Left-side cradling and brain lateralization

Asymmetries run deep: the interplay between cradling bias, face recognition, autistic traits, and personality

Personality traits are linked to a variety of cognitive and socio-emotional factors, including lateralization patterns. Autism, prosopagnosia, and atypical cradling have been associated with altered lateralization and socio-emotional processing. This study explores how autism traits, cradling-side preferences, and face recognition abilities relate to individual personality differences. Three-hundred neurotypical adults (150 males) completed an online survey including the imaged cradling preference and three validated questionnaires: the Autism spectrum Quotient (AQ), Prosopagnosia Index-20 (PI-20), and the Big Five Personality Questionnaire (BFQ). Results showed a strong left-cradling bias (LCB) unaffected by sex, handedness, parental status, autism traits, or face recognition abilities. AQ negatively predicted Extraversion, Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and Openness. LCB correlated with higher Agreeableness and moderated the negative association between AQ and Extraversion. These findings suggest a potential link between cradling preferences, autism traits, and personality, possibly reflecting reduced right-hemisphere specialization in emotional processing and social behaviour.

Functional lateralization in social-emotional processing: The influence of sexual orientation and gender identity on cradling preferences

The left-cradling bias (i.e., the motor asymmetry for cradling infants on the left side) has often been associated to the right-hemispheric social-emotional specialization, and it has often been reported to be stronger in females than in males. In this study we explored the effects of sexual orientation and gender identity on this lateral bias by means of a web-based investigation in a sample of adults (485 biological females and 196 biological males) recruited through LGBTQIA+ networks and general university forums. We exploited a cradling imagery task to assess participants' cradling-side preference, and standardized questionnaires to assess participants' homosexuality (Klein Sexual Orientation Grid) and gender nonconformity (Gender Identity/Gender Dysphoria Questionnaire for Adults and Adolescents). Results confirmed the expected left-cradling bias across all sexual orientation groups except for heterosexual males. Importantly, higher homosexuality scores were associated with higher proportions of left cradling in males. These results suggest that sexual orientation can influence cradling preference in males, indicating a complex interaction between biological and psychological factors in the laterality of social-emotional processing. Finally, the left-cradling bias seems to confirm its role as a behavioral proxy of social-emotional functional lateralization in humans.

Artistic turns: laterality in paintings of kisses and embraces

Many lateral biases exist in human behavior, often implicit and not deliberated. Romantic kissing and embracing received experimental attention in the last three decades. We investigated laterality in paintings depicting these social interactions using two methodologies to assess whether painters depicted such biases and whether these biases could be due to observers' aesthetic preferences or painters' ability in portraying naturalistic interactions. In Study 1, we inspected about 190,000 artworks available online to classify leftward and rightward biases in romantic kisses and embraces. The comparison of 103 paintings depicting clearly lateralized interactions revealed a significant rightward bias in romantic kissing (66%) and a trend toward a leftward bias (62%) for embraces, aligning with naturalistic studies of human interactions. In Study 2, 128 participants expressed their aesthetic preference between the paintings selected in Study 1 and their vertically mirrored versions. A preference for the original paintings over their mirrored versions emerged, especially when presented in the upper portion of the screen, but no significant preference for the typical lateralization of kissing and embracing was found. These findings suggest that artists' alignment with naturalistic biases could be due to familiarity and exposure to asymmetric interactions rather than observers' aesthetic preferences.

The Intricate Web of Asymmetric Processing of Social Stimuli in Humans

Although the population-level preference for the use of the right hand is the clearest example of behavioral lateralization, it represents only the best-known instance of a variety of functional asymmetries observable in humans. What is interesting is that many of such asymmetries emerge during the processing of social stimuli, as often occurs in the case of human bodies, faces and voices. In the present paper, after reviewing previous literature about human functional asymmetries for social and emotional stimuli, we suggest some possible links among them and stress the necessity of a comprehensive account (in both ontogenetic and phylogenetic terms) for these not yet fully explained phenomena. In particular, we propose that the advantages of lateralization for emotion processing should be considered in light of previous suggestions that (i) functional hemispheric specialization enhances cognitive capacity and efficiency, and (ii) the alignment (at the population level) of the direction of behavioral asymmetries emerges, under social pressures, as an evolutionary stable strategy.

Limb Preference in Animals: New Insights into the Evolution of Manual Laterality in Hominids

Until the 1990s, the notion of brain lateralization—the division of labor between the two hemispheres—and its more visible behavioral manifestation, handedness, remained fiercely defined as a human specific trait. Since then, many studies have evidenced lateralized functions in a wide range of species, including both vertebrates and invertebrates. In this review, we highlight the great contribution of comparative research to the understanding of human handedness’ evolutionary and developmental pathways, by distinguishing animal forelimb asymmetries for functionally different actions—i.e., potentially depending on different hemispheric specializations. Firstly, lateralization for the manipulation of inanimate objects has been associated with genetic and ontogenetic factors, with specific brain regions’ activity, and with morphological limb specializations. These could have emerged under selective pressures notably related to the animal locomotion and social styles. Secondly, lateralization for actions directed to living targets (to self or conspecifics) seems to be in relationship with the brain lateralization for emotion processing. Thirdly, findings on primates’ hand preferences for communicative gestures accounts for a link between gestural laterality and a left-hemispheric specialization for intentional communication and language. Throughout this review, we highlight the value of functional neuroimaging and developmental approaches to shed light on the mechanisms underlying human handedness.

Maternal cradling bias: A marker of the nature of the mother-infant relationship

The tendency of mothers to cradle their infant on their left side was first demonstrated by Salk back in 1960, but has been the subject of renewed interest in recent years. In this paper, I examine the different aspects of this tendency, making a short detour to explore this behavioral bias in other mammals and in nonhuman primates. The left cradling bias has been investigated not only in mothers, but also in fathers, children and students, as well as in different cultures. Moreover, the origins and causes of this behavior have been explored by examining its links to hemispheric specialization and to other motor asymmetries in mothers and infants. In recent years, researchers have also explored divergent patterns of cradling in groups of mothers exhibiting stress, anxiety, or depressive symptoms during pregnancy and after delivery, as well as in children with atypical development (e.g., autism spectrum disorder). The findings reported in the past 20 years open up promising avenues for anticipating potential difficulties in the relationship between mother and child, for given that a left cradling bias has been found in about 75% of the samples tested, cradling patterns could constitute natural behavioral markers of the socio-emotional harmony between cradler and cradled.

Maternal cradling bias in baboons: The first environmental factor affecting early infant handedness development?

The most emblematic behavioral manifestation of human brain asymmetries is handedness. While the precise mechanisms behind the development of handedness are still widely debated, empirical evidences highlight that besides genetic factors, environmental factors may play a crucial role. As one of these factors, maternal cradling behavior may play a key role in the emergence of early handedness in the offspring. In the present study we followed 41 Papio anubis infants living in social groups with their mother for which direction (e.g., left- or right-arm) and degree of maternal cradling-side bias were available from a previous published study. We assessed hand preferences for an unimanual grasping task at three developmental stages: (A) 0-4, (B) 4-6, and (C) 9-10 months of age. We found that individual hand preferences for grasping exist as soon as the first months of age, with a population-level left-handedness predominance, being stable until 6 months; to wit the period during which juveniles are mainly carried by their mothers. More importantly, this early postnatal handedness is positively correlated with maternal cradling lateralization. Interestingly, hand preferences assessed later in the development, once juveniles are no longer carried (i.e., from 9 to 10 months of age), are less dependent from the maternal cradling bias and less consistent with the earlier developmental stages, especially in infants initially cradled on the right maternal side. Our findings suggest that the ontogenetic dynamics of the infant's hand preference and its changes might ultimately rely on the degree of infant dependence from the mother across development.

Do you know your best side? Awareness of lateral posing asymmetries

People tend to show the left cheek to broadly express emotions while they tend to show the right cheek to hide emotions because emotions were expressed more on the left than on the right side of the face. The present study investigated the level of awareness on the left- and right-cheek poses using the method of structural knowledge attributions. When asked to broadly express emotions for a family portrait, right-handed participants were more likely to show the left cheek than the right. On the other hand, when asked to conceal emotions to show a calm and reassuring attitude as a scientist, they were more likely to show the right cheek. After the posing session, participants selected the conscious level of their knowledge about posing from five categories: Random, intuition, familiarity, recollection, and rules. Most participants rated their knowledge as unconscious (i.e., either as random, intuition, or familiarity). The choice of the conscious level did not differ across posing orientations and posing instructions. These results suggest that although people do not have an acute awareness of their lateral posing preference, they reliably show one side of their faces to express or hide emotions.

Human Lateralization, Maternal Effects and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

In humans, behavioral laterality and hemispheric asymmetries are part of a complex biobehavioral system in which genetic factors have been repeatedly proposed as developmental determinants of both phenomena. However, no model solely based on genetic factors has proven conclusive, pushing towards the inclusion of environmental and epigenetic factors into the system. Moreover, it should be pointed out that epigenetic modulation might also account for why certain genes are expressed differently in parents and offspring. Here, we suggest the existence of a sensitive period in early postnatal development, during which the exposure to postural and motor lateral biases, expressed in interactive sensorimotor coordination with the caregiver, canalizes hemispheric lateralization in the “typical” direction. Despite newborns and infants showing their own inherent asymmetries, the canalizing effect of the interactive context owes most to adult caregivers (usually the mother), whose infant-directed lateralized behavior might have been specifically selected for as a population-level trait, functional to confer fitness to offspring. In particular, the case of the left-cradling bias (LCB; i.e., the population-level predisposition of mothers to hold their infants on the left side) represents an instance of behavioral trait exhibiting heritability along the maternal line, although no genetic investigation has been carried out so far. Recent evidence, moreover, seems to suggest that the reduction of this asymmetry is related to several unfavorable conditions, including neurodevelopmental disorders. Future studies are warranted to understand whether and how genetic and epigenetic factors affect the lateralization of early mother-infant interaction and the proneness of the offspring to neurodevelopmental disorders.

Depressive symptoms disrupt leftward cradling

Objective: Leftward cradling bias is thought to facilitate optimal interaction between mother and infant. There is mixed evidence indicating this bias may be disrupted by depression. This study investigated the relationship between depressive symptoms and preferred cradling side (i.e., cradling bias) in nulliparous women. Method: Six hundred and nineteen females, aged 18 to 25 years, were asked to imagine cradling an infant to soothe it. This instruction was given on four separate occasions. Participants also completed the Beck Depression Inventory-II. All data were collected via an online survey. Results: As the number of depressive symptoms increased, leftward cradling decreased. Although this relationship was not statistically significant, a pattern emerged: As depressive symptoms increased, so too did the likelihood of cradling to the right. Furthermore, those scoring highest on depressive symptoms were more likely to cradle inconsistently to the left, consistently to the right, or show no bias, when compared to those scoring lower on depressive symptoms. Conclusions: Theory suggests that leftward cradling is facilitated by right hemisphere processes involved in relating to others. A relationship between affective symptoms such as depressive symptoms and reduced leftward cradling bias supports this argument. It is argued that leftward cradling facilitates optimal interactions between cradler and infant. Consequently, disruptions of leftward cradling have implications for child development.

The Role of Ethnic Prejudice in the Modulation of Cradling Lateralization

The left-cradling bias is the tendency to cradle an infant on the left side, regardless of the individuals' handedness, culture or ethnicity. Many studies revealed associations between socio-emotional variables and the left-side bias, suggesting that this asymmetry might be considered as a proxy of the emotional attunement between the cradling and the cradled individuals. In this study we examined whether adult females with high levels of prejudice toward a specific ethnic group would show reduced left-cradling preferences when required to cradle an infant-like doll with ethnical features of the prejudiced group. We manipulated the ethnicity of the cradled individual by asking 336 Caucasian women to cradle a White or a Black doll and then assessed their prejudice levels toward African individuals. Significant correlations were shown only in the Black doll group indicating that the more the prejudice toward Africans, the more the cradling-side preferences shifted toward the right. Furthermore, participants exhibiting low levels-but not those exhibiting high levels-of ethnic prejudice showed a significant left-cradling bias. These findings show that ethnic prejudice toward the specific ethnic group of the cradled individual can interfere with the left preference in the cradling woman. The present study corroborates our suggestion that the left-cradling bias might be considered as a natural index of a positive socio-communicative relationship between the cradling and cradled individuals. On the contrary, the right-cradling bias might be considered as a cue of the presence of affective dysfunctions in the relationship.

Neonatal nipple preference and maternal cradling laterality in wild Taihangshan macaques (Macaca mulatta tcheliensis)

Lateralized behavior is considered an observable phenotype of cerebral functional asymmetry and has been documented in many mammalian species. In the present study, we examined evidence of lateralization in neonatal nipple contact, maternal cradling, and the relationship between these two behaviors during the first 12 weeks of life in wild Taihangshan macaques (Macaca mulatta tcheliensis). The results showed that across our sample of nine mother-infant dyads: (1) Seven of nine neonates exhibited a significant left-side nipple preference during the first 12 weeks of life, whereas eight of nine mothers displayed a significant right-side cradling preference; (2) at the population level, there was a significant preference for left nipple contact by neonatal Taihangshan macaques and a significant right-hand maternal cradling preference; (3) at the population level, there was a nonsignificant negative correlation between neonatal nipple preference and maternal cradling bias; and (4) the strength of individual neonatal nipple preference and maternal cradling laterality were not correlated. We conclude that asymmetry in nipple contact of Taihangshan macaques occurs early in behavioral development. Given that infant Taihangshan macaques are able to nurse and cling unassisted to their mothers within a few days after birth, it appears that the infant rather than its mother is responsible for determining a nipple-side preference. Our results indicating a left-side nipple bias in 78% of wild neonatal Taihangshan macaques are most consistent with the heartbeat hypothesis.

Human-like maternal left-cradling bias in monkeys is altered by social pressure

About 66–72% of human mothers cradle their infants on their left side. Given that left-cradling exposes the baby’s face to the mother’s left visual field (i.e., mainly projected to her right hemisphere) and is altered by emotional states such as stress, maternal left-cradling was interpreted as reflecting right-hemispheric dominance for emotional processing. Whether this phenomenon is unique to human evolution is still in debate. In the present study we followed 44 olive baboon (Papio anubis) mothers and their infants in different social groups. We found that a maternal cradling bias exists and is predominantly towards the left in a similar proportion as in humans, but shifts toward a right bias in mothers living in high density groups. The sensitivity of left-cradling to social pressure highlights its potential links with the mother’s stress as reported in humans. Our finding clearly illustrates the phylogenetic continuity between humans and Old-World monkeys concerning this lateralization and its potential links with hemispheric specialization for emotions, inherited from a common ancestor 25–35 million years ago.

Keep a Left Profile, Baby! The Left-Cradling Bias Is Associated with a Preference for Left-Facing Profiles of Human Babies

The left-cradling bias (LCB) refers to the (typically female) preference to hold an infant on the left side of one’s own body. Among the three main accounts proposed for such a phenomenon, namely the “handedness”, “heartbeat” and “hemispheric asymmetry” hypotheses, the latter has met with the greatest empirical success. Accordingly, the LCB would facilitate the communication of socio-emotional information through the right hemisphere of both the cradled and the cradling individual, and should emerge mainly in face-to-face interactions. In this regard, it should be noticed that when the infant’s body is oriented toward the cradler, the left or right side of their face is relatively more visible to left- and right-cradlers, respectively. Therefore, we hypothesized that the LCB might also be associated with a preference for left-facing profiles (i.e., those showing the left, and more expressive, hemiface/cheek) of human babies. In order to test our hypothesis, we assessed the cradling-side preferences of female participants, as well as their preference for the left- or right-facing profile of a human infant depicted in a drawing. Left-cradlers exhibited a significantly larger preference for the left-facing version of the drawing compared with right-cradlers, a finding further corroborating the right-hemisphere hypothesis.

Received Cradling Bias During the First Year of Life: A Retrospective Study on Children With Typical and Atypical Development

A population-level left cradling bias exists whereby 60-90% of mothers hold their infants on the left side. This left biased positioning appears to be mutually beneficial to both the mother and the baby's brain organization for processing of socio-emotional stimuli. Previous research connected cradling asymmetries and Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), entailing impairment in socio-communicative relationships and characterized by an early hypo-lateralization of brain functions. In this explorative study, we aimed to provide a contribution to the retrospective investigations by looking for early behavioral markers of neurodevelopmental disorders such as ASD. We hypothesized that an atypical trajectory in maternal cradling might be one of the possible signs of an interference in mother-infant socio-emotional communication, and thus of potential neurodevelopmental dysfunctions. To this aim, we examined photos depicting mother-child early cradling interactions by consulting family albums of 27 children later diagnosed with ASD and 63 typically developing children. As regards the first half of the first year of life, no differences were shown between maternal cradling-side preferences in typical and ASD groups, both exhibiting the left-cradling bias in the 0-3 months period, but not in the 3-6 months period. However, our results show dissimilar patterns of cradling preferences during the second half of the first year of life. In particular, the absence of left-cradling shown in typical mothers was not observed in ASD mothers, who exhibited a significant left-cradling bias in the 6-12 months age group. This difference might reflect the fact that mother-infant relationship involving children later diagnosed with ASD might remain "basic" because mothers experience a lack of social activity in such children. Alternatively, it may reflect the overstimulation in which mothers try to engage infants in response to their lack of responsiveness and social initiative. However, further investigations are needed both to distinguish between these two possibilities and to define the role of early typical and reversed cradling experiences on neurodevelopment.

Asymmetries in social touch-motor and emotional biases on lateral preferences in embracing, cradling and kissing

In human social interaction, affective touch plays an integral role to communicate intentions and emotions. Three of the most important forms of social touch are embracing, cradling and kissing. These behaviours have been demonstrated to be lateralized, but the underlying mechanisms are still not well understood. Both motor and emotive biases have been suggested to affect laterality of social touch. We aimed to systematically investigate how motor preferences and emotive biases influence the lateralization of embracing, cradling and kissing within the same sample. Participants performed all three forms of social touch in neutral, positive and negative emotional conditions. Like a previous study, we found a rightward bias for embracing that was modulated by both motor preferences and the emotional content of the situation. Kissing and cradling were not influenced by motor preferences. In general, a negative emotional connotation of the situation led to a reduction of lateral biases in social touch, independent of the individual direction.

The left-cradling bias and its relationship with empathy and depression

Women usually cradle their infants to the left of their body midline. Research showed that the left cradling could be altered by affective symptoms in mothers, so that right cradling might be associated with a reduced ability to become emotionally involved with the infant. In this study, we assessed cradling-side bias (using family photo inspection and an imagination task), as well as depression and empathy, in 50 healthy mothers of 0-3 years old children. The main finding was that the strength of the left-cradling bias was negatively related with participants' depression scores and slightly positively related with their empathy scores. Our results thus provide further evidence that cradling-side preferences can represent an evolutionary proxy of mother's affective state, influencing the early development of the infant social brain and behaviour.

The Relationship Between the Left-Cradling Bias and Attachment to Parents and Partner

Mothers usually cradle their infants to the left of their body midline, an asymmetry that seems to be a typically female lateral preference. This bias is deemed to be an evolutionary facilitator of communication between cradling and cradled individuals and is believed to be strongly related to hemispheric specialization for complex socio-affective behaviors. Thus, left cradling might facilitate affective interactions in females with typical brain organization, probably due to a right-hemisphere dominance for social attachment. In this study, we investigated cradling-side preferences in 288 young females as a function of their attachment styles to parents and partners. A left-cradling bias was more frequent in participants experiencing positive relationships with their mother and romantic partners. These findings indicate that the left-cradling bias may be associated with high-quality social attachment behaviors in females and, therefore, can be considered as a natural index of socio-emotional attunement between the cradling and cradled individuals.

Audience size influences actors' anxiety and associated postures on stage

Public performance is a reported source of anxiety. While the relationship between emotion and postural laterality is well-known in animals, few studies have tested the possible link between audience effect, anxiety and head orientation in humans. The Valence-Specific Hypothesis posits that the left/right sides of the brain are specialized for processing positive/negative emotions respectively. Here, actors performed a piece in the presence of small, medium and large audiences. They self-reported feeling more anxious when the audience was large (also confirmed with speech analyses), but the small audience was scored with the lowest preference. We also found that the large audience was associated with the fewest orientations facing the public. Moreover, both large and small audiences were associated with more left-side than right side orientations. Here, actors' emotions influenced lateralized positioning, with a tendency to use the left visual field (i.e. right hemisphere) in more anxious and less preferred situations, supporting the Valence-Specific hypothesis.

Hugs and kisses - The role of motor preferences and emotional lateralization for hemispheric asymmetries in human social touch

Social touch is an important aspect of human social interaction - across all cultures, humans engage in kissing, cradling and embracing. These behaviors are necessarily asymmetric, but the factors that determine their lateralization are not well-understood. Because the hands are often involved in social touch, motor preferences may give rise to asymmetric behavior. However, social touch often occurs in emotional contexts, suggesting that biases might be modulated by asymmetries in emotional processing. Social touch may therefore provide unique insights into lateralized brain networks that link emotion and action. Here, we review the literature on lateralization of cradling, kissing and embracing with respect to motor and emotive bias theories. Lateral biases in all three forms of social touch are influenced, but not fully determined by handedness. Thus, motor bias theory partly explains side biases in social touch. However, emotional context also affects side biases, most strongly for embracing. Taken together, literature analysis reveals that side biases in social touch are most likely determined by a combination of motor and emotive biases.

Mother and offspring lateralized social behavior across mammalian species

Findings on nonprimate mammals place the issue of mother-infant lateralized relations in a broader context, demonstrating that humans are one of many species showing this feature. The remarkable interspecies consistency in the direction of lateralization points to a continuity between lateralized mother-infant interactions in primates and nonprimate mammals and suggests ancient evolutionary roots of human cradling bias. The results from species which, in contrast to primates, have no direct involvement of forelimbs in mother-infant spatial interactions clearly support the perceptual origin of this type of lateralization. A right hemisphere advantage for social functions relevant to mother-infant interactions is the most probable background for the left-sided biases in the behavior of mothers and infants. Recent findings suggest the contribution of lateralized mother-infant interactions to biological fitness. Mother and infant both can gain advantage from keeping the other on the left side.

The left cradling bias: An evolutionary facilitator of social cognition?

A robust left side cradling bias (LCB) in humans is argued to reflect an evolutionarily old left visual field bias and right hemisphere dominance for processing social stimuli. A left visual field bias for face processing, invoked via the LCB, is known to reflect a human population-level right cerebral hemisphere specialization for processing social stimuli. We explored the relationship between cradling side biases, hand dominance and socio-communicative abilities. Four and five year old typically-developing children (N = 98) participated in a battery of manual motor tasks interspersed by cradling trials comprising a(n): infant human doll, infant primate doll, proto-face pillow and no-face pillow. Mean social and communication ability scores were obtained via a survey completed by each child's key teacher. We found a population-level LCB for holding an infant human doll that was not influenced by hand dominance, sex, age or experience of having a younger sibling. Children demonstrating a LCB, did however, obtain a significantly higher mean social ability score compared with their right side cradling counterparts. Like the infant human doll, the proto-face pillow's schematic face symbol was sufficient to elicit a population-level LCB. By contrast, the infant primate doll elicited a population-level right side cradling bias, influenced by both hand dominance and sex. The findings suggest that the LCB is present and visible early in development and is likely therefore, to represent evolutionarily old domain-specific organization and function of the right cerebral hemisphere. Additionally, results suggest that a LCB requires minimal triggering but can be reversed in some situations, possibly in response to species-type or levels of novelty or stress as perceived by the viewer. Patterns of behavioral biases within the context of social stimuli and their associations with cognitive ability are important for understanding how socio-communication abilities emerge in developing children.

Are only infants held more often on the left? If so, why? Testing the attention-emotion hypothesis with an infant, a vase, and two chimeric tests, one "emotional," one not

Most adults, especially women, hold infants and dolls but not books or packages on the left side. One reason may be that attention is more often leftward in response to infants, unlike emotionally neutral objects like books and packages. Women's stronger bias may reflect greater responsiveness to infants. Previously, we tested the attention hypothesis by comparing women's side-of-hold of a doll, book, and package with direction-of-attention on the Chimeric Faces Test (CFT) [Harris, L. J., Cárdenas, R. A., Spradlin, Jr., M. P., & Almerigi, J. B. (2010). Why are infants held on the left? A test of the attention hypothesis with a doll, a book, and a bag. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 15(5), 548-571. doi:10.1080/13576500903064018]. Only the doll was held more often to the left, and only for the doll were side-of-hold and CFT scores related, with left-holders showing a stronger left-attention bias than right-holders. In the current study, we tested men and women with a doll and the CFT along with a vase as a neutral object and a "non-emotional" chimeric test. Again, only the doll was held more often to the left, but now, although both chimeric tests showed left-attention biases, scores were unrelated to side-of-hold. Nor were there sex differences. The results support left-hold selectivity but not the attention hypothesis, with or without the element of emotion. They also raise questions about the contribution of sex-of-holder. We conclude with suggestions for addressing these issues.

Is maternal depression related to side of infant holding?

Studies show that 65–85% of mothers hold their infants on the left side of their own body and that this left-bias may be reduced or reversed when mothers have symptoms similar to depression or dysphoria (de Château, Holmberg, & Winberg, 1978). No studies, however, have used diagnostic criteria to assess the mother’s psychological state. The current study examined the relationship between maternal report of depressive symptoms on the Beck Depression Inventory and holding-side bias in a high-risk sample of 177 mothers participating with their infants in a larger longitudinal study of mother–infant relationships and domestic violence. Mothers classified as nondepressed showed a significant left-bias; those classified as depressed showed a nonsignificant right-bias; mothers who reported experiencing domestic violence also showed a reduced left-bias. The results are interpreted in terms of current theory and research on lateralised hemispheric activation and depression.

Can Population-Level Laterality Stem from Social Pressures? Evidence from Cheek Kissing in Humans

Despite extensive research, the origins and functions of behavioural laterality remain largely unclear. One of the most striking unresolved issues is the fact that laterality generally occurs at the population-level. Why would the majority of the individuals of a population exhibit the same laterality, while individual-level laterality would yet provide the advantages in terms of improving behavioural efficiency? Are social pressures the key factor? Can social pressures induce alignment of laterality between the individuals of a population? Can the effect of social pressures overpass the effect of other possible determining factors (e.g. genes)? We tested this important new hypothesis in humans, for the first time. We asked whether population-level laterality could stem from social pressures. Namely, we assessed social pressures on laterality in an interactive social behaviour: kissing on the cheek as a greeting. We performed observations in 10 cities of France. The observations took place in spots where people of the city meet and greet each other. We showed that: a) there is a population-level laterality for cheek kissing, with the majority of individuals being aligned in each city, and b) there is a variation between populations, with a laterality that depends on the city. These results were confirmed by our complementary data from questionnaires and internet surveys. These findings show that social pressures are involved in determining laterality. They demonstrate that population-level laterality can stem from social pressures.

An examination of the leftward cradling bias among typically developing adults high on autistic traits

The leftward cradling bias is the tendency to cradle infants on the left side of the body and it has been linked with hemispheric asymmetry for emotional processing. This study examines this phenomenon using a real-size infant doll in typically developing adults who score high in the Reading the Mind in the Eyes, the Autistic Spectrum Quotient and the Empathy Quotient, measures that assess autistic traits among typically developing individuals. Results revealed that this group showed a reduced tendency to cradle on the left compared to participants who score within the normal range on the above measurements. This study provides further support for the justification of the leftward cradling bias upon brain lateralization on emotional processing. Study limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Perspectives on asymmetry: the Erickson Lecture

Topics discussed include asymmetry of the brain; prosopagnosia with asymmetric involvement; the blaspheming brain; effects of the numbers of X chromosomes on brain asymmetry; normal facial asymmetry; kissing asymmetry; left- and right-handedness; left-sided baby cradling; Nodal signaling and left/right asymmetry; primary cilium and left/right asymmetry in zebrafish; right/left asymmetry in snails; species differences in Shh and Fgf8; primary cilium in vertebrate asymmetry; Hedgehog signaling on the cilium; Wnt signaling on the cilium; situs solitus, situs inversus, and situs ambiguus (heterotaxy); ciliopathies; right-sided injuries in trilobites; unilateral ocular use in the octopus; fiddler crabs; scale-eating cichlids; narwhals; left-footed parrots; asymmetric whisker use in rats; and right-sided fatigue fractures in greyhounds.

Holding-side influences on infant's view of mother's face

Recently we found that adult children whose mothers had had a right-arm preference for holding infants have a reduced left bias for recognising faces, suggesting that they are less well right-hemisphere lateralised for perceiving faces. One possible explanation of this finding is that early visual exposure to faces is suboptimal for right-held infants. To test this idea, we asked mothers to pick up a doll with an inbuilt camera in its face and to start bottle-feeding it. The results showed that less was visible of the face of mothers who held the doll on their right arm in comparison to those who held the doll on their left arm: From the right arm, the mother's left half of the face was less visible when the mothers were looking up and their right half of the face was less visible when they were looking at the doll. These results suggest that right-held infants receive suboptimal information from faces. Because early face exposure is important for face-processing development, the suboptimal face exposure probably experienced by right-held infants may have consequences for their ability to recognise faces and facial emotion later in life.

Differential effect of ill-being and chronic stress on cradling behavior of first and multi-time parents

A preference for cradling infants on the left side has been demonstrated in women, as has a relation of reduced left-cradling and stress/negative affect. This relation has not yet been investigated in male participants. Due to less left-cradling in non-fathers compared to fathers it was suggested that fatherhood might have an influence on cradling behavior. The present study investigated the cradling preference of first- and multi-time parents before and after birth, and its relation to ill-being and stress. Results revealed that cradling behavior of first-time fathers was not different before and after the birth of the infant. Thus, fatherhood does not seem to have an acute influence on cradling behavior. Furthermore, cradling behavior of first- and multi-time parents was differentially influenced by ill-being and stress. These results present new information about the course of cradling preference from pregnancy to postpartum and indicate that the relation of cradling and ill-being/stress is more complex for parents than for non-parents.

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

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.

The leftward cradling bias and hemispheric asymmetry for speech prosody

Most women prefer to cradle an infant to the left side. It has been suggested that this bias is due to the specialisation of the right hemisphere for emotion, but investigations of visual asymmetries found no empirical support for this proposal. In a recent article, Sieratzki and Woll (1996) suggested that more emphasis should be placed on the auditory, rather than the visual, modality. Using a dichotic listening procedure we investigated whether ear preference for the perception of emotion in speech was related to the lateral cradling bias. Although the findings of both a leftward lateral cradling bias and a left ear emotion perception advantage were replicated, we found no association between the two variables--and thus fail to support the recent suggestions of a possible cause for the lateral cradling bias.

Why are infants held on the left? A test of the attention hypothesis with a doll, a book, and a bag

Most adults, especially women, hold infants and objects representing infants, such as dolls, preferentially on the left side. The attention hypothesis credits the effect to left-directed attention for perception of emotionally salient targets, faces being prime examples. Support comes from studies showing stronger left visual hemispace (LVH) biases in left-holders than right-holders on the Chimeric Faces Test (CFT), but control tests with non-social/emotional objects are needed. We therefore observed young women holding a doll, a book, and a bag, and compared their scores with their performance on the CFT. We also assessed their handedness to check on its possible role. Overall, only the doll elicited a significant side bias, with 57% of all holds on the left, 2% in the middle, and 41% on the right. On the CFT, only left-holders had an LVH bias, whereas right-holders had no bias in either direction. Only the doll-hold scores were consistently related to CFT scores, and for none of the objects was handedness related to side-of-hold.