Side Effects: How our lopsided brain influences everyday behaviour

在日常生活中很容易观察到许多人口一级的行为不对称。例子包括空间行为的偏见，摆姿势，转身，接吻，摇篮和拥抱。人类行为的偏差至少有两个原因：（1）大脑半球之间的功能和解剖差异，以及（2）感知训练和经验。该计划中概述的研究计划将研究两种类型的日常行为中的行为不对称：（1）社交接触（拥抱，亲吻和摇篮）的不对称将在不同的文化中进行探索，（2）日常空间行为（导航，相对位置判断，空间语言的使用）的不对称将在不同的背景下进行探索。社会接触的不对称性将被探讨为摇篮，拥抱，亲吻在不同的情感背景。我们知道，在西方文化中，父母倾向于把婴儿放在左边。然而，这还有待于在从右向左（RTL）阅读的文化中进行探索。我建议在社交媒体上对真实的婴儿摇篮进行“实地”研究，并在实验室对摇篮中的娃娃进行研究，评估从左到右（LTR）和RTL阅读样本。拥抱的偏侧化也将在LTR和RTL读者的情绪背景下进行评估。我们将通过比较在机场入境口的拥抱和在登机口的拥抱来对比快乐和悲伤的拥抱。葬礼上安慰的拥抱将与庆祝的拥抱形成对比。接吻中的不对称性将在不同的背景下进行评估。我们知道异性恋情侣在接吻时会表现出偏见，但这是否也适用于同性恋情侣呢？我们知道，亲子接吻时，接吻偏见会消失，但当亲吻宠物狗或猫时，这种偏见也会消失吗？接吻中的偏见会随着关系的“成熟”而减弱吗？它的中心和接吻更柏拉图式和家庭，他们可能会成为更常见的以后在一段关系。 日常空间行为的不对称性（空间语言的使用、导航、相对位置的判断）将主要使用“自然主义”数据进行探讨。当Chaterjee（1995）要求人们画出一种代理人/接受者关系时，例如“圆圈推正方形”，他的西方样本倾向于将“行动代理人”放在左边。在RTL阅读器中，这种效果会逆转吗？同样的代理偏见在具有代理偏见的配对（例如总统/副总统二人组）的肖像中是否也很明显？使用虚构的个人资料图片和职业，Mazzurega（2019）发现，男性的个人资料图片被认为是更典型的性别，并且与代理职业更相关。这种影响存在于现实世界的LinkedIn（和其他）个人资料图片中吗？这种影响是否随当前职业的代理级别而变化？

There are many population-level behavioural asymmetries that are readily observable in everyday life. Examples include biases in spatial behaviour, posing, turning, kissing, cradling, and embracing. Human behaviour is biased for at least two reasons, (1) The functional and anatomical differences between the hemispheres of the brain, and (2) perceptual training and experience. The research program outlined in this proposal will examine behavioural asymmetries in two types of everyday behaviours: (1) Asymmetries in social touch (hugging, kissing, and cradling) will be explored across cultures, and (2) Asymmetries in everyday spatial behaviours (navigation, judgements of relative position, use of spatial language), will be explored in different contexts. Asymmetries in social touch will be explored for cradling, hugging, and kissing across different emotional contexts. We know that across western cultures, parents tend to cradle infants to the left. However, this has yet to be explored in cultures that read from Right-To-Left (RTL). I am proposing `field' studies of real baby cradling on social media and lab-based studies of cradling a doll, assessing both Left-to-Right (LTR) and RTL reading samples. Lateralization of embracing will also be assessed in LTR and RTL readers across emotional contexts. We will contrast happy versus sad hugs by comparing hugs at airport arrivals gates versus those embraces at the departure gate. Hugs of consolation at funerals will be contrasted with hugs of celebration. Asymmetries in kissing will be assessed across contexts. We know that heterosexual romantic couples show rightward biases while kissing, but does this generalize to homosexual couples? We know that the rightward kissing bias disappears for parent-child kisses, but does it also disappear when kissing a pet dog or cat? Do the rightward biases in kissing attenuate as a relationship `matures'? It central and leftward kisses are more platonic and familial, they might become more common later on in a relationship. Asymmetries in everyday spatial behaviours (use of spatial language, navigation, judgements of relative position), will be explored using mostly `naturalistic' data. When Chaterjee (1995) asked people to draw an agent/receiver relationship , such as "the circle pushes the square", his Western sample tended to put the `agent of action' on the left. Is this effect reversed in RTL readers? Is this same agency bias evident in portraits of pairs with an agency bias, such as a president/vice-president duo? Using fictitious profile pictures and occupations, Mazzurega (2019) found that rightward profiles pictures are perceived as more gender typical for males, and more associated with agentic occupations. Is this effect present in real-world LinkedIn (and other) profile pictures, and does this effect vary with the level of agency in the current occupation?