Your Body Influences Your Preferences

Why we are biased toward things on our dominant side

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

If you are right-handed, chances are you will make different choices than your left-handed friends. A series of recent studies shows that we associate our dominant side with good and our nondominant side with bad, preferring products and people that happen to be on our “good” side over those closer to the other half of our body.

The theory of embodied cognition, widely embraced by cognitive scientists in recent years, holds that our abstract ideas are grounded in our physical experiences in the world. (See above: “embraced,” “holds,” “grounded.”) Daniel Casasanto, a psychologist at the New School for Social Research, began to wonder: If our bodies shape our thinking, do people with different bodies think differently? He has been using handedness as a test bed for this body-specific hypothesis.

In a set of studies published in 2009 Casasanto found that right-handers associate right with good and left with bad and that left-handers make the reverse associations. People prefer objects, job candidates and images of alien creatures on their dominant side to those on their nondominant side. In 2010 he reported that presidential candidates (Kerry, Bush, Obama and McCain) gesture with their dominant hands when making positive points and their weak hands to emphasize darker matters. And he has collected data to suggest that lefties hold higher opinions of their flight attendants when seated on the right side of a plane.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


To rule out the possibility that this bias is purely genetic, like handedness is, Casasanto handicapped people's preferred hands. In a 2011 study he had subjects manipulate dominoes while wearing a bulky ski glove on their good hand. Afterward, they showed a bias against things on that side. The results suggest that we look kindly on half the world because we can interact with that side fluently. Make it a hassle, and opinions flip.

Most recently, Casasanto reported in January in Cognitive Science that children as young as six display a handedness bias. Kids were asked which animal in a series of cartoon pairs looked nicer or smarter. The right-handers more often chose the drawing on the right side, and the left-handers more often chose the animal on the left. They also elected to put away their preferred toys in boxes on their dominant side.

“We all walk around with these lopsided bodies and have to interact with our environment in systematically different ways,” Casasanto notes. Given how broadly those interactions can influence our thinking, he says, “body specificity may be shaping our judgments in the real world in ways that we never suspected.”

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe