Failure to support the right-shift theory's hypothesis of a 'heterozygote advantage' for cognitive abilities

Annett's (1985) 'right-shift' theory of language dominance and handedness posits three genotypes, rs++, rs(+)- and rs(-)-, and Annett has hypothesized that there are cognitive ability correlates of these genotypes. The rs++ genotype person is held to be 'at risk' for maldeve...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The British journal of psychology 1999-02, Vol.90 (1), p.109-123
Main Authors: CERONE, L. J, MCKEEVER, W. F
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adult
Anatomical correlates of behavior
Aptitude Tests
Behavioral laterality
Behavioral psychophysiology
Biological and medical sciences
Cerebral hemispheres
Cognition
Cognition & reasoning
Cognitive abilities
Cognitive learning
Dominance, Cerebral - genetics
Female
Functional Laterality - genetics
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Genetic Carrier Screening
Genotype
Handedness
Humans
Intelligence - genetics
Language
Laterality
Left and right (Psychology)
Left- and right-handedness
Male
Models, Genetic
Phonology
Psychological aspects
Psychology
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Relationship
Theory
Writing
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 123
container_issue 1
container_start_page 109
container_title The British journal of psychology
container_volume 90
creator CERONE, L. J
MCKEEVER, W. F
description Annett's (1985) 'right-shift' theory of language dominance and handedness posits three genotypes, rs++, rs(+)- and rs(-)-, and Annett has hypothesized that there are cognitive ability correlates of these genotypes. The rs++ genotype person is held to be 'at risk' for maldevelopment of spatial or other right hemisphere-based cognitive abilities, and the rs(-)- genotype individual is held to be at risk for maldevelopment of phonological abilities. Noting that there must be some adaptive advantage conferred by the heterozygous genotype for it to have survived over a presumably long period of evolution, Annett has hypothesized that heterozygotes are afforded an adaptive advantage over homozygotes because of their freedom from 'risks' to intelligence generally. Annett and colleagues have used two different indices, or markers, from which they have inferred differing concentrations of the three genotypes within groups of participants. One marker, based on responses to hand preference items of the Annett Handedness Inventory, was found by Annett (1992) to support her theory in that the least dextral of right-handed participants did best on spatial tests. The other marker Annett has used is based on the degree of right-hand advantage on a simple peg moving speed task. The present study utilized both methods and studied the performances of 259 dextral college men and women on two tests of mental rotation ability and two tests of verbal abilities. Results were not supportive of the heterozygote advantage hypothesis, and suggested that visuospatial ability was modestly related to greater dextrality of participants.
doi_str_mv 10.1348/000712699161305
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85680521</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A54205708</galeid><sourcerecordid>A54205708</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g630t-6596707943877b8c91d738b65f1db8b96ed0b1e364a4036d171e7d6f3f0072b73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0s1v0zAUAPAIgdgYnLkhCxDlsIA_4q_jVLExqWIH4Bw5yUvqyY2L7UyUvx6XFaGioiIf7Of3k2U_v6J4TvA7wir1HmMsCRVaE0EY5g-KU4qrqlRU84fF6TZbbtMnxZMYbzEmREv9uDghGCvOK31auEtj3RQAJY_itF77kFBaAgp2WKYyLm3_K_ZhM4touVn7HEQbke-RQbMlJAj-x2bwCZDp7syYzAAz1PuAWj-MNtm7nGisyyuIT4tHvXERnu3ms-Lr5Ycv84_l4ubqen6xKAfBcCoF10JiqSumpGxUq0knmWoE70nXqEYL6HBDgInKVJiJjkgCshM96_N7aSPZWfHm_tx18N8miKle2diCc2YEP8VacaEwp-QoFFowThk9CrmsqM6_cBQyJTQmQmf48i9466cw5rLURGuuqMAso1f_RFQznusjtpc7v1eDcVDbsfcpmHaAEYJxfoTe5u0LXlHMJVaZlwd4Hh2sbHvIv93zmST4ngYzxVhff_70v1RdLfbo-SHaeudggDr3w_xmj7_YVWJqVtDV62BXJmzq352cwesdMLE1rg9mbG3844TkXAj2Exlh_Do</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1293587762</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Failure to support the right-shift theory's hypothesis of a 'heterozygote advantage' for cognitive abilities</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Wiley</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>Periodicals Archive Online Foundation Collection</source><source>Sociology Collection</source><source>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</source><source>MLA International Bibliography with Full Text</source><source>Art, Design &amp; Architecture Collection</source><creator>CERONE, L. J ; MCKEEVER, W. F</creator><creatorcontrib>CERONE, L. J ; MCKEEVER, W. F</creatorcontrib><description>Annett's (1985) 'right-shift' theory of language dominance and handedness posits three genotypes, rs++, rs(+)- and rs(-)-, and Annett has hypothesized that there are cognitive ability correlates of these genotypes. The rs++ genotype person is held to be 'at risk' for maldevelopment of spatial or other right hemisphere-based cognitive abilities, and the rs(-)- genotype individual is held to be at risk for maldevelopment of phonological abilities. Noting that there must be some adaptive advantage conferred by the heterozygous genotype for it to have survived over a presumably long period of evolution, Annett has hypothesized that heterozygotes are afforded an adaptive advantage over homozygotes because of their freedom from 'risks' to intelligence generally. Annett and colleagues have used two different indices, or markers, from which they have inferred differing concentrations of the three genotypes within groups of participants. One marker, based on responses to hand preference items of the Annett Handedness Inventory, was found by Annett (1992) to support her theory in that the least dextral of right-handed participants did best on spatial tests. The other marker Annett has used is based on the degree of right-hand advantage on a simple peg moving speed task. The present study utilized both methods and studied the performances of 259 dextral college men and women on two tests of mental rotation ability and two tests of verbal abilities. Results were not supportive of the heterozygote advantage hypothesis, and suggested that visuospatial ability was modestly related to greater dextrality of participants.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-1269</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2044-8295</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1348/000712699161305</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10085549</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJSGAE</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Leicester: British Psychological Society</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Anatomical correlates of behavior ; Aptitude Tests ; Behavioral laterality ; Behavioral psychophysiology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cerebral hemispheres ; Cognition ; Cognition &amp; reasoning ; Cognitive abilities ; Cognitive learning ; Dominance, Cerebral - genetics ; Female ; Functional Laterality - genetics ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Genetic Carrier Screening ; Genotype ; Handedness ; Humans ; Intelligence - genetics ; Language ; Laterality ; Left and right (Psychology) ; Left- and right-handedness ; Male ; Models, Genetic ; Phonology ; Psychological aspects ; Psychology ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Relationship ; Theory ; Writing</subject><ispartof>The British journal of psychology, 1999-02, Vol.90 (1), p.109-123</ispartof><rights>1999 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 1999 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 1999 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright British Psychological Society Feb 1999</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1293587762/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1293587762?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,12846,12847,12861,13405,21394,21395,27924,27925,30999,31000,31270,33223,33224,33611,33612,34530,34531,34775,34776,38614,38615,43733,44115,44200,44754,74221,74639,74728,75298</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=1675566$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10085549$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>CERONE, L. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MCKEEVER, W. F</creatorcontrib><title>Failure to support the right-shift theory's hypothesis of a 'heterozygote advantage' for cognitive abilities</title><title>The British journal of psychology</title><addtitle>Br J Psychol</addtitle><description>Annett's (1985) 'right-shift' theory of language dominance and handedness posits three genotypes, rs++, rs(+)- and rs(-)-, and Annett has hypothesized that there are cognitive ability correlates of these genotypes. The rs++ genotype person is held to be 'at risk' for maldevelopment of spatial or other right hemisphere-based cognitive abilities, and the rs(-)- genotype individual is held to be at risk for maldevelopment of phonological abilities. Noting that there must be some adaptive advantage conferred by the heterozygous genotype for it to have survived over a presumably long period of evolution, Annett has hypothesized that heterozygotes are afforded an adaptive advantage over homozygotes because of their freedom from 'risks' to intelligence generally. Annett and colleagues have used two different indices, or markers, from which they have inferred differing concentrations of the three genotypes within groups of participants. One marker, based on responses to hand preference items of the Annett Handedness Inventory, was found by Annett (1992) to support her theory in that the least dextral of right-handed participants did best on spatial tests. The other marker Annett has used is based on the degree of right-hand advantage on a simple peg moving speed task. The present study utilized both methods and studied the performances of 259 dextral college men and women on two tests of mental rotation ability and two tests of verbal abilities. Results were not supportive of the heterozygote advantage hypothesis, and suggested that visuospatial ability was modestly related to greater dextrality of participants.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Anatomical correlates of behavior</subject><subject>Aptitude Tests</subject><subject>Behavioral laterality</subject><subject>Behavioral psychophysiology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cerebral hemispheres</subject><subject>Cognition</subject><subject>Cognition &amp; reasoning</subject><subject>Cognitive abilities</subject><subject>Cognitive learning</subject><subject>Dominance, Cerebral - genetics</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Functional Laterality - genetics</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Genetic Carrier Screening</subject><subject>Genotype</subject><subject>Handedness</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intelligence - genetics</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Laterality</subject><subject>Left and right (Psychology)</subject><subject>Left- and right-handedness</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Models, Genetic</subject><subject>Phonology</subject><subject>Psychological aspects</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Relationship</subject><subject>Theory</subject><subject>Writing</subject><issn>0007-1269</issn><issn>2044-8295</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>~PJ</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>HEHIP</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><sourceid>M2S</sourceid><sourceid>7T9</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0s1v0zAUAPAIgdgYnLkhCxDlsIA_4q_jVLExqWIH4Bw5yUvqyY2L7UyUvx6XFaGioiIf7Of3k2U_v6J4TvA7wir1HmMsCRVaE0EY5g-KU4qrqlRU84fF6TZbbtMnxZMYbzEmREv9uDghGCvOK31auEtj3RQAJY_itF77kFBaAgp2WKYyLm3_K_ZhM4touVn7HEQbke-RQbMlJAj-x2bwCZDp7syYzAAz1PuAWj-MNtm7nGisyyuIT4tHvXERnu3ms-Lr5Ycv84_l4ubqen6xKAfBcCoF10JiqSumpGxUq0knmWoE70nXqEYL6HBDgInKVJiJjkgCshM96_N7aSPZWfHm_tx18N8miKle2diCc2YEP8VacaEwp-QoFFowThk9CrmsqM6_cBQyJTQmQmf48i9466cw5rLURGuuqMAso1f_RFQznusjtpc7v1eDcVDbsfcpmHaAEYJxfoTe5u0LXlHMJVaZlwd4Hh2sbHvIv93zmST4ngYzxVhff_70v1RdLfbo-SHaeudggDr3w_xmj7_YVWJqVtDV62BXJmzq352cwesdMLE1rg9mbG3844TkXAj2Exlh_Do</recordid><startdate>19990201</startdate><enddate>19990201</enddate><creator>CERONE, L. J</creator><creator>MCKEEVER, W. F</creator><general>British Psychological Society</general><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>8GL</scope><scope>ISN</scope><scope>0R3</scope><scope>ACFII</scope><scope>ANHVI</scope><scope>FBAQO</scope><scope>FUVTR</scope><scope>HYQOX</scope><scope>ICWRT</scope><scope>JSICY</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>~OC</scope><scope>~PJ</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19990201</creationdate><title>Failure to support the right-shift theory's hypothesis of a 'heterozygote advantage' for cognitive abilities</title><author>CERONE, L. J ; MCKEEVER, W. F</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g630t-6596707943877b8c91d738b65f1db8b96ed0b1e364a4036d171e7d6f3f0072b73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Anatomical correlates of behavior</topic><topic>Aptitude Tests</topic><topic>Behavioral laterality</topic><topic>Behavioral psychophysiology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cerebral hemispheres</topic><topic>Cognition</topic><topic>Cognition &amp; reasoning</topic><topic>Cognitive abilities</topic><topic>Cognitive learning</topic><topic>Dominance, Cerebral - genetics</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Functional Laterality - genetics</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Genetic Carrier Screening</topic><topic>Genotype</topic><topic>Handedness</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intelligence - genetics</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Laterality</topic><topic>Left and right (Psychology)</topic><topic>Left- and right-handedness</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Models, Genetic</topic><topic>Phonology</topic><topic>Psychological aspects</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Relationship</topic><topic>Theory</topic><topic>Writing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>CERONE, L. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MCKEEVER, W. F</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>Gale In Context: High School</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Canada</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online Collection 1.2</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online Foundation Collection 1 (2022)</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online Liberal Arts Collection 1 (2022)</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 02</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 06</collection><collection>ProQuest Historical Periodicals</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 28</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 36</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online Collection 1</collection><collection>Periodicals Archive Online Foundation Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing &amp; Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Art, Design &amp; Architecture Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Arts &amp; Humanities Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>The British journal of psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>CERONE, L. J</au><au>MCKEEVER, W. F</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Failure to support the right-shift theory's hypothesis of a 'heterozygote advantage' for cognitive abilities</atitle><jtitle>The British journal of psychology</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Psychol</addtitle><date>1999-02-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>90</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>109</spage><epage>123</epage><pages>109-123</pages><issn>0007-1269</issn><eissn>2044-8295</eissn><coden>BJSGAE</coden><abstract>Annett's (1985) 'right-shift' theory of language dominance and handedness posits three genotypes, rs++, rs(+)- and rs(-)-, and Annett has hypothesized that there are cognitive ability correlates of these genotypes. The rs++ genotype person is held to be 'at risk' for maldevelopment of spatial or other right hemisphere-based cognitive abilities, and the rs(-)- genotype individual is held to be at risk for maldevelopment of phonological abilities. Noting that there must be some adaptive advantage conferred by the heterozygous genotype for it to have survived over a presumably long period of evolution, Annett has hypothesized that heterozygotes are afforded an adaptive advantage over homozygotes because of their freedom from 'risks' to intelligence generally. Annett and colleagues have used two different indices, or markers, from which they have inferred differing concentrations of the three genotypes within groups of participants. One marker, based on responses to hand preference items of the Annett Handedness Inventory, was found by Annett (1992) to support her theory in that the least dextral of right-handed participants did best on spatial tests. The other marker Annett has used is based on the degree of right-hand advantage on a simple peg moving speed task. The present study utilized both methods and studied the performances of 259 dextral college men and women on two tests of mental rotation ability and two tests of verbal abilities. Results were not supportive of the heterozygote advantage hypothesis, and suggested that visuospatial ability was modestly related to greater dextrality of participants.</abstract><cop>Leicester</cop><pub>British Psychological Society</pub><pmid>10085549</pmid><doi>10.1348/000712699161305</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0007-1269
ispartof The British journal of psychology, 1999-02, Vol.90 (1), p.109-123
issn 0007-1269
2044-8295
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85680521
source EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Wiley; Social Science Premium Collection; Periodicals Archive Online Foundation Collection; Sociology Collection; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA); MLA International Bibliography with Full Text; Art, Design & Architecture Collection
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Anatomical correlates of behavior
Aptitude Tests
Behavioral laterality
Behavioral psychophysiology
Biological and medical sciences
Cerebral hemispheres
Cognition
Cognition & reasoning
Cognitive abilities
Cognitive learning
Dominance, Cerebral - genetics
Female
Functional Laterality - genetics
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Genetic Carrier Screening
Genotype
Handedness
Humans
Intelligence - genetics
Language
Laterality
Left and right (Psychology)
Left- and right-handedness
Male
Models, Genetic
Phonology
Psychological aspects
Psychology
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Relationship
Theory
Writing
title Failure to support the right-shift theory's hypothesis of a 'heterozygote advantage' for cognitive abilities
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T04%3A14%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Failure%20to%20support%20the%20right-shift%20theory's%20hypothesis%20of%20a%20'heterozygote%20advantage'%20for%20cognitive%20abilities&rft.jtitle=The%20British%20journal%20of%20psychology&rft.au=CERONE,%20L.%20J&rft.date=1999-02-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=109&rft.epage=123&rft.pages=109-123&rft.issn=0007-1269&rft.eissn=2044-8295&rft.coden=BJSGAE&rft_id=info:doi/10.1348/000712699161305&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA54205708%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g630t-6596707943877b8c91d738b65f1db8b96ed0b1e364a4036d171e7d6f3f0072b73%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1293587762&rft_id=info:pmid/10085549&rft_galeid=A54205708&rfr_iscdi=true