Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40579679›Full record

SynthesisPsychonomic bulletin & review2025

Handedness and creativity: Facts and fictions.

Owen Morgan, Siyi Zhao, Daniel Casasanto

Abstract readReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Owen MorganDepartment of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3284-9909
Siyi ZhaoDepartment of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4051-9379
Daniel CasasantoDepartment of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. casasanto@alum.mit.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2021-1580

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Are left-handers more creative than right-handers? In both popular belief and scientific literature, left-handedness is linked with higher creativity. In a qualitative review supported by meta-analyses, here we evaluated whether left- or mixed-handers are more creative than right-handers, as measured by tests of divergent thinking, and evaluated whether left- or mixed-handers are overrepresented in creative professions. We argue that plausible mechanisms for a link between creativity and handedness can be found within influential theories of the neural basis of creativity. However, we found no evidence that left- or mixed-handers are more creative than right-handers; on the contrary, right-handers scored statistically higher on one standard test of divergent thinking (the Alternate Uses Test). Additionally, although left- and mixed-handers may be overrepresented in Art and Music, they are underrepresented in creative professions, in general. Both right and left-handers tend to believe that left-handers are more creative, but this belief is not supported by the available empirical evidence.

Indexed as

CreativityFunctional LateralityHumansThinkingCreativityDivergent thinkingHandednessMeta-analysisReview

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.