Differences in Divergent Thinking as a Function of Handedness and Sex Stanley Coren The American Journal of Psychology, Vol.

108, No. 3. (Autumn, 1995), pp. 311-325.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9556%28199523%29108%3A3%3C311%3ADIDTAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23 The American Journal of Psychology is currently published by University of Illinois Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/illinois.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org Sat Mar 1 15:49:56 2008

Differences in divergent thinking as a function of handedness and sex

STANLEY COREN University of British Columbia, Canada The relationship between handedness and divergent thinking was explored in four studies. Experiment 1 (N = 556) used the Alternate Uses Test, Experiment 2 (N = 941) tested object synthesis, and Experiment 3 (N = 965) tested ideational flexibility. No difference as a function of handedness was found in Experiment 1, but in Experiments 2 and 3 divergent thinking was significantly related to handedness in males. Left-handed males had higher divergent thinking scores, and the scores rose systematically with increasing sinistrality. Handedness was not related to divergent thinking ability in females. Experiment 4 (N = 1,548) showed that these differences were not associated with superiority by left-handed individuals in convergent thinking. Interpretations based on altered neurological development due to factors such as fetal testosterone exposure are discussed. A large number of studies report that the incidence of left-handedness is elevated in various clinical populations (for reviews see Coren, 1990, 1992; Nachshon & Denno, 1987; Porac & Coren, 198 1). In individuals of demonstrably low cognitive ability, such as those with mental retardation, there is a marked and consistent elevation of the incidence of sinistrality (e.g., Batheje & McManus, 1985; Bishop, 1983; Pipe, 1990; Porac, Coren, & Duncan, 1980a). This linkage between decreased cognitive function and handedness presumably arises because both retardation and left-handedness may come about through some form of pre- or perinatal trauma (see Bakan, 1990; Coren, 1992). Thus, Searleman, Porac, and Coren (1989) conducted a review and meta-analysis of the literature that had been published since 1971 and found that birth stress and birth risk factors were associated with an elevated percentage of left-handedness, and more recent findings tend to confirm this (e.g., Ellis & Peckham, 1991; Segal, 1989; Williams, Buss, & Eskenazi, 1992). To link this to decreased cognitive ability, one has only to presume that the same trauma that resulted in left-handedness also increases the likelihood of some form of cognitive deficit (see Coren, 1992; Coren & Searleman, 1990). , In contradistinction to the results described above is a body of
AMERICAN J O U R N A L OF PSYCHOIDGY Fall 1995. Vol. 108, No. 3, pp. 31 1-325 O 1995 by the Board of Trustees of t h e University of Illinois

3 12

COREN

literature that begins by noting that left-handed individuals have made up a relatively fixed proportion of the human population for an extended period of history (e.g., Coren & Porac, 1977; Halpern & Coren, 1991; Porac, Coren, & Duncan, 1980b). Some researchers have suggested that this might imply that some behavioral advantages are associated with sinistrality (e.g., Annett & Ockwell, 1980). Consistent with such a view is the evidence that left-handers may have better spatial abilities (e.g., Herrmann & Van Dyke, 1978; Porac & Coren, 1981). This finding has been used to explain the elevated incidence of left-handed chess masters (Cranberg & Albert, 1988), championship "go" players (O'Boyle & Benbow, 1990), science students (Coren & Porac, 1982; Kimura & D'Amico, 1989), and mathematicians (Annett & Kilshaw, 1982; Peterson, 1979). There are also reports of an increased proportion of left-handed artists and architects (Mebert & Michel, 1980; Peterson & Lansky, 1977), although not all studies have replicated this association (e.g., Wood & Aggleton, 1991). Perhaps the most dramatic illustration of a positive association between left-handedness and cognitive ability comes from studies of mathematically talented individuals. Benbow (1987, 1988) found an unusually large percentage of left-handed individuals among those scoring in the top 1% of 10,000 people tested on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Neuropsychological explanations of the advantage of being lefthanded in some spatial, or putatively spatially related, abilities are still fairly speculative. Some suggest that the structure of the brain of sinistral and dextral persons might differ, with a larger corpus callosum in those who are left-handed (Witelson, 1985; Witelson & Goldsmith, 1991). The increased mass of connective material could allow more rapid communication between the hemispheres, and hence more rapid and efficient processing of certain information. Another explanation of superiority in left-handed individuals comes from clinical evidence suggesting that those who are left- and mixedhanded are more likely to have bilateral or diffuse representation of cognitive functions (Benbow & Benbow, 1987; Bradshaw & Nettleton, 1983). This picture is not a simple one, because of the complex interactions of ability with both sex and familial history of sinistrality (Mckeever, 1990; Mckeever, Seitz, Hoff, Marino, & Diehl, 1983; O'Boyle & Benbow, 1990). Still another suggestion is based upon the work of Geschwind and Galaburda ( 1987). They hypothesize that variations in hormones, particularly the testosterone level that the fetus is exposed to during gestation, can alter the growth of the nervous system. They isolate the cerebral hemispheres as being very susceptible to this influence.

DIVERGENT THINKING A N D HANDEDNESS

313

Their initial suggestion was that parts of the left hemisphere might have their growth slowed, and other parts of the left hemisphere and the bulk of the right hemisphere will have their growth speeded up. Galaburda, Corsiglia, Rosen, and Sherman (1987) offer a slightly different interpretation based upon the same hormonal mechanism. They propose that fetal testosterone exposure produces changes away from the usually leftward asymmetry of the planum temporale. The mechanism involved is an increase in the size of the smaller hemisphere (usually the right side), resulting in a more symmetrical brain structure. Improved functioning comes about because this symmetrical brain has two large plana, each equal in area to the larger planum of asymmetrical brains (see also O'Boyle & Hellige, 1989). Notice that some of the theoretical suggestions discussed above involve (a) more neural tissue, which could improve processing or communication between areas of the brain, or (b) diffuse representation of processing abilities, which would speed and simplify the exchange of information. One possible outcome of this exchange might be faster access to a wider range of memories and associations. This would be of particular advantage when the individual was engaged in divergent thinking, which moves outward from conventional knowledge into unexplored association, as opposed to convergent thinking, which is a fairly focused application of existing knowledge and rules to the task of isolating a single correct answer. It is called divergent because it often involves the consideration of several different directions, alternatives, or information sources. Divergent thinkers seem more capable of breaking sets and achieving novel solutions. For this reason divergent thinking is often listed as a major component of the psychological trait of creativity (Guilford, 1984; McCrae, 1987; Runco, 1986). There is a persistent folk belief that left-handed people are more creative (see Coren, 1992). Certainly, divergent thinking would facilitate performance in a number of areas where they appear to excel, such as art, architecture, mathematics, chess, and so forth. Perhaps some of the success of left-handers in these areas reflects their superior divergent thinking. A few studies have attempted to look at divergent thinking (as a measure of creativity) and its relationship to handedness. Using the figural subscales of the divergent thinking test developed by Torrance (1970), several investigators have reported more divergent thinking in those who are left-handed (Burke & Chrisler, 1989; Newland, 1981; Shaw & Brown, 1990). Unfortunately, the tests used in those experiments all involve figural elaboration and fluency. Thus, the measures used in those studies confound spatial and artistic ability (areas in

3 14

COREN

which left-handers are known to have an advantage) with their measure of divergent thinking. A clearer picture of the relationship between handedness and divergent thinking might be obtained if the measures used did not contain such an obvious figural component. The set of studies reported below attempts to assess whether there is a difference in divergent thinking between left- and right-handers, using a series of well-established tests that do not involve spatial manipulation or a drawing component.
EXPERIMENT 1. Alternate Uses and Handedness METHOD Participants
T h e sample consisted of 556 students (325 women, 231 men; M = 18.4 years) enrolled at the University of British Columbia. All were naive as to the purpose of the experiment.

Measurement of handedness
Handedness was determined using the handedness scale of the Lateral Preference Inventory (Coren, 1993b). This is a four-item scale that assesses the hand used to throw a ball, to draw, to use an eraser on paper, and to lift the top card when dealing playing cards. Participants responded left, right, or both to each question. Experiments have demonstrated a 96% concordance between self-reports on these items and direct behavioral performance testing on these actions (Coren, Porac, & Duncan, 1979; Porac & Coren, 1981). These measures also show a high degree of stability, with testretest concordance over a period of a full year averaging 98% (Coren & Porac, 1978). This scale is highly correlated with longer handedness inventories (Coren, 1 9 9 3 ~ ) .

Divergent thinking test materials

Ever since Guilford's 1950 presidential address to the American Psychological Association, divergent thinking measures have been presumed to be measures of creativity. One of the most popular of these tests is the Alternate Uses Test, where subjects are required to find novel uses for common objects. T h e variant used in this study was Form A (Christensen, Guilford, Merrifield, & Wilson, 1960). It consists of three parts, each of which contains three common items (e.g., a shoe) and space for up to six alternative uses per item. Each part is timed at 4 min. The score is simply the number of novel uses for each item that the participant generates.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To measure handedness, the index (R - L)/4 (where R and L are the number of right or lefi responses) was computed as suggested by

DIVERGENT THINKING A N D HANDEDNESS

3 15

Porac and Coren ( 1 9 8 1 ) .Next, participants were subdivided into four categories. T h e consistent right-handers category comprised those with an index equal to 1 ; the consistent left-handers had an index equal to - 1 ; the mixed right-handers had an index less than 1 but greater than 0 ; and the mixed left-handers had an index less than or equal to 0 and greater than - 1. T h e results of Experiment 1 , separated by sex and handedness category, are shown in Table 1 . No difference was found between males and females in the Alternate Uses Test, t(554) = 1.17, n.s. There was also no significant difference in divergent thinking as a function of handedness for either the males, F(3, 227) = 0.37, or females, F ( 3 , 321) = 1.09. No differences were found in the divergent thinking ability of leftand right-handers as measured by the Alternate Uses Test. Recognizing that nonsignificant results often appear in handedness studies because of insensitivity of the measure or lack of statistical power (see Coren, 1993a), I decided to repeat the experiment before accepting the null hypothesis. This second experiment would employ another, somewhat more sensitive test, and would use a larger sample size to augment the statistical power of the experiment. EXPERIMENT 2. Object Synthesis and Handedness METHOD Participants
T h e sample consisted of 941 students (548 women, 393 men; M = 18.6 years) enrolled at the University of British Columbia.

Handedness measure
T h e same inventory used in Experiment 1 was used in Experiment 2 to measure handedness. Scoring procedures were also the same.

Divergent thinking test

T h e measure of divergent thinking used here was the 0 (Originality) test from the Comprehensive Abilities Battery (CAB-0). This test contains items of the "object synthesis" variety (Hakstian & Cattell, 1982). With such items, the participant must find a way to combine two commonplace objects (which are usually not used together) so that they form a new and functional object. An example might be a pole and a tin can which can be combined to make a bird house, etc. Doing this requires considerable imagination, set-breaking, and ideational synthesis (Hakstian & Cattell, 1978). T h e variant of the CAB-0 used contains 16 object pairs, and is timed at 5 min. T h e score is the total number of novel items generated.

316

COREN

Table 1. Alternate Uses Test of divergent thinking: Scores as a function of handedness and sex (SDs in parentheses) Handedness Consistent left Mixed left Mixed right Consistent right Males 32.83 29.60 30.50 29.44
(1 1.27) (10.00) (8.99) (8.98)

Females 29.56 25.52 29.90 28.98 (6.39) (10.03) (8.98) (8.42)

Note. None of the differences are statistically significant.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results are shown in Table 2, with participants divided by sex and by the same four handedness categories used in Experiment 1. Males (with a mean of 8.49) showed better divergent thinking scores than females (mean 7.99). This difference is significant, t(939) = 2.62, p < .01. As in Experiment 1, analysis of the scores by handedness for females showed no significant difference in divergent thinking, F(3, 545) = 0.98. However, the situation for scores for males was quite different. Here we find a significant association with handedness. Specifically, left-handed males showed a higher divergent thinking score on the CAB-0 than right-handed males, F(3, 390) = 4.93, p < .01. Selected contrasts among the mean divergent thinking scores showed that consistent left-handed males performed significantly better than either the consistent or mixed-right-handed males, and also better than the mixed left-handed group (Tukey-HSD, p < .05). Furthermore, as can be seen from Table 2, there is an ordered relationship to the scores. As males become more sinistral (or less consistently dextral), the divergent thinking scores go up steadily. This is reflected in a significant linear trend, F(1, 390) = 14.15, p < .001. In contrast to the null result in Experiment 1, this second study shows that left-handed males do have an advantage over right-handed males in divergent thinking. For females there is still no effect. One might argue that differences in the female participants fail to be demonstrated because the CAB-0 might have a male bias in that performance could be somewhat related to spatial visualization (e.g., picturing the various pairs of components in relationship with each other) or to mechanical ability (because one must "assemble" or "construct" a new object from existing components). Along both the spatial and mechanical abilities dimensions females are known to do less well than males. The,possibility that such factors may be operating here is supported by the significant sex difference in favor of males noted

DIVERGENT THINKING AND HANDEDNESS

317

Table 2. Comprehensive Abilities Battery (Object Synthesis) test of divergent thinking (CAB-0): Scores as a function of handedness and sex (SDs in parentheses) Handedness Consistent left Mixed left Mixed right Consistent right Males* 10.50".b8c (2.65) 9.33" (2.68) 9.10b (3.40) 8.21' (2.70) Females 8.46 7.71 7.44 8.03 (2.39) (3.50) (3.32) (2.91)

Note. Pairs of entries with same superscript are significantly different at

p < .05.

* Overall difference for males, p < .0 1; linear trend, p

< .0 1.

above. If the scores for females are depressed because of the nature of the test, there might be enough of a restriction on the range of measured ability in females to obscure any handedness differences that might be present. For this reason it was decided to repeat the experiment, this time utilizing a divergent thinking measure that was more verbal and semantic. A test of this nature should tend to favor females somewhat, and hence might allow for any handedness associations in females to become visible. EXPERIMENT 3. Ideational Flexibility and Handedness METHOD Participants
T h e sample consisted of 965 students (567 women, 398 men; M = 18.7 years) enrolled at the University of British Columbia.

Handedness measure
T h e same measure used in Experiments 1 and 2 was used in Experiment 3 to determine handedness. Scoring procedures were also the same as in the preceding experiments.

Divergent thinking test

T h e test used here is a semantically based divergent thinking test (Fs) taken from the Comprehensive Abilities Battery (Hakstian & Cattell, 1982). T h e CAB-Fs measures the ability to break traditional sets and use ideational flexibility to generate a large number of possible organizations of semantic material (Hakstian & Cattell, 1978). Each participant was given a list of seven concrete words, naming common objects. T h e task was to identify as many alternate groupings of two or more objects as is possible in a fixed time. Groupings were formed on the basis of semantic or conceptual considera-

3 18

COREN

tions, such as use, specific properties, etc. Participants received two sets of items and were allowed 3 min for each set to form as many conceptual groupings as possible.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of Experiment 3 are summarized by handedness and sex in Table 3. Because this particular test of divergent thinking was selected for its verbal/semantic nature, it is not surprising to find that the mean score for females (13.50) is significantly higher than the mean score for males (12.35), t(963) = 3.91, p < .001. When we turn to the effects of handedness, however, the results are virtually identical to those of Experiment 2. For females there is no difference in divergent thinking as a function of handedness, F(3, 563) = 2.06, n.s. For males, however, handedness does make a difference. Specifically, left-handed males show better divergent thinking than right-handed males, F(3, 394) = 4.40, P < .01. Post hoc contrasts among the mean divergent thinking scores show that consistent left-handed males are significantly better at divergent thinking than males who are either consistent or mixed right-handed (TukeyHSD, p < .05). Furthermore, just as in Experiment 2, there is an ordered relationship to the scores. As participants become more consistently left-handed (or less consistently right-handed), the divergent thinking scores become larger. This is reflected in a significant linear trend, F(l, 394) = 12.38,p < .001. Although the results presented above are consistent with the greater divergent thinking ability shown by left-handed males, there is a potential confound here. Could it not be the case that left-handed males are simply brighter than right-handed males? If this were the case, then left-handed males should probably also do better on convergent thinking tasks. There are two lines of evidence that make this unlikely. The first I have already mentioned, namely that left handedness appears to be much more prevalent in individuals of demonstrably low cognitive ability, such as those with mental retardation (e.g., Batheje & McManus, 1985; Bishop, 1983; Pipe, 1990; Porac, Coren, & Duncan, 1980a). One might argue that it is inappropriate to compare these special groups with the normal individuals tested here. The second line of evidence suggests that when dealing with nominally normal populations, left-handed individuals do not show overall superiority in most cognitive tests. In their review of this literature, Porac and Coren (1981) looked at 30 studies that provided a total of 53 comparisons in cognitive ability as a function of handedness. Although

DIVERGENT THINKING AND HANDEDNESS

319

Table 3. Comprehensive Abilities Battery (Ideational Flexibility) test of divergent thinking (CAB-Fs): Scores as a function of handedness and sex (SDs in parentheses) Handedness Consistent left Mixed left Mixed right Consistent right Males* 15.44"~~ (3.20) 13.33 (4.56) 12.36" (3.94) 12.0gb (3.86) Females 12.41 14.40 12.28 13.64 (4.53) (5.15) (4.40) (4.84)

Note. Pairs of entries with same superscript are significantly different at

p < .05.

* Overall difference for males, p

< .0 1; linear trend, p < .OO 1.

t h e majority of these comparisons (31 of 53) found n o significant differences, of t h e 22 that did, 1 8 favored right-handed a n d only 4 favored left-handed individuals. Still, before we can accept t h e conclusions that left-handed males may have some advantage in divergent thinking, it seems necessary t o provide a n empirical assessment as to whether we a r e dealing with a global cognitive advantage that also extends into the realm of convergent thinking. For this reason Experiment 4 was conducted.

EXPERIMENT 4. Convergent Thinking and Handedness METHOD Participants

T h e sample consisted of 1,548 students (946 women, 602 men; M = 18.6 years) enrolled at the University of British Columbia.

Handedness measure
T h e same measure used in Experiments 1,2, and 3 was used in Experiment 4 to determine handedness. Scoring procedures were also the same as in the preceding experiments.

Convergent thinking test

T h e test used here is a measure of reasoning which is not based upon any verbal skills. T h e measure of convergent thinking was the I (Inductive Reasoning) test from the Comprehensive Abilities Battery (CAB-I). This test contains a series of problems each of which consists of five 4-letter arrays. T h e participant's task is to select the array that violates the rule defined by the other four arrays. An example of an item from this test is the set
BBLJ

TTRU

FWZP XXBK MMEG

320

COREN

where FWZP is the only item that does not contain a double letter, and therefore is the correct answer for this item. Hakstian and Cattell (1982) report that this item is highly correlated with scholastic achievement. This measure also seems to load highly on Cattell'sjuid intelligence factor (Hakstian & Cattell, 1978).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of Experiment 4 are summarized by handedness and sex in Table 4. There was no significant difference between the mean scores for females (8.06) and males (7.92) on this inductive reasoning test, t(1,547) = 1.19. For the association between handedness and convergent thinking, the results do not show any advantage for left-handedness. Neither for females, F(3, 942) = 1.34, nor for males, F(3, 599) = 0.92, was there any significant handedness effect. If, however, we look at the full sample, collapsing across the sex variable, we do find a significant difference as a function of handedness. This difference, however, appears as a linear trend showing higher convergent thinking scores for right-handed individuals, F(1, 1544) = 4.97, p < .05. These data thus do not show a global advantage for left-handers. If anything, for convergent thinking, it appears that right-handed individuals have a slight advantage, as suggested elsewhere (e.g., Porac & Coren, 198 1). If we combine the mixed and consistent right-handed groups and contrast this to the combined mixed and consistent lefthanded groups, we confirm that the right-handed groups score a bit better on this inductive reasoning task (left-handed groups = 7.57 vs. right-handed groups = 8.04). Given the large sample size tested here, this difference is statistically significant, t(1,547) = 2.23, p < .05. GENERAL DISCUSSION The results of these four experiments may be interpreted as showing some advantage to left-handed males in divergent thinking. Although there were no significant differences found in Experiment 1 (employing the Alternate Uses Test), this conclusion was confirmed in Experiments 2 (Object Synthesis, CAB-0) and 3 (Ideational Flexibility, CAB-Fs). Experiment 4 (Inductive Reasoning, CAB-I) showed that this advantage was not simply increased general cognitive ability for the left-handed group, because in a convergent thinking task, the right-handed group scored slightly better. For the two tests of divergent thinking in which significance was found, there was a remarkable similarity in the pattern of results. In both, there was no relationship

DIVERGENT THINKING AND HANDEDNESS

32 1

Table 4. Comprehensive Abilities Battery (Inductive Reasoning) test of convergent thinking (CAB-I): Scores as a function of handedness and sex (SDs in parentheses) Handedness* Consistent left Mixed left Mixed right Consistent right Males Females

* For total sample, linear trend, p < .05.

between handedness and divergent thinking in females. For males, however, the greater the degree of sinistrality, the higher the divergent thinking scores. The magnitude of the advantage for sinistrality was also about the same for Experiments 2 and 3, with the scores of consistent left-handed males approximately 28% higher than the scores of consistent right-handed males. These results have several possible implications. At the behavioral level they help to specify the specific dimensions of mental ability that may account for observations (noted in the introduction) that lefthanded individuals are more common among mathematicians, architects, artists, and chess masters. Although spatial ability might spring to mind as the unifying factor in each of these areas, it is also the case that individuals who would be expected to excel in such activities would also benefit from improved divergent thinking. Divergent thinking usually produces "original" or "creative" ideas through the breaking of typical thought sets, the reorganization of materials in uncommon ways, and the consideration of a wide range of alternative solutions to complex problems. The divergent thinking tests used here directly tapped into these dimensions, demonstrating superior divergent thinking in sinistral males. The fact that the handedness/mental ability association was found only for males is also theoretically interesting. Recall that the theoretical position of Geschwind and Galaburda (1987) linked left-handedness and overdevelopment of the nondominant hemisphere to high levels of fetal testosterone. Obviously, male fetuses are more likely to be exposed to the higher levels of testosterone than female fetuses. If a "dose/effect" relationship were involved, this would mean that males are apt to have the greatest growth in the planum temporale or any other affected areas of the brain. This means that any benefit derived from changes in the normal pattern of neurological development would be expected to be more visible in males than females.

322

COREN

This is the pattern observed here, even on the CAB-Fs test, which tends to favor females in terms of overall performance. The fact that only in males does handedness interact with mental ability lends some support to a possible testosterone link. Although the present data suggest that left-handed males have better divergent thinking ability than all other groups tested, this result must be taken with a bit of caution. Our sample was limited to university students; hence, the lower end of the cognitive abilities spectrum was excluded. It may well be that when the full range of population abilities is included, the results would be more reflective of the "damage/deficitH predictions, or the differences might be weaker. On the basis of the data in the present study, however, we probably can safely conclude that in a nominally normal, reasonably bright population, sinistrality is associated with superior divergent thinking ability in males.

Notes
This research was supported in part by grants from the British Columbia Health Care Research Foundation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Medical Research Council of Canada. I would like to acknowledge the assistance of David Wong, Wayne Wong, Joan Coren, Geof Donelly, Steven Gault, Lynda Berger, and the staff of the Human Neuropsychology and Perception Laboratory of the University of British Columbia, who assisted in the collection of these data. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stanley Coren, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 124. Received for publication July 7, 1993; revision received January 12, 1994.

References
Annett, M., & Kilshaw, D. (1982). Mathematical ability and lateral asymmetry. Cortex, 18, 547-568. Annett, M., & Ockwell, A. (1980). Birth order, birth stress and handedness. Cortex, 16, 181-188. Bakan, P. (1990). Nonright-handedness and the continuum of reproductive casualty. In S. Coren (Ed.), Left-handedness: Behavioral implications and anomalies (Advances in Psychology, No. 67, pp. 33-74). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Batheje, M., & McManus, I. C. (1985). Handedness in mentally handicapped. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 27, 63-68. Benbow, C. P. (1987). Possible biological correlates of precocious mathematical reasoning ability. Trends in Neuroscience, 10, 17-20. Benbow, C. P. (1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in

DIVERGENT THINKING AND HANDEDNESS

323

intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects and possible causes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 169-232. Benbow, C. P., & Benbow, R. M. (1987). Extreme mathematical talent: A hormonally induced ability? In D. Ottoson (Ed.), Duality and unity ofthe brain (pp. 169-22 1). New York: Macmillan. Bishop, D. V. M. (1983). How sinister is sinistrality? Journal of the Royal College of Physiciuns of London, 1 7, 16 1- 172. Bradshaw, J. L., & Nettleton, N. C. (1983). Human cerebral asymmetry. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Burke, B. F., & Chrisler, J. C. (1989). The creative thinking, environmental frustration and self-concept of left- and right-handers. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 279-285. Christensen, P. R., Guilford, J. P., Merrifield, P. R., & Wilson, R. C. (1960). Alternate Uses (Form A). Beverly Hills, CA: Sheridan Supply. Coren, S. (Ed.). (1990). Left-handedness: Behavioral implications and anomalies (Advances in Psychology, No. 67). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Coren, S. (1992). The left-hander syndrome: The causes and consequences of lefthandedness. New York: Free Press. Coren, S. (1993a). Failure to find statistical significance in left-handedness and pathology studies: A forgotten consideration. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 443-446. Coren, S. (1993b). T h e Lateral Preference Inventory for measurement of handedness, footedness, eyedness and earedness: Norms for young adults. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 1-3. Coren, S. (1993~). h e measurement of handedness via self-report: T h e T relationship between brief and extended inventories. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 1035-1 042. Coren, S., & Porac, C. (1977). Fifty centuries of right-handedness: The historical record. Science, 198, 63 1-632. Coren, S., & Porac, C. (1978). The validity and reliability of self-report items for the measurement of lateral preference. British Journal of Psychology, 69, 207-2 11. Coren, S., & Porac, C. (1982). Lateral preference and cognitive skills: An indirect test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54, 787-792. Coren, S., Porac, C., & Duncan, P. (1979). A behaviorally validated selfreport inventory to assess four types of lateral preference. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 1, 55-64. Coren, S., & Searleman, A. (1990). Birth stress and left-handedness: The rare trait marker model. In S. Coren (Ed.), Left-handedness: Behavioral implications and anomalies (Advances in Psychology, No. 67, pp. 3-32). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Cranberg, L., & Albert, M. (1988). T h e chess mind. In L. Obler & D. Fein (Eds.), The exceptional brain (pp. 204-222). New York: Guilford Press. Ellis, L., & Peckham, W. (1991). Prenatal stress and handedness among offspring. Pre- and Peri-Natal Psychology Journal, 6, 135-144. Galaburda, A. M., Corsiglia, J., Rosen, G. D., & Sherman, G. F. (1987).

324

COREN

Planum temporal asymmetry, reappraisal since Geschwind and Levitsky. Neuropsychologia, 25, 853-868. Geschwind, N., & Galaburda, A. M. (1987). Cerebral latcraliration: Biological mechanisms, associations, and pathology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454. Guilford, J..P. (1984). Varieties of divergent production. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18, 1-10. Hakstian, A. R., & Cattell, R. B. (1978). Higher-stratum ability structures on a basis of twenty primary abilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 657-669. Hakstian, A. R., & Cattell, R. B. (1982). Manual for the Comprehensive Ability Battery (CAB). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing. Halpern, D. F., & Coren, S. (1991). Hand preference and life span. New England Journal of Medicine, 324, 998. Herrmann, D. J., & Van Dyke, K. (1978). Handedness and the mental rotation of perceived patterns. Cortex, 14, 52 1-529. Kimura, D., & D'Amico, C. (1989). Evidence for subgroups of adextrals based on speech lateralization and cognitive patterns. Neuropsychologia, 27, 977-986. McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258- 1265. Mckeever, W. F. (1990). Familial sinistrality and cerebral organization. In S. Coren (Ed.), Left-handedness: Behavioral implications and anomalies (Advances in Psychology, No. 67, pp. 373-413). Amsterdam: NorthHolland. Mckeever, W. F., Seitz, K. S., Hoff, A. L., Marino, M. F., & Diehl, J. A. (1983). Interacting sex and familial sinistrality characteristics influence both language lateralization and spatial ability in right-handers. Neuropsychologia, 21, 66 1-668. Mebert, C. J., & Michel, G. F. (1980). Handedness in artists. In J. Herron (Ed.), Neuropsychology of left-handedness (pp. 273-278). New York: Academic Press. Nachshon, I., & Denno, D. (1987). Birth stressand lateral preferences. Cortex, 23, 45-58. Newland, G. A. (1981). Differences between left- and right-handers on a measure of creativity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53, 787-792. O'Boyle, M. W., & Benbow, C. P. (1990). Handedness and its relationship to ability and talent. In S. Coren (Ed.), Lej-handedness: Behavioral implications and anomalies (Advances in Psychology, No. 67, pp. 343-372). Amsterdam: North-Holland. O'Boyle, M. W., & Hellige, J. B. (1989). Hemispheric asymmetry and individual differences in cognition. Learning and Individual Differences, 1, 735. Peterson, J. M. (1979). Left-handedness: Differences between student artists and student scientists. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 48, 96 1-962. Peterson, J. M., & Lansky, L. M. (1977). Left-handedness among architects:

DIVERGENT THINKING A N D HANDEDNESS

325

Partial replication and some new data. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45, 1216-1218. Pipe, M.-E. (1990). Mental retardation and left-handedness: Evidence and theories. In S. Coren (Ed.), Left-handedness: Behavioral implitations and anomalies (Advances in Psychology, No. 67, pp. 293-318). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Porac, C., & Coren, S. (1981). Lateral preferences and human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag. Porac, C., Coren, S., & Duncan, P. (1980a). Laterality in retardates: Relationships between hand, eye, foot, and ear preference. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 2, 173- 188. Porac, C., Coren, S., & Duncan, P. (1980b). Life-span age trends in laterality. Journal o Gerontology, 35, 7 15-72 1. f Runco, M. A. (1986). Divergent thinking and creative performance in gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 375-384. Searleman, A., Porac, C., & Coren, S. (1989). T h e relationship between birth order, birth stress, handedness, and lateral preference: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 397-408. Segal, N. L. (1989). Origins and implications of handedness and relative birth weight for I Q in monozygotic twin pairs. Neuropsychologia, 27, 549-56 1. Shaw, G. A., & Brown, G. (1990). Laterality and creativity concomitants of attention problems. Developmental Neuropsychology, 6 , 39-56. Torrance, E. P. (1970). Creative learning and teaching. New York: Dodd, Mead. Williams, C. S., Buss, K. A., & Eskenazi, B. (1992). Infant resuscitation is associated with an increased risk of left-handedness. American Journal of Epidemiology, 136, 277-286. Witelson, S. F. (1985). T h e brain connection: T h e corpus callosum is larger in left-handers. Science, 229, 665-668. Witelson, S. F., & Goldsmith, C. H. (1991). T h e relationship of hand preference to anatomy of the corpus callosum in men. Brain Research, 545, 175-182. Wood, C. J., & Aggleton, J. P. (1991). Occupation and handedness: An examination of architects and mail survey biases. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 395-404.

http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 1 of 1 -

You have printed the following article: Differences in Divergent Thinking as a Function of Handedness and Sex Stanley Coren The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 108, No. 3. (Autumn, 1995), pp. 311-325.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9556%28199523%29108%3A3%3C311%3ADIDTAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

References
Fifty Centuries of Right-Handedness: The Historical Record Stanley Coren; Clare Porac Science, New Series, Vol. 198, No. 4317. (Nov. 11, 1977), pp. 631-632.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-8075%2819771111%293%3A198%3A4317%3C631%3AFCORTH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F

The Brain Connection: The Corpus Callosum is Larger in Left-Handers Sandra F. Witelson Science, New Series, Vol. 229, No. 4714. (Aug. 16, 1985), pp. 665-668.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-8075%2819850816%293%3A229%3A4714%3C665%3ATBCTCC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23