The DOI matches its Crossref record; 173 of the 173 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sex differences in left-handedness: A meta-analysis of 144 studies.
Abstract
Human handedness, a marker for language lateralization in the brain, continues to attract great research interest. A widely reported but not universal finding is a greater male tendency toward left-handedness. Here the authors present a meta-analysis of k = 144 studies, totaling N = 1,787,629 participants, the results of which demonstrate that the sex difference is both significant and robust. The overall best estimate for the male to female odds ratio was 1.23 (95% confidence interval = 1.19, 1.27). The widespread observation of this sex difference is consistent with it being related to innate characteristics of sexual differentiation, and its observed magnitude places an important constraint on current theories of handedness. In addition, the size of the sex difference was significantly moderated by the way in which handedness was assessed (by writing hand or by other means), the location of testing, and the year of publication of the study, implicating additional influences on its development.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory
Oldfield, R. C. (1971) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 · Cited by 35,900
Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations
Bhagat, R. S., & Hofstede, G. (2002) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/4134391 · Cited by 21,664
Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3 · Cited by 5,758
Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research
GLASS, G. V. (1976) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x005010003 · Cited by 4,890 · cited 1×
“A meta-analysis, on the other hand, allows the results of a large collection of studies to be analyzed statistically in an integrated manner (Glass, 1976).”
BackgroundBerti, A. (1992) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/0028-3932(92)90076-x · Cited by 4,162
How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?
Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1187 · Cited by 3,026
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023
Bird, A. (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05913 · Cited by 3,011
A Nonparametric “Trim and Fill” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905 · Cited by 2,955
Cited by
Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004 · Cited by 6,686
Metadata
- Authors
- Papadatou-Pastou, M., Martin, M., Munafò, M. R., & Jones, G. V.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2008-09
- Volume
- 134
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 677-699
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2056112160
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 173
- FWCI
- 0.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sex differences in left-handedness: A meta-analysis of 144 studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0012814
- The paper
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012814
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
