Search results

Search:
in the keywords: right

Sort By:

Limit search:

No cheek bias for non-primates: an instagram replication of thomas et al. (2006)

100%

Lindell A. K.

vol. 21(3)

251-257

Previous research has established that photos of great apes, including humans, show a left cheek bias. As this bias is absent in images of lower primates and other animals, phylo-genetic proximity appears to influence humans’ depictions of nonhuman species. However Thomas et al.’s (2006) finding of a left cheek bias for dogs challenges this argument. As their analyses were underpowered, the present study sought to replicate Thomas et al.’s study with a larger sample to help determine whether human depictions of non-human animals vary as a function of their evolutionary relatedness. Photographs (N=2883) were sourced from Instagram’s ‘Most Recent’ feed using hashtags that matched Thomas et al.’s Google Image search terms: #dog, #cat, #fish, #lizard, #cute- baby, #cryingbaby. The first 401 lateral images for each hashtag were coded for pose orientation (left, right). Replicating Thomas et al., results confirmed a left cheek bias for mammals but not nonmammals. The left cheek bias was driven by images of human infants; there were no cheek biases for images of nonhuman animals (dogs, cats, lizards, fish). As a left cheek bias was evident in photos of primates (#cutebaby, #cryingbaby), but absent for other mammals (#dog, #cat) and nonmammals (#lizard, #fish), the data support the argument that phylogenetic proximity influences posing biases.

On the other hand: the costs and benefits of left-handedness

86%

Fritsche S. A., Lindell A. K.

Acta Neuropsychologica

2019

vol. 17(1)

69-86

Left-handers have been persecuted by right-handers for millennia. This right bias is evident cross-culturally, linguistically (right is literally and figuratively ‘right’, with lefties being described as ‘gauche’, ‘sinister’ and ‘cack-handed’), and environmentally (e.g., equipment design, including power tools, ticket machines, and lecture-room desks). Despite this, the proportion of left-handers has remained constant at approximately 10% of the hominid population, implying that though there are costs associated with left-handedness (if there were not, the proportions of left- and right-handers would be 50:50), left handers must also enjoy fitness advantages that maintain the genes for left-handedness in the population. This paper reviews the costs and benefits of being left-handed, exploring research examining the effects of handedness on brain structure, cognitive function, and human behaviour. The research confirms a variety of left-hander advantages, including some cognitive superiorities, higher wages, and greater sporting and fighting prowess. On the other hand, left-handedness is also associated with significant fitness costs, including an increased risk of accidents, higher substance abuse susceptibility, and earlier death, in comparison with right-handers. In sum, left-handedness confers both costs and benefits, with the latter outweighing the former, maintaining the genes for left-handedness in the population.

Refine search results

2 Acta Neuropsychologica

1 2023

1 2019

2 Lindell A. K.

1 Fritsche S. A.

Search results

No cheek bias for non-primates: an instagram replication of thomas et al. (2006)

On the other hand: the costs and benefits of left-handedness