Cited by 11Hemispheric Asymmetry in NeuroscienceCognitive Abilities and TestingCreativity in Education and Neuroscience

Sinistrality is associated with (slightly) lower general intelligence: A data synthesis and consideration of the secular trend in handedness

Open access
Woodley of Menie, Michael A., Fernandes, Heitor B.F., Kanazawa, Satoshi, Dutton, Edward·2018·HOMO

Abstract

The relationship between the general factor of intelligence (g) and handedness is investigated using a combined sample of 23511 respondents from three large databases: the NLSY'79 (US), NLSY'97 (US) and NCDS (UK). Dextrals - those who use their right hands were found to be 1.22 IQ points higher than sinistrals (left handers) after controlling for sex and age and correcting for sources of measurement error. To see if the association between IQ and handedness was strongest on the abilities that were the best measures of g, the method of correlated vectors was used to test for moderation. Across the three studies, g was found to very weakly negatively moderate the association between ability measure and handedness (ρ = -.023, K = 3, N = 23511), however in the NLSY'79, the coding speed subtest was an outlier in terms of the strength of its association with handedness. Its removal yielded indications of positive moderation in this dataset, which when aggregated boosted the overall vector correlation value to .539 (K = 3, N = 23511), suggesting that g might be an important moderator of this relationship. Secondary analysis of secular trend data on the changing percentage of sinistrals in Western populations indicates that overall, sinistrality has increased, entailing a g decline of .106 points over 150 years (.006 points per decade). The secular increase in sinistrality is consistent with other data indicating long-term declines in developmental stability and may stem from some combination of increasing mutation load and environmental stress in Western populations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jchb.2018.06.003

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Overcorrection, where the vector correlation becomes greater than 1.00, is a commonly encountered problem when disattenuation adjustments are applied.

    “overcorrection (where the vector correlation becomes >1.00) is a commonly encountered problem when these sorts of adjustments are applied (e.g., Woodley of Menie et al., 2018).”

    From A Meta-Analysis of Spearman’s Hypothesis in the United States (2026) · cites this paper as Woodley of Menie et al., 2018

    In the Analysis involving MCV section (page not specified), the paper reports one vector correlation that rose above 1.00 after measurement-error correction and calls this overcorrection. That supports the definition and an example, but not the claim that the problem is commonly encountered. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Demeneix, B., 2014. Losing Our Minds: How Environmental Pollution Impairs Human Intelligence and Mental Health. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  2. Geschwind, N., Behan, E., 1982. Left-handedness: associations with immune disease, migraine, and developmental learning disorders. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 79, 5097- 5100.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Woodley of Menie, M. A., Fernandes, H. B. F., Kanazawa, S., & Dutton, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • University of Oulu (FI)
Venue
HOMO
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-05
Volume
69
Issue
3
Pages
118-126
ISSN
0018-442X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2808423892
Cited by
9
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5
FWCI
1.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • HOMO (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
Keywords
handedness, left-handedness, general intelligence, IQ, developmental stability, mutational burden, environmental stress, coding speed
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Cognition, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Female, Humans, Intelligence, Intelligence Tests, Functional Laterality, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Time Factors, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review