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

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.

Handedness as a major determinant of lateral bias in human functional cradling

Studies examining infant cradling have almost uniformly concluded with a general human left-side bias for cradling, indicating that people prefer to hold an infant to the left of their body. Explanations for the notion of the left-side cradling bias have traditionally been searched for in a variety of factors, for example, in terms of maternal heartbeat, genetic factors, in the form of an ear asymmetry where auditory information is perceived faster through the left ear, as a result of a right hemispheric functional specialization for perception of emotions and faces, and in identifying a motor bias of the infant, such as the tendency of newborn infants to lie with the face to the right when placed supine. Interestingly, handedness is generally considered an inadequate explanation for the lateralized cradling bias, despite it being an intuitively plausible one. In this brief review, I put forward the cradler's handedness as the most convincing and elegant determinant of the cradling bias. This explanation is consistent with a developmental cascades' framework where the cradling bias can be understood as the result of a multitude of factors across a range of levels and systems.

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.

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.

Leftward cradling bias in males and its relation to autistic traits and lateralised emotion processing

Recent research has identified a leftward cradling bias in males, although males are much less lateralised than females. It has been suggested that on an individual level this leftward bias is strengthened as males acquire caregiving experience. Furthermore, recent explanations propose that leftward cradling bias is facilitated by right-hemispheric specialisation for processing facial emotions. Some have suggested that it is specifically facilitated by right-hemispheric specialisation for basic social-affective processes that underlie our capacity to relate to others. The present study investigated male cradling bias in relation to these three factors. Ninety-eight right-handed males aged 18-56 years were observed across four separate trials of an imaginary cradling scenario. Caregiving experience, attachment style, hemispheric lateralisation for processing facial emotion, and autistic traits were measured. A leftward cradling bias was observed in 72.4% of participants and was not contingent on caregiving experience. Regression analyses revealed that right-hemispheric lateralisation for processing facial emotions and autistic traits were both significant predictors of leftward cradling, while attachment style did not predict leftward cradling. Overall, our findings indicate that the leftward cradling bias in males is not contingent on previous caregiving experience and provide further support for right-hemispheric specialisation and basic social-affective processing explanations.

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.

Four meta-analyses across 164 studies on atypical footedness prevalence and its relation to handedness

Human lateral preferences, such as handedness and footedness, have interested researchers for decades due to their pronounced asymmetries at the population level. While there are good estimates on the prevalence of handedness in the population, there is no large-scale estimation on the prevalence of footedness. Furthermore, the relationship between footedness and handedness still remains elusive. Here, we conducted meta-analyses with four different classification systems for footedness on 145,135 individuals across 164 studies including new data from the ALSPAC cohort. The study aimed to determine a reliable point estimate of footedness, to study the association between footedness and handedness, and to investigate moderating factors influencing footedness. We showed that the prevalence of atypical footedness ranges between 12.10% using the most conservative criterion of left-footedness to 23.7% including all left- and mixed-footers as a single non-right category. As many as 60.1% of left-handers were left-footed whereas only 3.2% of right-handers were left-footed. Males were 4.1% more often non-right-footed compared to females. Individuals with psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders exhibited a higher prevalence of non-right-footedness. Furthermore, the presence of mixed-footedness was higher in children compared to adults and left-footedness was increased in athletes compared to the general population. Finally, we showed that footedness is only marginally influenced by cultural and social factors, which play a crucial role in the determination of handedness. Overall, this study provides new and useful reference data for laterality research. Furthermore, the data suggest that footedness is a valuable phenotype for the study of lateral motor biases, its underlying genetics and neurodevelopment.

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.

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.

Atypical maternal cradling laterality in an impoverished South African population

Human studies consistently report a 60%-80% maternal left cradling preference. The dominant explanation points to an engagement of the emotionally more-attuned right brain. In contrast, we found equal incidences of left (31.3%), right (34.3%) and no-preference (34.3%) cradling in an impoverished South African population living under adverse conditions characterized by extreme dangers. We found striking differences on the Parenting Stress Index (PSI) between mothers with no cradling laterality preference and mothers with either a left or right preference. In several mammals a homologous left preference becomes stronger when acute threats prevail, rendering the rightwards shift we observed under dangerous conditions seemingly paradoxical. We propose this paradox can be resolved in terms of life-history strategy theory which predicts reduced parental investment in chronically dangerous environments. We interpret our high PSI score findings in no-preference cradlers as indicative of poorer, or at least ambivalent, maternal coping which many studies show is typically associated with reduced emotional sensitivity and responsiveness. We suggest that the latter may be a psychological mechanism mediating a partial withdrawal of parental investment in response to an enduringly adverse environment. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating cradling laterality preferences in an adverse socioeconomic environment.

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.

Lateralization of mother-infant interactions in a diverse range of mammal species

Left-cradling bias is a distinctive feature of maternal behaviour in humans and great apes, but its evolutionary origin remains unknown. In 11 species of marine and terrestrial mammal, we demonstrate consistent patterns of lateralization in mother-infant interactions, indicating right hemisphere dominance for social processing. In providing clear evidence that lateralized positioning is beneficial in mother-infant interactions, our results illustrate a significant impact of lateralization on individual fitness.