{"title":"Predicting interactions in handedness research: The role of integrated versus independent dual-processes.","authors":"John D Jasper, Stephen D Christman, Evan Clarkson","doi":"10.1080/1357650X.2021.1879110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Over the past two decades, a new way of looking at handedness has emerged (see Prichard, E., Propper, R. E., & Christman, S. D. (2013). Degree of handedness, but not direction, is a systematic predictor of cognitive performance. <i>Frontiers in Psychology</i>, <i>4</i>, 1-6), with an emphasis on degree (strong/consistent versus mixed/inconsistent) augmenting the traditional emphasis on direction (left versus right) of handedness. Much of this work has focused on main effects: e.g., inconsistent-handers show higher (or lower) performance than consistent-handers. However, many of these \"main effects\" are actually nested within higher order interactions: e.g., there are no handedness differences in a baseline/control condition, with handedness differences emerging in an experimental condition. Careful examination, though, of these interactions reveals an intriguing and predictable pattern: for integrated dual processes (e.g., episodic memory encoding versus retrieval), the interactions reflect larger effects in inconsistent-, relative to consistent-, handers. For independent, mutually exclusive dual processes (e.g., approach versus withdrawal), the interactions reflect larger effects in consistent-handers. It is argued that these patterns reflect the relative inability of (i) consistent-handers to integrate dual processes, and (ii) inconsistent-handers to keep independent dual processes separate. We also use this same theory to address higher order interactions involving changes in the experimental context as well as other individual difference factors, and make suggestions for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":47387,"journal":{"name":"Laterality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/1357650X.2021.1879110","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laterality","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2021.1879110","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/2/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
Over the past two decades, a new way of looking at handedness has emerged (see Prichard, E., Propper, R. E., & Christman, S. D. (2013). Degree of handedness, but not direction, is a systematic predictor of cognitive performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1-6), with an emphasis on degree (strong/consistent versus mixed/inconsistent) augmenting the traditional emphasis on direction (left versus right) of handedness. Much of this work has focused on main effects: e.g., inconsistent-handers show higher (or lower) performance than consistent-handers. However, many of these "main effects" are actually nested within higher order interactions: e.g., there are no handedness differences in a baseline/control condition, with handedness differences emerging in an experimental condition. Careful examination, though, of these interactions reveals an intriguing and predictable pattern: for integrated dual processes (e.g., episodic memory encoding versus retrieval), the interactions reflect larger effects in inconsistent-, relative to consistent-, handers. For independent, mutually exclusive dual processes (e.g., approach versus withdrawal), the interactions reflect larger effects in consistent-handers. It is argued that these patterns reflect the relative inability of (i) consistent-handers to integrate dual processes, and (ii) inconsistent-handers to keep independent dual processes separate. We also use this same theory to address higher order interactions involving changes in the experimental context as well as other individual difference factors, and make suggestions for future research.
在过去的二十年里,出现了一种看待利手性的新方法(见Prichard, E., Propper, R. E., & Christman, S. D.(2013)。用手的程度,而不是方向,是认知表现的系统预测指标。《心理学前沿》,4,1-6),强调程度(强/一致vs混合/不一致),增加了传统上对利手性方向(左vs右)的强调。这方面的大部分工作都集中在主要影响上:例如,不一致的处理者比一致的处理者表现出更高(或更低)的表现。然而,许多这些“主要影响”实际上嵌套在更高阶的相互作用中:例如,在基线/控制条件下没有利手性差异,在实验条件下出现了利手性差异。然而,仔细检查这些相互作用揭示了一个有趣的和可预测的模式:对于整合的双重过程(例如,情景记忆编码与检索),相互作用在不一致的处理者中反映出更大的影响,相对于一致的处理者。对于独立的、互斥的双重过程(例如,接近与退缩),相互作用在一致处理者中反映出更大的影响。有人认为,这些模式反映了(i)一致处理者集成双流程的相对无能,以及(ii)不一致处理者保持独立双流程分离的相对无能。我们还使用相同的理论来解决涉及实验环境变化以及其他个体差异因素的高阶相互作用,并为未来的研究提出建议。
期刊介绍:
Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition publishes high quality research on all aspects of lateralisation in humans and non-human species. Laterality"s principal interest is in the psychological, behavioural and neurological correlates of lateralisation. The editors will also consider accessible papers from any discipline which can illuminate the general problems of the evolution of biological and neural asymmetry, papers on the cultural, linguistic, artistic and social consequences of lateral asymmetry, and papers on its historical origins and development. The interests of workers in laterality are typically broad.