & Todd, 2004;Donnot & Vauclair, 2007;Harris et al, 2010;Huggenberger et al, 2009;Lucas et al, 1996). It could therefore be informative to compare hemispheric laterality data from participants, especially mothers, who show a consistent lateral cradling preference with those who do not.…”

Context-dependent lateralization of trunk movements in wild Asian elephants

“…This type of analysis does not allow estimation of individual preferences, but is often used to assess the one-sided behavioural biases at the population level (Bourne and Todd, 2004;Siniscalchi et al, 2012;Karenina et al, 2017). The first observation of lateral trunk use from each individual was included in the analysis.…”

Is infant holding‐side bias related to motor asymmetries in mother and child?

“…The right hemisphere is known to play a role in the expression and perception of emotional information (e.g., Bryden & Levy, 1983) and could consequently be involved in the regulation of emotional exchanges when a parent holds his or her child. Different investigations (e.g., Bourne & Todd, 2004;Huggenberger et al, 2009;Vauclair & Donnot, 2005) have demonstrated that hemispheric specialization in the perception of facial emotions is correlated with holding-side biases. The main finding is that the left holding bias is linked to enhanced perception of facial emotions in the left visual field, that is, under the control of the right cerebral hemisphere.…”

“…The generality of this behavior has prompted growing interest in the literature and some researchers have attempted to explain the origin of this bias. As holding-side preference is a postural asymmetry, several studies have examined the relationship between the side of holding and the presence of other asymmetries expressed by the mother (e.g., perceptual asymmetries and handedness: Bourne & Todd, 2004;Harris, Almerigi, & Kirsch, 2000;Huggenberger, Suter, Reijnen, & Schachinger, 2009;Manning & Chamberlain, 1991;Vauclair & Donnot, 2005) or by the child (e.g., asymmetric tonic neck reflex or ATNR: Bundy, 1979;Ginsburg, Fling, Hope, Musgrove, & Andrews, 1979;Sieratzki & Woll, 1996).…”