Failure to support the right-shift theory's hypothesis of a 'heterozygote advantage' for cognitive abilities.

Annett's (1985) 'right-shift' theory of language dominance and handedness posits three genotypes, rs++, rs(+)- and rs(-)-, and Annett has hypothesized that there are cognitive ability correlates of these genotypes. The rs++ genotype person is held to be 'at risk' for maldevelopment of spatial or other right hemisphere-based cognitive abilities, and the rs(-)- genotype individual is held to be at risk for maldevelopment of phonological abilities. Noting that there must be some adaptive advantage conferred by the heterozygous genotype for it to have survived over a presumably long period of evolution, Annett has hypothesized that heterozygotes are afforded an adaptive advantage over homozygotes because of their freedom from 'risks' to intelligence generally. Annett and colleagues have used two different indices, or markers, from which they have inferred differing concentrations of the three genotypes within groups of participants. One marker, based on responses to hand preference items of the Annett Handedness Inventory, was found by Annett (1992) to support her theory in that the least dextral of right-handed participants did best on spatial tests. The other marker Annett has used is based on the degree of right-hand advantage on a simple peg moving speed task. The present study utilized both methods and studied the performances of 259 dextral college men and women on two tests of mental rotation ability and two tests of verbal abilities. Results were not supportive of the heterozygote advantage hypothesis, and suggested that visuospatial ability was modestly related to greater dextrality of participants.