Although the population-level preference for the use of the right hand is the clearest example of behavioral lateralization, it represents only the best-known instance of a variety of functional asymmetries observable in humans. What is interesting is that many of such asymmetries emerge during the processing of social stimuli, as often occurs in the case of human bodies, faces and voices. In the present paper, after reviewing previous literature about human functional asymmetries for social and emotional stimuli, we suggest some possible links among them and stress the necessity of a comprehensive account (in both ontogenetic and phylogenetic terms) for these not yet fully explained phenomena. In particular, we propose that the advantages of lateralization for emotion processing should be considered in light of previous suggestions that (i) functional hemispheric specialization enhances cognitive capacity and efficiency, and (ii) the alignment (at the population level) of the direction of behavioral asymmetries emerges, under social pressures, as an evolutionary stable strategy.

As shown by a series of previous studies, ambiguous human bodies performing unimanual or unipedal actions tend to be perceived more frequently as right-handed or right-footed rather than left-handed or left-footed, which indicates a perceptual and attentional bias toward the right side of others’ body. However, none of such studies assessed whether the relative strength of such a bias differs between the upper and lower limbs. Indeed, given that the prevalence of right-handedness is slightly larger than that of right-footedness, and given that hands provide more information than feet as regards both communicative and aggressive acts, it is plausible that the bias toward the right side of human bodies should be stronger for the hand than for the foot. We performed three experiments in each of which participants had to indicate the rotating direction (revealing the perceived handedness/footedness) of ambiguous human figures with either one limb (arm or leg) or two limbs (one arm and the contralateral leg) extended. The hypothesized advantage of the right hand over the right foot was found in both the second and the third experiment.

Both static and dynamic ambiguous stimuli representing human bodies that perform unimanual or unipedal movements are usually interpreted as right-limbed rather than left-limbed, suggesting that human observers attend to the right side of others more than the left one. Moreover, such a bias is stronger when static human silhouettes are presented in the RVF (right visual field) than in the LVF (left visual field), which might represent a particular instance of embodiment. On the other hand, hemispheric-specific rotational biases, combined with the well-known bias to perceive forward-facing figures, could represent a confounding factor when accounting for such findings. Therefore, we investigated whether the lateralized presentation of an ambiguous rotating human body would affect its perceived handedness/footedness (implying a role of motor representations), its perceived spinning direction (implying a role of visual representations), or both. To this aim, we required participants to indicate the perceived spinning direction (which also unveils the perceived handedness/footedness) of ambiguous stimuli depicting humans with an arm or a leg outstretched. Results indicated that the lateralized presentation of the stimuli affected both their perceived limb laterality (a larger number of figures being interpreted as right-limbed in the RVF than in the LVF) and their perceived spinning direction (a larger number of figures being interpreted as spinning clockwise in the LVF than in the RVF). However, the hemifield of presentation showed a larger effect size on the perceived spinning direction than on the perceived limb laterality. Therefore, as we already proposed, the implicit representation of others’ handedness seems to be affected more by visual than by motor processes during the perception of ambiguous human silhouettes.

Background: Auditory hallucinations (hearing voices in the absence of physical stimuli) are present in clinical conditions, but they are also experienced less frequently by healthy individuals. In the non-clinical population, auditory hallucinations are described more often as positive and not intrusive; indeed, they have received less attention. Aims: The present study explores the phenomenology of non-clinical auditory hallucinations and their possible relationship with religiosity. Method: Starting from previous findings suggesting that non-clinical auditory hallucinations are often described as a gift or a way to be connected with ‘someone else’, we administered standardised questionnaires to quantify proneness to experiencing auditory hallucinations, religiosity and anxiety/depression scores. Results: Regression analysis carried out using an auditory hallucinations, index as the dependent variable on a final sample of 680 responders revealed that a total of 31% of the variance was explained by a five-steps model including demographic characteristics (i.e. being young, a woman and a non-believer) and negative (e.g. being afraid of otherworldly punishments) and positive (e.g. believing in benevolent supernatural forces) components of religiosity, anxiety and depression. Crucially, compared with believers, non-believers revealed higher scores in depression, anxiety and in a specific questionnaire measuring proneness to auditory hallucinations. Conclusions: Results suggests that religiosity acts as a potential protective factor for proneness to paranormal experiences, but a complex relationship emerges between religious beliefs, mood alterations and unusual experiences.

Ambiguous silhouettes representing human individuals which perform unimanual actions are interpreted more often as right-handed. Such a preference might reflect a perceptual frequency effect, due to the fact that most social interactions occur with right-handers. As a consequence, observers would preferentially attend to the region in which others’ dominant hand usually falls, thus increasing the efficiency in monitoring both aggressive and communicative acts. Given that men can be more dangerous compared with women, the right-hand bias should be larger when observing male rather than female individuals, and given that aggressive interactions involve men more frequently than women, it should be larger in male rather than female observers. However, previous studies did not specifically test whether: (i) male—compared with female—observers pay more attention to the right side of others (regardless of the observed individuals’ sex), or (ii) observers (regardless of their sex) pay more attention to the right side of male—compared with female—individuals. Therefore, in the present study we used ambiguous human silhouettes rotating about their vertical axis with one arm extended in order to determine whether the rightward bias is larger for male rather than female figures and/or in male rather than female participants. According to our data, the bias toward the right side of human bodies was not significantly associated with either the figure’s or the participant’s sex.