Why do mothers cradle babies on their left?

Sieratzki, Jechil S.; Woll, Bencie

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)90813-2

Cited by 86 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Various authors (e.g., Bogren, 1984;Harris et al, 2001;Sieratzki & Woll, 1996) have sought to understand the origin and function of the holding-side bias. As their conclusions differ, according to population and evaluation methods, the main objective of the present studies was to investigate the effects of various asymmetries on holdingside biases in the mother-child dyad.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Scola

Vauclair

2010

Developmental Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies have revealed a preference for the left hemibody in infant holding in 65-85% of cases. Several investigations have linked this preference to maternal asymmetries. The main goal of the present study was to assess manual and hemispheric asymmetries in both mother and child and delineate their respective influence on holding-side biases. Holding side was assessed by direct observation, and by use of a questionnaire within populations of mother-child dyads. Maternal asymmetries were handedness and hemispheric specialization for perceiving emotions. Infant asymmetries were fetal position, asymmetric tonic neck reflex (ATNR) at birth and handedness at 19 months of age. To that purpose a longitudinal study has been made with infants observed at 2 and 19 months of age. A significant relationship was found between maternal handedness and holding preferences, but no significant relation was obtained between hemispheric specialization and holding preferences. Fetal position in utero but not ATNR, was significantly related to holding-side preferences. Finally, holding side at 2 months was significantly associated with infants' unimanual preferences.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Scola

Vauclair

2010

Developmental Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To investigate whether the role of auditory information could also be as critical as the visual information (Sieratzki and Woll, 1996), Turnbull and Matheson (1996) hypothesized that the left-cradling bias should be reduced in deaf mothers. For that purpose, 12 congenitally deaf people and 12 congenitally blind individuals were requested to cradle a lifesize infant doll, or to i magine cradling an infant.…”

Section: Imagined Situationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Posture and laterality in human and non-human primates: Asymmetries in maternal handling and the infant's early motor asymmetries

Damerose

Vauclair

2002

Comparative Vertebrate Lateralization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter is concerned with the question of the relations and possible influences of environmental factors on the establishment of patterns of manual lateralization in human and non-human primates. More specifically, we are interested in the relation between maternal postures and laterality in nonhuman primates (e.g. bias in cradling behaviour and hand preference of the mother) and the development of patterns of manual preferences in infants. In order to understand fully the many ways in which these variables could interact, we first review the evidence of postural biases in human adults when cradling and carrying their offspring. Next, we examine the divergent hypotheses advanced to explain the observed biases. The same is then done for non-human primates. A second part of our chapter (see Section 9.3) describes the different asymmetric patterns observed during the development of the infant concerning head turning, nipple preference, etc. i n both human and non-human primates.In a third part (see Section 9.4), we describe and compare the methods and definitions used by the different authors in their work. Then, we present the descriptions and definitions of behaviours that we are using in an ongoing study of Olive baboons (Papio anubis).Our main goal is to contribute to understanding the phylogenetic origins of hand laterality in humans by examining some of its possible determinants in non-human primates. Despite numerous efforts to propose models and explanatory schemata of hand laterality in non-human primates (e.g. MacNeilage, Studdert-Kennedy and Lindblom, 1987;Fagot and Vauclair, 1991; Ward and Hopkins, 1993), this question is still largely unresolved. On the other hand, views of determinants of hand laterality in humans still fluctuate between genetically (e.g. Annett, 1985Annett, , 1995 Hopkins and 307

show abstract

“…Salk (1960) was the first to suggest that humans exhibit a left cradling bias for infants and the finding has been replicated in various human cultures (Damerose and Vauclair, 2002). Salk (1973) reported no association between maternal hand preference and maternal cradling bias, which may have led some to believe that the asymmetries in maternal cradling bias are due to biases related to expression of specific emotional states (Sieratzki and Woll, 1996). Whether this is the case or not is a matter of debate beyond the scope of this paper (Bencie and Sieratzki, 2002;Turnbull et al, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laterality in Maternal Cradling and Infant Positional Biases: Implications for the Development and Evolution of Hand Preferences in Nonhuman Primates

Hopkins

2004

International Journal of Primatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Left-sided maternal cradling has been widely reported in human populations. In this paper, I review the evidence of laterality in maternal cradling and infant positional biases in non-human primates. The review revealed some evidence of population-left sided cradling in great apes but little consistency in bias was found among Old and New World monkeys. Very little data have been reported in prosimians. I further describe how asymmetries in either maternal cradling or infant positional biases may explain individual and species differences in hand preference.

show abstract

Why do mothers cradle babies on their left?

Cited by 86 publications

References 26 publications

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

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

Posture and laterality in human and non-human primates: Asymmetries in maternal handling and the infant's early motor asymmetries

Laterality in Maternal Cradling and Infant Positional Biases: Implications for the Development and Evolution of Hand Preferences in Nonhuman Primates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About