How robust is really that finger-ratio index for testosterone exposure in the womb? I have a daughter (and a mother in law) with very long ring-fingers. Mine are more even (with a tilt towards index finger being longer), there was some study on Finnish individuals (finger-ratio and homosexuality) where the ratio went the other way. Right now there is, in the daily press, something about ratio in men saying something about how they will treat women. But, interestingly enough, even in that article (in one of the more tabloidy of our papers), there was a mention that the original work that established the connection was in question, as it could not be replicated.
Are we in tooth-fairy science land here? I’d like someone to trace this, and look at the robustness of the original finding.
Wyer, Srull and Donald. I blogged about that original study a while ago, and we all noted that this seems like a one-shot (at the outset, two-shot) study with 8 participants in each cell. I looked in PsycINFO, and the paper has been cited 600 times in the data-base. I’d like to trace the work forward. Kind of a genealogy of this study, and see what others found, and how critical it was of the original, and in what way it has replicated conceptually or other. Like tracing Ghenghis Kahns y-chromosome.
Some of this comes from the ideas implanted in me by David Hull, where he looks as research as a process, with genealogies of questions.
Would I have time to do this? I don’t know, but I think it would be interesting. May also trace some of the Chinese-whisper effect of findings, due to us not possibly having enough time to carefully scrutinize all the literature that came before.