Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective: This paper examines the classification of handedness using the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (EHI) through the lenses of P. W. Bridgman’s operationalism and Paul Feyerabend’s methodological anarchism. It addresses the philosophical debate surrounding the dichotomization of EHI scores into consistent and inconsistent handers versus alternative systems, such as tripartite classifications (Left, Right, Mixed) or continuous scoring. Method: A conceptual analysis was conducted to compare dichotomized, categorical, and continuous approaches to EHI data. The evaluation is grounded in operationalist and methodologically pluralistic frameworks to assess the legitimacy and utility of each classification system. Results: Although some researchers have questioned the appropriateness of dichotomizing the EHI, this approach has consistently produced empirically interesting and replicable findings. Dichotomization can be justified both as an operationally valid procedure and as consistent with methodological pluralism, making it a legitimate and useful analytic option. Conclusions: Clarity in handedness classification remains essential. Multiple frameworks may yield valuable but distinct insights across psychological subdisciplines. Encouraging methodological plurality and incorporating diverse handedness measures can enhance the reliability, interpretability, and applicability of findings in research on individual differences and cognitive variables related to handedness.

Keywords

handedness individual differences neuropsychology psychometrics EHI edinburgh handedness inventory philosophy of science

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albayay

Villarroel-Gruner

Bascour-Sandoval

Parma

Gálvez-García

(2019). Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Edinburgh handedness inventory in a sample of Chilean undergraduates. Brain and Cognition, 137, Article 103618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2019.103618

Aloraini

S. M.

(2022). Waterloo handedness questionnaire: Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Arabic version. Occupational Therapy International, 2022, 3026415. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3026415

Bridgman

P. W.

(1927). The logic of modern physics. Macmillan.

Christman

S. D.

Garvey

K. J.

Propper

R. E.

Phaneuf

K. A.

(2003). Bilateral eye movements enhance the retrieval of episodic memories. Neuropsychology, 17(2), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.17.2.221

Christman

S. D.

Prichard

E. C.

(2016). Half oaks, half willows: Degree, not direction, of handedness underlies both stable prevalence in the human population and species-beneficial variations in cognitive flexibility. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2, 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-016-0047-7

Christman

S. D.

Prichard

E. C.

Corser

(2015). Factor analysis of the Edinburgh handedness inventory: Inconsistent handedness yields a two-factor solution. Brain and Cognition, 98, 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2015.06.005

Edlin

J. M.

Leppanen

M. L.

Fain

R. J.

Hackländer

R. P.

Hanaver-Torrez

S. D.

Lyle

K. B.

(2015). On the use (and misuse?) of the Edinburgh handedness inventory. Brain and Cognition, 94, 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2015.01.003

Fernandes

Malaquias

Figueiredo

da Rocha

Lins

(2019). Why quantitative variables should not be recoded as categorical. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 07(07), 1519–1530. https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2019.77103

Ferris

(2010). The science of liberty: Democracy, reason, and the laws of nature (1st ed.). Harper.

10.

Feyerabend

P. K.

(2010). Against method (4th ed.). Verso Books.

11.

Gerrits

(2024). Variability in hemispheric functional segregation phenotypes: A review and general mechanistic model. Neuropsychology Review, 34(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-022-09575-y

12.

Gyimesi

M. L.

Vilsmeier

J. K.

Voracek

Tran

U. S.

(2019). No evidence that lateral preferences predict individual differences in the tendency to update mental representations: A replication-extension study. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.227

13.

Haggbloom

S. J.

Warnick

J. E.

Jones

V. K.

Yarbrough

G. L.

Russell

T. M.

Borecky

C. M.

McGahhey

Powell

J. L. I.

Beavers

Monte

(2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2680.6.2.139

14.

Iacobucci

Posavac

S. S.

Kardes

F. R.

Schneider

M. J.

Popovich

D. L.

(2015). The median split: Robust, refined, and revived. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(4), 690–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.014

15.

Jardine

Frasca-Spada

(1997). Splendours and miseries of the science wars. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 28(2), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0039-3681(97)00002-2

16.

Jasper

J. D.

Christman

S. D.

Clarkson

(2021). Predicting interactions in handedness research: The role of integrated versus independent dual-processes. Laterality, 26(6), 607–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2021.1879110

17.

Marcori

A. J.

Monteiro

P. H. M.

Brussolo

A. D.

Okazaki

V. H. A.

(2023). The development of hand, foot, trunk, hearing, and visual lateral preference throughout the lifespan. Neuropsychologia, 178, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108444

18.

Marim

E. D. A.

Lafasse

Okazaki

V. H. A.

(2011). Inventário de preferência lateral global (IPLAG). Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior, 6(3), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v6i3.57

19.

Maxwell

S. E.

Delaney

H. D.

(1993). Bivariate median splits and spurious statistical significance. Psychological Bulletin, 113(1), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.113.1.181

20.

McMahon

(2013). Quantum mechanics demystified. McGraw-Hill Education.

21.

Mundorf

Getzmann

Gajewski

P. D.

Larra

M. F.

Wascher

Genç

Ocklenburg

(2024). Phenotyping in clinical laterality research: A comparison of commonly used methods to determine mixed-handedness and ambidexterity. Laterality, 29(3), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2024.2370871

22.

Oldfield

R. C.

(1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4

23.

Papadatou-Pastou

Ntolka

Schmitz

Martin

Munafò

M. R.

Ocklenburg

Paracchini

(2020). Human handedness: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(6), 481–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000229

24.

Prichard

Propper

R. E.

Christman

S. D.

(2013). Degree of handedness, but not direction, is a systematic predictor of cognitive performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00009

25.

Prichard

E. C.

Christman

S. D.

Walters

(2020). The pen is not always mightier: Different ways of measuring handedness with the Edinburgh handedness inventory yield different handedness conclusions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 127(5), 789–802. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512520927562

26.

Prichard

E. C.

Clarkson

E. M.

Christman

S. D.

(2023). Differences between consistent and inconsistent handedness remain consistently interesting: Ten years of research on the consistency of handedness with the Edinburgh handedness inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills . Online First. https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125231217624

27.

Skinner

B. F.

(1990). Can psychology be a science of mind? American Psychologist, 45(11), 1206–1210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.11.1206

28.

Tran

U. S.

Stieger

Voracek

(2014). Evidence for general right-mixed-and left-sidedness in self-reported handedness, footedness, eyedness, and earedness, and a primacy of footedness in a large-sample latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia, 62, 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.07.027

29.

Verhaegh

(2021). Psychological operationisms at Harvard: Skinner, boring, and stevens. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 57(2), 194–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.22071

30.

Vingerhoets

Verhelst

Gerrits

Badcock

Bishop

D. V.

Carey

Flindall

Grimshaw

Harris

L. J.

Hausmann

Hirnstein

Jäncke

Joliot

Specht

Westerhausen

LICI consortium . (2023). Laterality indices consensus initiative (LICI): A Delphi expert survey report on recommendations to record, assess, and report asymmetry in human behavioural and brain research. Laterality, 28(2-3), 122–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2023.2199963

31.

Westfall

J. E.

Jasper

J. D.

Christman

(2012). Inaction inertia, the sunk cost effect, and handedness: Avoiding the losses of past decisions. Brain and Cognition, 80(2), 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2012.06.003

32.

Willems

R. M.

Van der Haegen

Fisher

S. E.

Francks

(2014). On the other hand: Including left-handers in cognitive neuroscience and neurogenetics. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(3), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3679

33.

Wittgenstein

(1958). Philosophical investigations. Wiley-Blackwell.

34.

Yeung

A. W. K.

Wong

N. S. M.

(2022). The non-transparent usage and reporting of the Edinburgh handedness inventory in functional magnetic resonance imaging literature: A survey of studies published since 2013. Laterality, 27(2), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2021.1984497

Positivism,Postmodernism,and Dichotomizing the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory: Can the Philosophy of Science Help Researchers Think about How to Classify Handedness?

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References