psba3-bt_2016-2_s2574608_bodiut

Running head: HAND PREFERENCE AND SOCIAL INTERACTION 1

A Comparison between Left- and Right-handers in Agentic and Communal Behaviors during

Daily Social Interaction

V.A. Bodiut

(s2574608)

July, 2016

Bachelor Thesis BSc Programme of Psychology

Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences

University of Groningen

Supervised by: dr. R. H. Geuze

Second evaluator: dr. M. aan het Rot

Author Note

The work covered in this bachelor thesis was supported by grants from the Heymans

Institute of the Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Netherlands.

I gratefully acknowledge the fine support and guidance of Reint Geuze and Marije aan het Rot,

as well as the fruitful collaboration and friendship with Martijn Gäbler.

HAND PREFERENCE AND SOCIAL INTERACTION 2

Abstract

The current study explored the relationship between hand preference and daily social

interaction: do left- and right-handers differ in the way they interact with other people? Such a

relationship could help explain the asymmetry observed in handedness (i.e., about 10% left-

handers). We measured agentic (submissive to dominant) and communal (quarrelsome to

agreeable) behavior by means of event-contingent data recording. The total sample of bachelor

students (N = 245, 59% female, 31% left-handed) ranged from 17 to 34 years of age, M = 20.8,

SD = 2.2. Using their smartphones (on which the questionnaire was presented), participants

reported an average of 2 interactions per day for 14 consecutive days. Multilevel analysis with

social interactions nested within participants was performed. Handedness did not seem to

influence agency in any significant way. However, an interaction between hand preference and

participants’ sex was observed in communion, t(241) = 2.00, p = .02: left-handed men behaved

less communal towards others, especially when interacting with other men (not women). We

conclude that hand preference is linked to communion in daily life and might therefore be

considered more often in research on social interaction. The results may suggest that compared to

right-handers, left-handed men are more competitive when interacting with other men, but not

when interacting with other woman. We aim to integrate the findings within negative frequency-

dependent selection in hand preference. We also provide some directions for further research.

Keywords: hand preference, social behavior, interpersonal circumplex, event-contingent

recording, negative frequency-dependent selection


A Comparison between Left- and Right-handers in Agentic and Communal Behaviors during

Daily Social Interaction

Hand preference is a salient behavioral asymmetry in humans and can be defined as “the

individual’s preference to use one hand predominantly for unimanual tasks and/or the ability to

perform these tasks more efficiently with one hand” (Corey, Hurley, & Foundas, 2001, p. 144).

Handedness seems to develop very early, both phylogenetically (Corballis, 1991; Lozano,

Mosquera, de Castro, Arsuaga, & Carbonell, 2009) and ontogenetically (Hepper, 2013;

Rodriguez & Waldenström, 2008) and shows a consistent population-level bias of about 9:1

towards the right hand (e.g., Frayer et al., 2012; Annett, 1985). This strong bias towards right-

handedness and the continuity of left-handedness are still puzzling in the evolutionary

perspective (i.e., Darwinism). One of the important determinants of social status, bonding and

reproduction in animals living in groups is social interaction (e.g., Bergstrom, 2002). It has been

proposed that negative frequency-dependent selection, based on the role of hand preference in

social interactions, may provide an evolutionary explanation for the distribution of handedness.

Prior research has examined the influence of handedness on ratings of communication styles or

personality traits (e.g., Bodary & Miller, 2000; Lyle, Chapman, & Hatton, 2013), but little

attention has been paid to the relationship between hand preference and actual social behavior.

This is what the current study aimed to investigate.

Throughout human evolution, hand use has been essential in acting upon and responding

to the physical world. Compared to non-human vertebrates where limb preference is either

inexistent, present solely at an individual-level, or showing a less skewed population-level

distribution (Ströckens, Güntürkün, & Ocklenburg, 2013), humans display the strongest

asymmetry in handedness (Marchant, McGrew, & Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1995; Coren, Porac, &


Duncan, 1981). Some topographical and ethnic variance has been reported (i.e., from 3% to 26%

left-handers), but a substantial bias towards right-handedness is present in every known

population (e.g., Coren & Porac, 1977; Porac, Rees, & Buller, 1990; Raymond & Pontier, 2004;

Llaurens, Raymond, & Faurie, 2009). At least since the Upper Paleolithic (i.e., some 50.000 –

10.000 years ago), the distribution of handedness seems to be relatively stable (i.e., about 10%

left-handers) across cultures and continents (Faurie & Raymond, 2004).

The relationship between hand preference and language use has received a lot of

scientific interest, as both are generally agreed to be lateralized in the left hemisphere in about

90% of right-handers (e.g., Isaacs, Barr, Nelson, & Devinsky, 2006; Khedr, Hamed, Said, &

Basahi, 2002; Sommer, Ramsey, Mandl, & Kahn, 2002). More atypical patterns have been

observed in the left-handed population (e.g., Bodary & Miller, 2000; Hugdahl & Davidson,

2004; Ocklenburg & Gunturkun, 2012). Knecht et al. (2000) showed that the right-hemispheric

dominance for language increases linearly with the strength of left-handedness, ranging from 4%

in the strong right-handed population, to 15% in ambidextrous individuals and 27% in strong

left-handers.

It has been postulated that gestural communication might have been the evolutionary

precursor of human language (e.g., Meguerditchian & Vauclair, 2008; Meguerditchian, Vauclair,

& Hopkins, 2013; Arbib, 2011). Indeed, perceptions of semantic information through symbolic

gesturing and speech in humans appear to be integrated simultaneously in the brain and share the

same left-lateralized networks of activation (Kelly, Özyürek, & Maris, 2009; Straube et al., 2015;

Willems & Hagoort, 2007). The study of sign language in non-hearing adults has added

additional evidence for a shared neural network of verbal and gestural communication

(Gentilucci & Dalla Volta, 2008). Moreover, gesturing is fundamental in the development of


communication, as it allows infants who are not able to verbalize yet to express meanings

(Colonnesi, Stams, Koster, & Noom, 2010). Rowe and Goldwin-Meadow (2009) found that the

time infants did the first combinations of gestures and words predicted the time of the first two-

word combinations.

The shared lateralized control of gestures as manual actions and gestures as speech

actions seems to be the particular link between the development of handedness and language.

Michel et al. (2013) proposed that the initial manual sensorimotor skills in infants play a major

role in the development of speech gestures and that the lateralization of language abilities is

directly influenced by handedness. Furthermore, Cochet (2015) found that the strength of hand

preference in toddlers was directly associated with verbal language abilities, where

communicative gestures, and not the non-communicative ones were relevant. Thus, handedness

seems to have a formative impact on gestural and verbal communication, which form the most

important aspect of human social interaction.

Another body of research has focused on the transition of handedness from an individual-

level bias towards one of the hands, to the strong population-level bias towards the right hand

observed today. The evolutionary explanation for this transition assumes that characteristics

associated with right-handedness have been selected upon. Indeed, left-handedness seems to be

related to a number of adverse traits that lower Darwinian fitness, such as low birth weight and

delayed maturation (for a review see Llaurens et al., 2009), dyslexia (Tønnessen, 1997),

stuttering (Kushner, 2012), lower spatial ability (Somers, Shields, Boks, Kahn, & Sommer,

2015), unusual sexual preferences (Green & Young, 2001), criminal inclination (Ellis & Ames,

1989; Bogaert, 2001), and increased risk of accidents (Daniel & Yeo, 1994). In addition, higher

percentages of left-handers have been found in patients with epilepsy, autism, Down’s syndrome


and schizophrenia (Bishop, 1990; Boucher, 1977; Lewin, Kohen, & Mathew, 1993; Sommer,

Aleman, Ramsey, Bouma, & Kahn, 2001). However, the hypothesis that left-handers have more

health problems in general was shown to be inaccurate in a large population survey by Zickert et

al. (2015). Similarly, the popular belief of a shorter life expectancy for left-handed people has

been questioned and shown to be incorrect (e.g., Hicks, Johnson, Cuevas, Deharo, & Bautista,

1994).

A (broad) heritability estimate of 25% has been reported in human handedness (Medland

et al., 2009; also see Sicotte, Woods, & Mazziotta, 1999). If hand preference is partially heritable

and right-handedness is being selected upon for such a long time (e.g., Faurie & Raymond,

2004), then why is left-handedness still present and not removed by natural selection? The so-

called negative frequency-dependent selection mechanism is able to explain polymorphisms in

the animal kingdom (Vallortigara & Rogers, 2005), including human handedness (Billiard,

Faurie, & Raymond, 2005). It can be conceptualized as a balance between benefits and

shortcomings of certain characteristics that maintains a minority. Particularly, in order to avoid

extinction, left-handers must possess some form of advantage that becomes stronger when rare,

increasing survival fitness and counteracting the right-handed majority.

Several such potential advantages associated with left-handedness have been

investigated. For instance, Benbow (1986) argued that the hemispheric right-shift of some brain

functions observed in left-handers could lead to enhanced cognition (e.g., heightened creativity).

The picture is still inconclusive, as some studies have found such effects (e.g., Coren, 1995),

while others have not (e.g., Zickert et al., 2015). One robust finding is the surprise effect of left-

handedness observed in various forms of interpersonal conflict, as part of ‘the fighting

hypothesis’ (Faurie & Raymond, 2013; Pollet, Stulp, & Groothuis, 2013). The percentage of left-


handers in interactive sports (i.e., sports where one player is directly influenced by the actions of

the opponent) is much higher than in the normal population or non-interactive sports, reaching

up to 50% (Faurie & Raymond, 2013). The reasoning behind ‘the fighting hypothesis’ is that

left-handers are used to combat against right-handers, while the opposite is not true (i.e., the

surprise effect). This will lead to higher chances of winning and increased survival fitness of left-

handers. Once left-handedness is not rare anymore (e.g., 50% in some sports), the advantage is

lost. Some evidence suggested a higher percentage of left-handers in traditional societies, where

interpersonal conflicts are more frequent. Faurie and Raymond (2005) found that homicide rates

are strongly and positively correlated with the frequency of left-handedness, ranging from 3% in

most pacifistic societies, to 27% in most violent societies. Additionally, the higher prevalence of

males in the non-right-handed population with about 20% (i.e., about 12% of men and 10% of

women are currently non-right-handed; Papadatou-Pastou, Martin, Munafò, & Jones, 2008) fits,

as male-to-male conflicts are the most common (e.g., Mesquida & Wiener, 1999).

Besides scenarios that involve physical conflict (which are relatively uncommon),

considering the role of hand preference in language lateralization, gesturing and speech

(previously described; e.g., Knecht et al., 2000; Meguerditchian et al., 2013; Michel, Babik,

Nelson, Campbell, & Marcinowski, 2013; Cochet, 2015), left-handedness might be linked to

interpersonal behavior in more subtle ways in everyday life. In order to operationalize people’s

behavior, we (i.e., Geuze, aan het Rot, Gäbler, & Bodiut) used the interpersonal circumplex

model as the theoretical background. According to the model, any interpersonal behavior can be

conceptualized as a combination of the two orthogonal dimensions of agency and communion

(Kiesler, 1983; Wiggins, 1991). Agentic behaviors are related to individuation, status, power,

hierarchy, while communal behaviors are meant to promote interpersonal ties, affiliation,


cooperation, belongingness. For sampling daily social interactions we used event-contingent data

recording (ECR), suited for intensive and repeated measurements in naturalistic settings. Using

the same methodology, Moskowitz et al. (2015) examined links between 2D:4D digit ratios and

daily interpersonal behavior. Interestingly, they found that situational features (such as the sex of

the interaction partner) had an influence on interpersonal behavior (i.e., situation specificity).

We therefore expected differences between left- and right-handers in behaviors related to

agency and communion. We took an exploratory next step and aimed to explain the distribution

of handedness by means of negative frequency-dependent selection in social interaction. Based

on the literature on interpersonal conflict (i.e., ‘the fighting hypothesis’), we expected left-

handers (especially men) to behave less communal and more agentic towards their interaction

partners. Additionally, as the situation in which a social interaction occurs is expected to vary,

we explored if that has an influence on the findings (as in Moskowitz, Sutton, Zuroff, & Young,

2015).

Methods

Ethics Statement

The study was approved by the Ethics Board of the Department of Psychology at the

University of Groningen, Netherlands. Written informed consent was obtained from all

participants. We conducted the study in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Participants

The current data collection focused on left-handed participants. A total sample of 55 left-

handed bachelor students (60% female) completed the study. The age ranged from 18 to 26 years

(M = 21.7, SD = 1.7) with no significant difference between men and women, t(53) = 1.05, p

= .30. Seven first-year students in the English or Dutch Bachelor program in Psychology at the


University of Groningen took part in the study in exchange for course credits. The other 48

participants were recruited using paper advertisements in exchange for 35 euros upon

successfully finalizing the study. Dutch native speakers (36%) had the opportunity to complete

the study in Dutch, while English was used for the international students. We assumed a

proficient or near-proficient level of English. No complains related to language comprehension

were made.

Two pre-existing datasets (previously described by aan het Rot, Moskowitz, & de Jong,

2015; Franzen, 2016, sample 1) using the same data collection methodology (see Procedures)

were merged with the current data. The total sample (N = 245, 59% female, 31% left-handed)

ranged from 17 to 34 years of age, M = 20.8, SD = 2.2. Men were, on average, 1.2 years older

than women, t(243) = 4.14, p < .001, and left-handers 1.0 year older than right-handers, t(243) =

3.36, p < .001. Although statistically significant, a one year age difference in such a homogenous

sample of bachelor students was considered meaningless (i.e., not affecting social interaction).

Event-contingent recording

In ECR, data recording is completed subsequent to the occurrence of a specified event

(i.e., a social interaction), making it suitable for avoiding recall bias, retrospection and other

events that might influence the ratings. The behaviors were measured with the SBI, a

questionnaire derived by Moskowitz (1994) from the interpersonal circumplex model. Students

were asked to check off from a list of behaviors the ones that applied in the interaction to be

reported. There were 24 items measuring each of the two dimensions of the circumplex. The

dimension of agency ranged from unassured or submissive to assured or dominant behaviors.

Examples of items indicating low agency were “I did not say how I felt” or “I spoke softly”,

while items such as “I assigned someone to a task” or “I expressed an opinion” indicated high


agency. The dimension of communion ranged from quarrelsomeness or coldness to

agreeableness or warmness. Items like “I ignored the other(s) comments” or “I showed

impatience” indicated low communion, while items such as “I expressed reassurance” or “I

listened attentively to the other(s)” indicated high communion. In order to avoid response styles,

the 48 items of the SBI were equally distributed among four subscales and alternated on an

interaction-to-interaction basis. The SBI has been shown to provide reliable and valid scores for

the behavioral dimensions, both in students and working people (Moskowitz, 1994; Moskowitz

& Sadikaj, 2012).

In line with previous studies using the ECR/SBI (e.g., Moskowitz, Sutton, Zuroff, &

Young, 2015; aan het Rot et al., 2015), ipsative scores were computed for dominance,

submissiveness, agreeableness and quarrelsomeness. An ipsative behavior score shows the

frequency of certain behaviors corresponding to a trait, after correcting for general rates of

responding (for details, see Horowitz, Rosenberg, Baer, Ureño, & Villaseñor, 1988). Agency

scores were computed by the subtraction: dominance – submissiveness; communion scores were

computed by the subtraction: agreeableness – quarrelsomeness.

Procedures

Prospective participants attended a first meeting of approximately 1h, where they were

introduced to the study, consented for participation using a written sheet, provided basic

information, and got familiar with the procedures. A link to the online software TEMPEST

(Batalas & Markopoulos, 2012) was installed on their smartphones and saved as a bookmark on

the home screen. The website contained questions about physical symptoms experienced in the

past 24 hours, the start time of the interaction and its length, the setting (e.g., home vs

work/school), the sex of the interaction partner (i.e., same vs opposite sex) and the participant’s


relationship to him/her (e.g., supervisor, friend, romantic partner), the modality of interacting

(i.e., in person, by phone or via video), a questionnaire about feelings experienced during the

conversation, one of the four subscales of the SBI mentioned before, and the interpersonal grid

(Moskowitz & Zuroff, 2005) measuring how participants perceived their interaction partners.

Upon request, the full version of the website is available. The system was able to record

information both online and offline, and participants were informed of that. They had the chance

to practice with the software and all difficulties or questions were addressed. We provided

thorough information about what defines a social interaction and asked the participants to report

as many interactions as possible and as soon as possible after each encounter.

During the 2 weeks of data collection, we monitored the incoming data on a daily basis.

Aspects of interest included the number of reports per day, the time difference between the

occurrence and report of each interaction, as well as any oddities. When participants did not

adhere to the instructions, they were reminded of the criteria by email. One participant quit the

study and another had to be excluded because of no reports for a period of 5 days.

After the 2 weeks, in a short meeting, participants completed a questionnaire regarding

system usability and their reliability during the study. Upon request, debriefing was provided.

Data analysis

Reports missing behavioral information were excluded (5%). We also excluded all events

when alcohol was consumed 3 hours up to and including the interaction being reported (8%).

Cases in which participants waited more than 2 hours to report (6%) were excluded in the

datasets using TEMPEST (i.e., the current data and the dataset from Franzen, 2016, sample 1),

but not in the data used by aan het Rot et al. (2015). The reason is that the latter study used paper

questionnaires and information about the reporting time distance was not available.


Multilevel analysis is particularly suited to analyze nested or hierarchically-nested data.

In studies using a diary-style or longitudinal design, multiple observations are nested within

persons (e.g., Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002; Kreft & de Leeuw, 1998). As pointed out by Nezlek

(2008), ignoring the hierarchical structure can lead to misleading results (e.g., positive

correlation, when actually negative). Besides the data structure per se, the multilevel approach

was preferred upon traditional OLS methods for a number of other reasons. Firstly, reports on

social interactions within participants were not independent, as all entries from one person had in

common the characteristics of that person (previously described by Nezlek, 2008). Secondly, as

the number of reports varied between participants, we dealt with irregular structured data or an

unbalanced design.

We arranged the data in a two-level structure. Ipsatized scores on agency and

communion, the interaction partners’ sex, the participants’ relationship to them, and the settings

of the interactions were event level or level 1 variables. Participants’ hand preference and sex

were person level or level 2 variables. The assumption of normality was examined by Normal

probability plots and found to be valid: level 2 residuals showed a strong linear distribution;

although more variation was present in level 1 residuals, we concluded that the distribution was

still fairly linear.

MLwiN (Rasbash, Charlton, Browne, Healy, & Cameron, 2009) was used to test the

hypotheses. We built two multilevel models aimed at predicting scores on agency and

communion respectively. We first included hand preference, participant sex, and their interaction

as predictors, followed by the sex of the interaction partner and its interaction with handedness.

As a post-hoc analysis, we built two multilevel models predicting agency and communion from

hand preference, partner sex, and their interaction within men and women separately. All models


included a random intercept and the default error covariance settings. Significance of fixed

effects was examined by the drop in maximum likelihood when adding a predictor (i.e., the

improvement of the model) and the t-ratio between slope coefficients and their SE. The

significance level was set at 0.05. Besides the sex of the interaction partner, the setting of the

interaction and the participant-partner relationship were included in the models as contextual

variables.

Results

On average, participants reported 32 interactions per 14 days, making a total of 11718

events included in the analysis. No significant difference in the overall number of reported

interactions between left- (M = 28.59, SD = 23.95) and right-handers (M = 33.77, SD = 26.85)

was observed, t(243) = 1.44, p = .15, 95% CI [-12.29, 1.92]. Table 1 shows participants’ average

behavioral responses related to agency and communion. Cross tabulation (contingency table)

analysis showed that interactions in student homes, X2 (4, N = 815) = 10.69, p = .03 and via

video, X2 (2, N = 83) = 6.41, p = .04 involved more left-handers than what was expected due to

proportions of left-handedness in the total sample. Still, the small sample of video interactions

asks for cautiousness if inferences are to be made.

Agency

There was no significant main effect for hand preference, t(243) = 0.71, p = .24,

indicating that no difference in agency between left- (M = 11.81, SE = 1.27) and right-handers

(M = 12.35, SE = 0.83) was present. A significant main effect for participant sex was observed,

t(242) = 2.54, p = .006: men (M = 13.22, SE = 1.04) behaved more agentic towards others

compared to women (M = 9.85, SE = 0.85). There was a main effect for partner sex, t(11714) =

2.62, p = .005: people were less agentic towards opposite-sex others (M = 10.99, SE = 0.85),


compared to same-sex others (M = 13.07, SE = 0.78). The interaction between hand preference

and participant sex was not significant, t(241) = 0.41, p = .34, nor was the hand preference by

partner sex interaction, t(11713) = 0.40, p = .33. The results did not change when considering the

setting of the interaction and the participant-partner relationship (i.e., contextual variables). Table

2 provides a summary of the model on agency.

Communion

There was no significant main effect for hand preference, t(243) = 0.61, p = .5, indicating

that there was no difference in communion between left- (M = 28.05, SE = 1.50) and right-

handers (M = 29.17, SE = 0.99). The main effect for participant sex was non-significant, t(242) =

0.91, p = .18. There was no significant main effect for partner sex, t(11714) = 0.57, p = .28. No

significant effect for the hand preference by partner sex interaction was present, t(11713) = 1.09,

p = .14. There was a significant interaction effect between hand preference and participant sex,

t(241) = 1.7, p = .045, that became stronger when considering context (i.e., setting and

participant-partner relationship), t(241) = 2.00, p = .02: while left-handed men (M = 25.17, SE =

4.15) tended to behave less communal towards others compared to left-handed women (M =

30.57, SE = 3.61), t(73) = 2.20, p = .014, no significant difference between right-handed men (M

= 29.02, SE = 2.88) and right-handed women (M = 28.67, SE = 2.30) was present, t(168) = 0.07,

p = .47 (see Figure 1). Table 3 provides a summary of the model on communion.

For a better understanding of this finding, we split the data on sex and examined the

relationship between hand preference and partner sex in male participants (see Figure 2). In

general, both left- and right-handed men behaved more communal towards other women than

towards other men, t(2939) = 4.62, p < .001. Left-handed men interacting with men behaved the

least communal (M = 20.7, SE = 5.43), significantly lower that right-handed men interacting with


men (M = 26.88, SE = 3.61), t(1016) = 2.17, p = .015. However, when interacting with women,

left-handed men showed an average level of communion (M = 28.06, SE = 5.19), not

significantly different from right-handed men interacting with women (M = 32.41, SE = 3.7),

t(1029) = 1.29, p = .1 (see again Figure 2).

Discussion

In the current study, we explored if there is a relationship between students’ hand

preference and their social behavior during everyday activities. Based on the “thrive” of left-

handedness where physical conflict is common (i.e., ‘the fighting hypothesis’; Faurie &

Raymond, 2013; Faurie & Raymond, 2005; Papadatou-Pastou et al., 2008), we expected left-

handers (especially men) to be more agentic in interaction with others, compared to right-

handers. However, we found that hand preference does not seem to be related to agency during

social interactions in any way.

Dawkins (2016) argued that by observing how natural selection works in a highly

competitive world, it seems that in order for a trait to survive and evolve, it needs to be self-

centered or “selfish”. Agentic behaviors, such as being self-oriented, decisive, dominant, self-

confident and efficient are self-profitable (e.g., Bakan, 1966; Abele & Wojciszke, 2007; Peeters,

Cornelissen, & Pandelaere, 2006) and would be advantageous for left-handers within frequency-

dependent selection. We interpret the lack of differences between left- and right-handers on

agency during social interaction as evidence contrary to such an advantage. Moreover, the results

suggest that inferring influences of hand preference on agentic behavior from fighting scenarios

to daily social interactions might be far-fetched. Perhaps the fact that modern daily life rarely

involves physical conflict and interpersonal conflict takes other forms (e.g., criticism,

insubordination, bullying) could be the explanation.


Nonetheless, we mention a boundary condition that has to be taken into account when

interpreting the current findings on agency. As shown in Table 1, lower ipsatized mean scores

were reported for agency compared to communion (regardless of hand preference), meaning that

people reported few agentic behaviors in general. Previous studies (including aan het Rot et al,

2015; Moskowitz et al., 2015) have found that agentic behaviors seem to be more commonly

reported in work settings, compared to other settings (including student life). We argue that the

lack of differences between left- and right-handers in agency could be attributed to the low

degree of agentic behaviors reported in students. That is, if there is a difference linked to hand

preference, it might only be visible in commonly reported behaviors.

Concerning communion, left-handed men behaved less communal towards others

compared to left-handed women, while there were no differences between right-handed men and

right-handed women. This suggests that hand preference is linked to communal behavior in daily

social interaction. Moreover, left-handed men behaved less communal than right-handed men

only when interacting with other men, not women. Thus, in line with Moskowitz et al. (2015),

contextual factors (i.e., in this case the sex of the interaction partner) seem to have an influence

on interpersonal behavior. Situation specificity in this case also speaks to the idea that left-

handedness may be advantageous in some situations, even though it is not in many others.

From a Darwinian perspective, communion is important because strong relationships that

include trust, empathy, affiliation and helpfulness are essential for survival (e.g., Abele &

Wojciszke, 2007; Kaplan, Gurven, Hill, & Hurtado, 2005). Accordingly, Abrams and Panaggio

(2012) proposed a mathematical model aimed at predicting the distribution of human handedness

based on a cost-benefit balance between cooperation and competition. On the one hand,

cooperation to the majority is advantageous because exclusion is risked otherwise (Ghirlanda,


Frasnelli, & Vallortigara, 2009; Vallortigara & Rogers, 2005). Therefore, less communal

behaviors (i.e., less cooperation) would generally be evolutionary disadvantageous. However, we

found that except for the particular situation when left-handed men interacted with other men,

left-handers did not behave less communal than right-handers. On the other hand, competition

driven by non-conformity has the potential of increasing status and power in some cases (e.g.,

Abrams & Panaggio, 2012; Coren & Halpern, 1991). For instance, intrasexual (i.e., in this case

male to male) competition is required because reproduction and fitness depend on access to the

best women (e.g., Buunk & Massar, 2012). The results on communion might suggest that left-

handed men are more competitive towards other men than right-handed men. We argue that a

higher male to male competition in left-handers might translate into frequency dependent fitness

benefits for left-handed men and be consistent with ‘the fighting hypothesis’ that assumes just

this (e.g., Pollet et al., 2013). If so, we argue that such survival benefits of left-handers might

have the potential of counteracting the right-handed majority and help maintain the left-handed

population.

Still, there are some aspects to consider before drawing firm conclusions. Within ‘the

fighting hypothesis’, an advantage can be observed from the proportion of winning vs. losing of

left-handers in fights. In other words, an advantage can only be pointed out if the response of the

opponent is observable. As the response of the interaction partner was not measurable in our

study, we do not have information on how participants’ behavior influenced other people.

Moreover, in order for an advantage to be part of negative frequency-dependent selection, it

needs to become stronger when rare. Although we accounted for situational specificity, we did

not zoom in on specific situations and compare communal behaviors between left- and right-

handed men interacting with other men.


Strengths and Limitations

We distinguish several methodological strengths of the current study. Firstly, the

interaction between hand preference and participants’ sex was almost undetectable (i.e., not

significant) without accounting for situational variance (see again Table 3). Being able to

examine contextual factors illustrates the strength of ECR of collecting data on multiple

occasions during daily life, as compared to a one-time measurement in the laboratory (pointed

out also by Moskowitz et al., 2015). Secondly, unlike traditional OLS methodology, multilevel

modelling allowed for missing and irregular data, as well as estimating multiple variables at

different levels. Thirdly, the use of online questionnaires on students’ smartphones provided a

very user-friendly and accessible method of collecting data, especially since the TEMPEST

software (Batalas & Markopoulos, 2012) registered incoming responses both online and offline.

Lastly, the large proportion (overrepresentation) of 31% left-handers in the final sample made

the comparison between left- and right-handers both statistically and practically more powerful.

We also identified some limitations in the present study. Firstly, hand preference was

assessed solely by the writing hand. A considerable number of studies (e.g., Christman, 2014;

Lyle et al., 2013; Hardie & Wright, 2014) have recently focused on the strength of handedness

(i.e., consistent vs inconsistent handers), pointing out the importance of assessing hand

preference on a continuum, as opposed to a left-right dichotomy. Secondly, measurement

reactivity could have had an influence on the results. When asked, some participants mentioned a

raised awareness of their social interactions during the study. Fewer participants also mentioned

thinking of the questionnaires while interacting with others. Thirdly, as mentioned before, the

current data and the dataset from Franzen (2016) were collected using online questionnaires (i.e.,

installed on participants’ smartphones), while aan het Rot et al. (2015) used paper questionnaires.


Also, the three studies were conducted at different points in time. This might lead to subtle

differences even if participants’ behavior was measured in the same way across studies (i.e.,

using the four subscales of the SBI).

Conclusions and Future Study

We conclude that, at least in students, hand preference seems to be linked to communion,

but not to agency in daily social interaction: left-handed men behaved less communal than left-

handed women, while no difference was present in right-handers. Moreover, compared to right-

handed men, left-handed men behaved less communal towards other men, but not towards other

women. The results may suggest that left-handed men are more competitive in interaction with

other men than right handers. Whether this translates to negative frequency-dependent fitness

benefits for left handers needs further study, but communal behaviors in daily social interactions

might be consistent with ‘the fighting hypothesis’.

A replication study using a sample of working adults (i.e., where agentic behaviors are

more commonly reported) may be more suited to further explore the relationship between hand

preference and agency. Future research aimed at explaining the distribution of human

handedness by means of negative frequency-dependent selection could focus more on the

influence of communal behaviors on others. Moreover, situational specificity in social

interactions should be taken into account in further studies and left- and right-handed men

interacting with other men might be examined in specific situations in more detail. As we have

found a higher than usual percentage of left-handers interacting in their student homes, this

might be a place to start. Clearly, hand preference might be considered more often in research on

social interaction.


References

Aan het Rot, M., Moskowitz, D. S., & de Jong, P. J. (2015). Intrapersonal and interpersonal

concomitants of facial blushing during everyday social encounters. PloS one, 10(2),

e0118243.

Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self

versus others. Journal of personality and social psychology, 93(5), 751.

Abrams, D. M., & Panaggio, M. J. (2012). A model balancing cooperation and competition can

explain our right-handed world and the dominance of left-handed athletes. Journal of the

Royal Society Interface, rsif20120211.

Annett, M. (1985). Which theory fails? A reply to McManus. British Journal Of Psychology,

76(1), 17-29. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1985.tb01927.x

Arbib, M. A. (2011). From mirror neurons to complex imitation in the evolution of language and

tool use. Annual Review of Anthropology, 40, 257-273.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: an essay on psychology and religion.

Oxford, England: Rand Mcnally.

Batalas, N., & Markopoulos, P. (2012). Proceedings of the 7th Nordic conference on human-

computer interaction: making sense through design (Vol. Copenhagen, Denmark, pp.

781–782). Presented at the Introducing Tempest, a Modular Platform for in Situ Data

Collection.

Benbow, C. P. (1986). Physiological correlates of extreme intellectual precocity.

Neuropsychologia, 24(5), 719-725.

Bergstrom, T. C. (2002). Evolution of social behavior: individual and group selection. The

Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(2), 67-88.


Billiard, S., Faurie, C., & Raymond, M. (2005). Maintenance of handedness polymorphism in

humans: a frequency-dependent selection model. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 235(1),

85-93.

Bishop, D. M. (1990). Handedness and developmental disorder. London NW3 5RN, England:

Mac Keith Press.

Bodary, D. L., & Miller, L. D. (2000). Neurobiological substrates of communicator style.

Communication Education, 49(1), 82-98.

Bogaert, A. F. (2001). Handedness, criminality, and sexual offending. Neuropsychologia, 39(5),

465-469. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00134-2

Boucher, J. (1977). Hand preference in autistic children and their parents. Journal Of Autism &

Childhood Schizophrenia, 7(2), 177-187. doi:10.1007/BF01537728

Buunk, A. P., & Massar, K. (2012). Intrasexual competition among males: Competitive towards

men, prosocial towards women. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(7), 818-821.

Christman, S. (2014). Individual differences in personality as a function of degree of

handedness: Consistent-handers are less sensation seeking, more authoritarian, and more

sensitive to disgust. Laterality: Asymmetries Of Body, Brain And Cognition, 19(3), 354-

367. doi:10.1080/1357650X.2013.838962

Cochet, H. (2015). Manual asymmetries and hemispheric specialization: Insight from

developmental studies. Neuropsychologia, doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.12.019

Colonnesi, C., Stams, G. J., Koster, I., & Noom, M. J. (2010). The relation between pointing and

language development: A meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 30(4), 352-366.

doi:10.1016/j.dr.2010.10.001

Corballis, M. C. (1991). The lopsided ape: Evolution of the generative mind. New York, NY, US:


Oxford University Press.

Coren, S. (1995). Differences in divergent thinking as a function of handedness and sex. The

American journal of psychology, 311-325.

Coren, S. & Halpern, D. F. (1991). Left-handedness: a marker for decreased survival fitness.

Psychol. Bull. 109, 90– 106. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.1.90

Coren, S., & Porac, C. (1977). Fifty centuries of right-handedness: The historical record.

Science, 198(4317), 631-632. doi:10.1126/science.335510

Coren, S., Porac, C., & Duncan, P. (1981). Lateral preference behaviors in preschool children

and young adults. Child Development, 52(2), 443-450. doi:10.2307/1129160

Corey, D. M., Hurley, M. M., & Foundas, A. L. (2001). Right and left handedness defined: A

multivariate approach using hand preference and hand performance measures.

Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, & Behavioral Neurology, 14(3), 144-152.

Daniel, W. F., & Yeo, R. A. (1994). Accident proneness and handedness. Biological Psychiatry,

35(7), 499. doi:10.1016/0006-3223(94)90052-3

Dawkins, R. (2016). The selfish gene. Oxford university press.

Ellis, L., & Ames, M. A. (1989). Delinquency, sidedness, and sex. The Journal of general

psychology, 116(1), 57-62.

Faurie, C., & Raymond, M. (2004). Handedness frequency over more than ten thousand years.

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 271(Suppl 3), S43-

S45.

Faurie, C., & Raymond, M. (2005). Handedness, homicide and negative frequency-dependent

selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 272(1558),

25-28.


Faurie, C., & Raymond, M. (2013). The fighting hypothesis as an evolutionary explanation for

the handedness polymorphism in humans: where are we?. Annals of the New York

Academy of Sciences, 1288(1), 110-113.

Franzen, M. (2016) Intra- and interindividual variability in the behavioural, affective, and

perceptual effects of alcohol consumption in a social context. University of Groningen:

unpublished manuscript.

Frayer, D. W., Lozano, M., Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., Carbonell, E., Arsuaga, J. L., Radovčić, J.

& Bondioli, L. (2012). More than 500,000 years of right-handedness in Europe.

Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 17(1), 51-69.

Gentilucci, M., & Volta, R. D. (2008). Spoken language and arm gestures are controlled by the

same motor control system. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(6),

944-957.

Ghirlanda, S., Frasnelli, E., & Vallortigara, G. (2009). Intraspecific competition and coordination

in the evolution of lateralization. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of

London B: Biological Sciences, 364(1519), 861-866.

Green, R., & Young, R. (2001). Hand preference, sexual preference, and transsexualism.

Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 30(6), 565-574. doi:10.1023/A:1011908532367

Hardie, S. M., & Wright, L. (2014). Differences between left- and right-handers in

approach/avoidance motivation: Influence of consistency of handedness measures.

Frontiers in Psychology, 5.

Hepper, P. G. (2013). The developmental origins of laterality: Fetal handedness. Developmental

Psychobiology, 55(6), 588-595. doi:10.1002/dev.21119

Hicks, R. A., Johnson, C., Cuevas, T., Deharo, D., & Bautista, J. (1994). Do right-handers live


longer? An updated assessment of baseball player data. Perceptual And Motor Skills,

78(3, Pt 2), 1243-1247. doi:10.2466/pms.1994.78.3c.1243

Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B. A., Ureño, G., & Villaseñor, V. S. (1988). Inventory

of interpersonal problems: psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of

consulting and clinical psychology, 56(6), 885.

Hugdahl, K., & Davidson, R. J. (2004). The asymmetrical brain. MIT Press.

Isaacs, K. L., Barr, W. B., Nelson, P. K., & Devinsky, O. (2006). Degree of handedness and

cerebral dominance. Neurology, 66(12), 1855-1858.

Kaplan, H., Gurven, M., Hill, K., & Hurtado, A. M. (2005). The natural history of human food

sharing and cooperation: a review and a new multi-individual approach to the negotiation

of norms. Moral sentiments and material interests: The foundations of cooperation in

economic life, 75-113.

Kelly, S. D., Özyürek, A., & Maris, E. (2009). Two sides of the same coin speech and gesture

mutually interact to enhance comprehension. Psychological Science.

Khedr, E. M., Hamed, E., Said, A., & Basahi, J. (2002). Handedness and language cerebral

lateralization. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 87(4-5), 469-473.

Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 Interpersonal Circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human

transactions. Psychological Review, 90(3), 185-214. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.185

Knecht, S., Dräger, B., Deppe, M., Bobe, L., Lohmann, H., Flöel, A., & Henningsen, H. (2000).

Handedness and hemispheric language dominance in healthy humans. Brain, 123(12),

2512-2518.

Kreft, I., & de Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multivlevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA, US:

Sage Publications, Inc.


Kushner, H. I. (2012). Retraining left-handers and the aetiology of stuttering: the rise and fall of

an intriguing theory. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 17(6), 673-

693.

Lewin, J., Kohen, D., & Mathew, G. (1993). Handedness in mental handicap: Investigation into

populations of Down's syndrome, epilepsy and autism. The British Journal Of Psychiatry,

163674-676. doi:10.1192/bjp.163.5.674

Llaurens, V., Raymond, M., & Faurie, C. (2009). Why are some people left-handed? An

evolutionary perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B:

Biological Sciences, 364(1519), 881-894.

Lozano, M., Mosquera, M., de Castro, J. B., Arsuaga, J. L., & Carbonell, E. (2009). Right

handedness of Homo heidelbergensis from Sima de los Huesos (Atapuerca, Spain)

500,000 years ago. Evolution And Human Behavior, 30(5), 369-376.

doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.03.001

Lyle, K. B., Chapman, L. K., & Hatton, J. M. (2013). Is handedness related to anxiety? New

answers to an old question. Laterality: Asymmetries Of Body, Brain And Cognition,

18(5), 520-535. doi:10.1080/1357650X.2012.720259

Marchant, L. F., McGrew, W. C., & Eibl‐Eibesfeldt, I. (1995). Is human handedness universal?

Ethological analyses from three traditional cultures. Ethology, 101(3), 239-258.

Medland, S. E., Duffy, D. L., Wright, M. J., Geffen, G. M., Hay, D. A., Levy, F., & Hewitt, A.

W. (2009). Genetic influences on handedness: data from 25,732 Australian and Dutch

twin families. Neuropsychologia, 47(2), 330-337.

Meguerditchian, A., & Vauclair, J. (2008). Vocal and gestural communication in nonhuman

primates and the question of the origin of language. Learning from animals, 61-85.


Meguerditchian, A., Vauclair, J., & Hopkins, W. D. (2013). On the origins of human handedness

and language: A comparative review of hand preferences for bimanual coordinated

actions and gestural communication in nonhuman primates. Developmental

Psychobiology, 55(6), 637-650. doi:10.1002/dev.21150

Mesquida, C. G., & Wiener, N. I. (1999). Male age composition and severity of

conflicts. Politics and the life sciences, 181-189.

Michel, G. F., Babik, I., Nelson, E. L., Campbell, J. M., & Marcinowski, E. C. (2013). How the

development of handedness could contribute to the development of

language. Developmental Psychobiology, 55(6), 608-620.

Moskowitz, D. S. (1994). Cross-situational generality and the interpersonal circumplex. Journal

Of Personality And Social Psychology, 66(5), 921-933. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.921

Moskowitz, D. S. (2009). Coming full circle: Conceptualizing the study of interpersonal

behaviour. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne,50(1), 33-41.

doi:10.1037/a0014425

Moskowitz, D. S., & Sadikaj, G. (2012). Event-contingent recording. In M. R. Mehl, T. S.

Conner, M. R. Mehl, T. S. Conner (Eds.) , Handbook of research methods for studying

daily life (pp. 160-175). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2005). Assessing interpersonal perceptions using the

interpersonal grid. Psychological assessment, 17(2), 218.

Moskowitz, D. S., Sutton, R., Zuroff, D. C., & Young, S. N. (2015). Fetal exposure to androgens,

as indicated by digit ratios (2D: 4D), increases men’s agreeableness with women.

Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 97-101.

Nezlek, J. B. (2008). An introduction to multilevel modeling for social and personality


psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 842-860.

Ocklenburg, S., & Gunturkun, O. (2012). Hemispheric asymmetries: the comparative view.

Frontiers in psychology, 3, 5.

Papadatou-Pastou, M., Martin, M., Munafò, M. R., & Jones, G. V. (2008). Sex differences in left-

handedness: A meta-analysis of 144 studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134(5), 677-699.

doi:10.1037/a0012814

Peeters, G., Cornelissen, I., & Pandelaere, M. (2006). Approach-avoidance values of target-

directed behaviours elicited by target-traits: The role of evaluative trait dimensions.

Retrieved February 7, 2007.

Pollet, T. V., Stulp, G., & Groothuis, T. G. (2013). Born to win? Testing the fighting hypothesis

in realistic fights: left-handedness in the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Animal

Behaviour, 86(4), 839-843.

Porac, C., Rees, L., & Buller, T. (1990). Switching hands: A place for left hand use in a right

hand world. In S. Coren, S. Coren (Eds.). Left-handedness: Behavioral implications and

anomalies (pp. 259-290). Oxford, England: North-Holland.

Rasbash, J., Charlton, C., Browne, W.J., Healy, M. and Cameron, B. (2009) MLwiN Version 2.1.

Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data

analysis methods (Vol. 1). Sage.

Raymond, M., & Pontier, D. (2004). Is there geographical variation in human handedness?

Laterality: Asymmetries Of Body, Brain And Cognition, 9(1), 35-51.

doi:10.1080/13576500244000274

Rodriguez, A., & Waldenström, U. (2008). Fetal origins of child non-right-handedness and


mental health. Journal Of Child Psychology And Psychiatry, 49(9), 967-976.

doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01923.x

Rowe, M. L., & Goldin‐Meadow, S. (2009). Early gesture selectively predicts later language

learning. Developmental science, 12(1), 182-187.

Sicotte, N. L., Woods, R. P., & Mazziotta, J. C. (1999). Handedness in twins: a meta-

analysis. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 4(3), 265-286.

Sommer, I. E. C., Ramsey, N. F., Mandl, R. C. W., & Kahn, R. S. (2002). Language lateralization

in monozygotic twin pairs concordant and discordant for handedness. Brain, 125(12),

2710-2718.

Somers, M., Shields, L. S., Boks, M. P., Kahn, R. S., & Sommer, I. E. (2015). Cognitive

benefits of right-handedness: A meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,

5148-63. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.01.003

Sommer, I., Aleman, A., Ramsey, N., Bouma, A., & Kahn, R. (2001). Handedness, language

lateralisation and anatomical asymmetry in schizophrenia. The British Journal Of

Psychiatry, 178344-351. doi:10.1192/bjp.178.4.344

Straube, B., He, Y., Steines, M., Gebhardt, H., Kircher, T., Sammer, G., & Nagels, A. (2015).

Supramodal neural processing of abstract information conveyed by speech and gesture.

Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 7.

Ströckens, F., Güntürkün, O., & Ocklenburg, S. (2013). Limb preferences in non-human

vertebrates. Laterality: Asymmetries Of Body, Brain And Cognition, 18(5), 536-575.

doi:10.1080/1357650X.2012.723008

Tønnessen, F. E. (1997). How can we best define ‘dyslexia’? Dyslexia, 3(2), 78-92.

Vallortigara, G., & Rogers, L. J. (2005). Survival with an asymmetrical brain: Advantages and


disadvantages of cerebral lateralization. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(4), 575-633.

doi:10.1017/S0140525X05000105

Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding

and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In D. Cicchetti, W. M. Grove, D. Cicchetti,

W. M. Grove (Eds.) , Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E.

Meehl, Vol. 1: Matters of public interest; Vol. 2: Personality and psychopathology (pp.

89-113). Minneapolis, MN, US: University of Minnesota Press.

Willems, R. M., & Hagoort, P. (2007). Neural evidence for the interplay between language,

gesture, and action: A review. Brain and language, 101(3), 278-289.


Tables

Table 1

Descriptive statistics of scores on agency and communion per handedness group

Dependent

Variable

Left-handed Right-handed

Agency

Valid N

3236

8482

Mean Score

9.95

11.64

Std. Deviation

SEM

Communion

Valid N

37.43

0.66

3236

36.29

0.39

8482

Mean Score

Std. Deviation

SEM

28.23

35.89

0.63

29.46

34.79

0.38

Note: Ipsatized scores on agency and communion ranged from -100 to 100 and could take a

limited number of values because of the computations involved in the ipsatization process.

Therefore, the large standard deviations.


Table 2

Predicting agency from hand preference, sex and the interaction partner’s sex

Predictor

-2*log likelihood

drop

T-ratio

Empty model with

random intercept

Handedness

0.5, p = .48 0.71, p = .24

Sex

Handedness*Sex

6.34, p = .01*

0.16, p = .68

2.54, p = .006**

0.41, p = .34

Partner sex 6.86, p = .009** 2.62, p = .005**

Handedness*Partner sex 0.17, p = .68 0.4, p = .34


Table 3

Predicting communion from hand preference, sex and the interaction partner’s sex

Predictor

-2*log likelihood

drop

T-ratio

Empty model with

random intercept

Handedness

0.11, p = .74 0.34, p = .37

Sex

Handedness*Sex

Handedness*Sex

(context included)

0.83, p = .36

2.88, p = .09

4.95, p = .026*

0.91, p = .18

1.7, p = .045*

2.00, p = .023*

Partner sex

0.32, p = .57 0.57, p = .28

Handedness*Partner

sex

1.18, p = .28 1.09, p = .14

Note: Context included means accounting for the sex of the interaction partner, the setting of the

encounter and the participant-partner relationship in the multilevel model.


Figures

Figure 1 (Error bars represent 95% CIs)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Male Female

Com

munio

n

Comparing left- and right-handed men and women in communal behaviors

Left Right


Figure 2 (Error bars represent 95% CIs)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Same Opposite

Com

munio

nComparing left- and right-handed men interacting with same vs opposite sex

others

Left Right

psba3-bt_2016-2_s2574608_bodiut

Documents