We’re told that victims attract predators. But how? Last time we discussed psychological factors that mediate the relationship between childhood abuse and adult revictimization. This time, let’s talk about how bodily movement – specifically, characteristics of walking – can signal an easy mark to a psychopath.
This is the summary episode of the research. If you’re a goddamn nerd or somethin, check out the full version of the show, where we also run through the research excerpts that might really butter your biscuit.
This is the full version of the show. For the quick n dirty summary edition, take a look at your traumatized motherfucker feed.
Today we’ll be looking at the paper:
Psychopathy and Victim Selection: The Use of Gait as a Cue to Vulnerability
Angela Book, PhD, Kimberly Costello, PhD, and Joseph A. Camilleri, PhD
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
2013
Where they tell us:
Ted Bundy once claimed he could read a victim by her manner of walking. Is that fact or one of his famous fictions? We know that nonverbal signals are detected by others, helping them to understand our personalities and life qualities. Does it also suggest vulnerability? It could, through revealing factors of dominance or submission, confidence, ease of physical assault… and perhaps prior victimization experiences.
The assertion that vulnerability can be judged by our everyday body language is compelling. Do our bodies betray our insecurities? Research has found that nonverbal behavior can influence perceptions of others. Specifically, nonverbal cues can inform judgments about other’s personality, life satisfaction (Yeagley, Morling, & Nelson, 2007), and sexual orientation (Ambady, Hallahan, & Conner, 1999). Nonverbal behavior is also symptomatic of an individual’s level of vulnerability, and thus impacts perceptions of dominance/submissiveness (Richards, Rollerson, & Phillips, 1991), powerfulness (Montepare & Zebrowitz-McArthur, 1998), self-confidence (Murzynski & Degelman, 1996), vulnerability to assault (Grayson & Stein, 1981; Gunns, Johnston, & Hudson, 2002; Sakaguchi & Hasegawa, 2006), and genuine victimization history (Wheeler et al., 2009).
Men, for instance, are shown to potentially prey upon more submissive women, as determined by watching videos of the women conversationally. Those who used smaller gestures were perceived to be less assertive and therefore better choices for victimizing. And of course, eye contact and posture are correlated with real and judged dominance across the gender spectrum.
Cues to Vulnerability
Body language cues have been found to be reliable predictors of vulnerability. Some evidence for this association comes from research investigating the relationship between body language and perceived dominance/assertiveness. For example, in a study by Richards and colleagues (1991), men were more likely to select “submissive” women as potential victims after viewing short videos of the woman in a conversational context. As rated by a separate sample of judges, the women targets in this study who were perceived to be submissive tended to use “smaller” or more subtle gestures involving their hands and feet. In contrast, the women who were perceived to be dominant used more assertive or expansive gesturing involving their arms and legs (Richards et al., 1991). Furthermore, a meta-analysis by Hall, Coats, and Smith-Le Beau (2005) confirmed that nonverbal behaviors, such as eye contact, body posture, and body gestures, are indeed related to actual and perceived ratings of targets’ dominance.
On top of these smaller movements, walking gait has been shown as a form of bodily cue that allows predators to accurately assess victims.
One specific type of body language that reliably distinguishes victims from nonvictims is gait. In an early study by Grayson and Stein (1981), inmates who had been convicted of sexual assault identified individuals as vulnerable when they displayed certain motions within their walk. These motion cues to vulnerability included long or short strides, nonliteral weight shifts, gestured versus postural movements, and feet lifting. Overall,
targets who were judged to be vulnerable to victimization (mugging/assault) exhibited less synchronous movement in their walk (Grayson & Stein, 1981). The relation between perceived vulnerability and gait was further corroborated by findings that targets with less fluid gaits were perceived to be more weak/vulnerable regardless of their sex or age (Montepare & Zebrowitz-McArthur, 1998).
Other research indicates that gait characteristics are indicative of vulnerability to sexual assault in particular. For example, Murzynski and Degelman (1996) found that women who had less-synchronous walks were perceived to be less confident and more vulnerable to sexual assault. In another study, Gunns and colleagues (2002) had participants view video
clips of targets displaying either a vulnerable or nonvulnerable gait after which they rated the target’s vulnerability to rape (and mugging). Overall, gait characteristics accounted for a large proportion of the variance in the perceived vulnerability ratings, with slow walking speed and foot movement uniquely predicting both. In keeping with Gunns et al. (2002),
Sakaguchi and Hasegawa (2006) found that women exhibiting slower walking speed as well as shorter strides were judged by men to be more vulnerable to sexual exploitation.
Signs of vulnerability include extreme stride lengths (long or short), gestured versus postured movements (leading with limbs versus core), and lifting of feet rather than casually swinging them. Less synchronous, more disjointed movements also were indicators of prior victim experiences. It appears that bodily “flow” and “ease” are unattractive to predators. But don’t get too easeful, because slow walking and short strides also suggest vulnerability to sexual exploitation, as judged by “men.”
Now let’s talk about some more extreme personalities.
Psychopathy
Although nonverbal cues appear to be reliable indicators of vulnerability, some people are naturally more attuned to decoding body language than others (Ambady, Hallahan, & Rosenthal, 1995). Psychopathic individuals, in particular, should be skilled in nonverbal sensitivity given their adeptness at deceiving, manipulating, and exploiting others (Hare, 2001). Attention to body language, which is indicative of vulnerability, would give psychopathic perpetrators a definite advantage in selecting “easy” victims. In support, previous research indicates that psychopathic traits are associated with better memory for exploitable behavior (Camilleri, Kuhlmeier, & Chu, 2010) and greater accuracy in judging others’ assertiveness (Book, Quinsey, & Langford, 2007) and vulnerability to victimization (Wheeler et al., 2009). While the first study (Wheeler et al., 2009) employed an undergraduate sample to test whether psychopathic traits are associated with increased accuracy in victim selection, we extend the scope by utilizing a sample of violent inmates.
Psychopathy is largely conceptualized as a personality construct involving a cluster of disordered traits, including (but not limited to) a lack of empathy and remorse, glibness, manipulation, poor behavioral controls, and callousness (Cleckley, 1941; Hare, 1991).
Psychopathy is associated with a host of negative outcomes, including a heightened propensity for antisocial behavior, violence, and interpersonal exploitation (Hare, 2003). In fact, psychopathic individuals make up 15% to 25% of a typical prison population and are responsible for 50% of violent crime (Hare & Jutai, 1983). As such, psychopathic individuals have been labeled as “social predators,” characterized by manipulativeness, superficial
charm, and use of deception (e.g., Book et al., 2007; Hare, 2001; Mealey, 1995; Wheeler et al., 2009). Being labeled a “social predator” necessitates the assumption that psychopathic individuals are particularly skilled in exploiting the weaknesses of others.
Research has previously shown that psychopathic characteristics are correlated with stronger memory for exploitable behaviors and ease of victimization. Psychopathic individuals should be especially skilled in detecting these cues, per their aims of manipulating and exploiting others. The diagnosis is defined by lack of empathy, poor behavioral controls, lack of remorse, and cruelty. Violence is not outside their wheelhouse, nor is antisocial behavior. Up to 25% of prison populations are psychopathic individuals, and they may be responsible for half of violent crime. As social predators, they are skilled in noticing and taking advantage of vulnerable others.
So they’re perfect for this research.
Psychopathy and Victim Selection
Previous research, then, has established a clear link between body language (specifically, gait) and vulnerability to victimization. Indeed, a psychopath’s ability to detect the suitability of victims based on their body language would be an adaptive skill that allows him to quickly hone in on vulnerable and “easy” victims. Some researchers have examined whether psychopathic traits are correlated with the ability to remember targets that may be more or less exploitable. The goal of the present study, therefore, is to examine the relationship between psychopathy and perceived victim vulnerability in a sample of violent inmates.
Method:
The first study on the subject of psychopathic detection of nonverbal cues utilized undergraduate students – in this study the authors chose to use inmates with at least one violent offense conviction; the majority had multiple. Inmates were allowed to opt in to the study, allowing researchers to access their files. They then watched 12 clips of people walking and rated each on their perceived vulnerability to victimization.
Participants
Participants included forty-seven male inmates from a maximum security institution in Ontario, Canada (M age = 35.55, SD = 10.1). All participants had at least one conviction for a violent offence and the majority were convicted of multiple offences (n = 39). Other offence convictions included sexual (n = 5), drug (n = 12), and property (n = 35). Clinical diagnoses included substance abuse (n = 39), schizophrenia (n = 2), personality disorder (n = 2), and mood disorder (n = 6). Most inmates had a moderate to high IQ (n = 41).
Procedure
On arriving in the institution’s psychology department, inmates were informed of the purpose of the study and asked to sign a consent form if they chose to participate. By signing the consent form, inmates allowed researchers to review information from their institutional files including clinical diagnoses, PCL-R scores, and criminal histories. Participants then viewed 12 video clips of people walking. After each clip participants rated the target on their vulnerability to being victimized and then provided rationales for their
ratings. Participants were given as much time as they needed to rate each video and comment on reasoning.
Materials
Twelve video clips of unsuspecting targets walking from Wheeler et al. (2009) were used in the present study. The targets were undergraduate students, of whom 8 were women and 4 were men. As described in Wheeler et al., targets were unknowingly videotaped from behind as they walked from room A to B, to capture natural gaits. The targets indicated whether they had ever been victimized and how many times they had been victimized in the past (after the age of 18). The wording of the question was very broad, given the numerous types of victimization that can occur, and the effects of any victimization are relative. If participants asked for clarification, they were asked to think of victimization as being equal to or greater than bullying. Each target’s gait was coded by two independent judges according to the Grayson and Stein’s criteria (1981).
Measures
Psychopathic traits. Psychopathic traits were assessed using the Psychopathy
Checklist–Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003).
Perceived vulnerability.
Participants viewed each of the 12 video clips and rated each target’s vulnerability to being victimized on a 10-point rating scale (1 = not at all vulnerable to victimization, 10 = completely vulnerable to victimization). Victimization was defined as “assault with the intent to rob or steal from the victim.” This wording is similar to that used by Grayson and Stein (1981), who used mugging and assault in the instructions for their participants. Participants then responded to an open-ended item prompting them to provide reasoning for their vulnerability judgments.
Discussion
Can psychopathic individuals detect prior victims based on gait? Yes, it appears that they can. The higher the psychopathy score, the greater their accuracy. The authors distinguish that this result is related to the psychopathic traits of manipulativeness, charm, and lack of empathy – the other traits such as impulsiveness may actually make them less effective. So if we care to turn the tables, we should watch out for psychopaths who make poor life decisions as less viable predators.
Overall, results are in keeping with previous research (Book et al., 2007; Wheeler et al., 2009) and support predictions that psychopathy enables accurate victim selection. Whereas Wheeler et al. examined psychopathic traits in students with little experience in victim selection, we explored the relationship between psychopathy and victim identification among violent inmates with extreme histories of victimizing others. We found that inmates with higher psychopathy scores demonstrated greater accuracy in distinguishing victims from nonvictims. The association between psychopathy and accuracy in victim selection was driven solely by the core Interpersonal/Affective traits underlying Factor 1 because Factor 2 was unrelated to accuracy in judging victim vulnerability. These findings make logical sense because traits underlying Factor 1, such as manipulativeness, superficial charm, and lack of empathy can facilitate the exploitation of others. On the other hand, Factor 2 traits could arguably inhibit a person’s ability to strategically prey on victims (e.g., impulsivity/ irresponsibility)..
Previous research indicates that walking style in particular is a reliable indicator of vulnerability (Grayson & Stein, 1981; Wheeler et al., 2009). Is attention to body language, or gait in particular, conscious? Much of the previous research would suggest not. For example, a study by Amir (1971) found that convicted criminals were unaware of the criteria they used to select their victims. In the present study, the most commonly listed criteria for selecting victims were the target’s sex, build, and ability to retaliate (i.e., fitness), with gait listed less often. However, inmates scoring higher on Factor 1 of the PCL-R were much more likely to consciously attend to a target’s gait when making their vulnerability judgments.
It is unclear if the detection process is conscious or unconscious, but in the present study, factors such as the individual’s build, sex, and anticipated fitness were key determinants of potential victims – perhaps suggesting some conscious behavior – and inmates with higher manipulative and exploitative scores were also shown to be more conscious of gait when making their judgments. This might mean that psychopaths are, indeed, aware of what they’re analyzing.
Although responsibility for victimization always lies with the perpetrator, our findings have implications for the prevention of future and repeated victimization. Targets who displayed vulnerable body language were more likely to report past histories of victimization, and psychopaths identified these individuals as being more vulnerable to future victimization.
So, though the responsibility doesn’t lie on us to prevent future harm, what can we do to protect ourselves?
Mind our vulnerable body language, as possible.
If you also thought we didn’t get enough details on the walking characteristics that make us walking target practice… don’t worry, I want to be explicit and I did some extra digging. It was a pain in the dick to access. But here’s the paper:
Attracting Assault: Victims’ Nonverbal Cues
by Betty Grayson and Morris I. Stein
Journal of Communication
1981
We learn more about the bodily characteristics and signals that put us at risk.
In examining the average assault ratings… it was found that older men and women were rated as more likely assault targets than younger men and women, as one might expect. In the victim sample studied, older men received the highest average assault rating. They were followed by older women, despite the fact that the older women had the highest individual assault ratings.
Older men and women are more likely to be assault targets, likely due to the perceived fitness that we just mentioned. Additionally, relative stride compared to height is seen as a potential sign. If the length seems “average,” you are more likely to be left alone. Furthermore, we can watch how the leg moves – if it swings easily from the hip joint as weight is shifted – and if body weight shifts forward and backward or in a full rotation during strides, we’re less preyable.
The typical victim as perceived by the criminal respondents in this study would have either a long or a short stride, but not a medium stride. This is not a matter of specifically measured length in feet and inches, but rather is expressed in terms of bodily dimensions and how the leg moves, comfortably, from the hip joint when the weight is shifted and the leg extended. Thus, a long stride for a person who is five feet tall might be a short stride for someone who is six feet tall. This typical victim would probably move his or her body so that body weight would shift laterally, diagonally, or with an up/down movement. He or
she would tend to walk gesturally rather than posturally.
The terms posture and gesture refer to how much of the body participates in a movement. In postural movement, the initiation of the movement comes from the body center, while gestural movement is initiated from the body’s periphery. Thus, gestural movement is discrete, separated, and limited to individual body parts. Postural movement, in contrast, always involves not only the observed or obvious movement of a specific body part, but affects and is reflected in the total body. The prime difference between perceived victim and non-victim groups, therefore, seems to revolve around a “wholeness” or consistency of movement. Non-victims have an organized quality about their body movements, and they function comfortably within the context of their own bodies. In contrast, the gestural movement of victims seems to communicate inconsistency and dissonance. Condon and Ogden (5; see also 4) have called this phenomenon “interactional synchrony.” Persons who communicate with each other tend to “move to a similar beat,” while a lack of synchrony is found, for example, in autistic children.
In terms of whole body movement, the typical victim would move unilaterally, one side at a time, rather than contralaterally, moving left arm and right leg and then right arm and left leg. (Even those victims who did move contralaterally combined this movement with upper and lower body parts moving against each other rather than moving together.) The perceived victims are non-synchronous or anti-synchronous within themselves. Instead of body parts working to complement each other, as in a contralateral walk, the potential victim’s body parts seem to move against each other, as in the non-fluidity of a unilateral body movement or the lifting rather than graceful swinging of the feet. The victim would tend to lift his or her feet while walking rather than using a more fluid swing movement.
Also, if we can walk with our whole bodies in synchrony, leading from the core – postural walking – we appear less vulnerable. Gestural movement – separate individual body part movements – suggest dissonance, discomfort, inconsistency. This is a fitting finding for our community, considering how “integration” is such a challenge for the CPTSD crew. We often operate out of psychological or personality “parts” and it would seem that this extends to our relationship with our bodies. Of course, disembodiment problems also pervade this population, and could lend themselves to the unsynchronous movement that points towards prior victims. When our bodies have been used and abused – leveraged against us, betrayed, and betraying – we have difficult, incohesive, and strenuous relationships with them… which appear to come out in our gaits. As they say The perceived victims are non-synchronous or anti-synchronous within themselves.
Overall, an identified victim will move one side at a time, rather than contralaterally. Instead of swinging right arm with left leg, they motion right arm with right leg – again, reducing fluidity. And lastly, accurately perceived victims tend to lift their feet, not swing them, which again adds a disjointed effect to the gait.
The picture drawn of the typical non-victim is a completely different one. The typical non-victim would use a medium stride, shift weight in a three-dimensional pattern (as if he or she were executing a “figure 8”), walk posturally, move contralaterally, and swing his or her feet.
To conclude?
Aim for an average stride, move your weight in a figure 8 shape, lead from the core, allow limbs to work together with ease and flow, synchronize left arm with right leg and vice versa, and swing your feet – don’t lift them.
And as for THEIR conclusion, the authors state:
Conclusion
In terms of Gohan’s and Hall’s constructs, the specifics distinguishing victim behavior were all actions that may be described as exaggerations of the norm. Extra long or short strides, unilateral body movements, and gestural (or outward) arm and leg movements are all other than usual public behaviors, and may be regarded as inappropriate.
Perhaps some of the behaviors of the potential victims involve what G o h a n refers to as “gestural hinting,” whereby victims unconsciously state their vulnerability, and criminals (probably also on an unconscious level) “read’ that message. Further support for this idea comes from the respondents themselves, who indicated during these conversations that “any dude who looked different” would probably be a target of assault. Further questioning revealed “looking different” meant a different physical appearance in clothing and accessories. In other words, beyond the unconscious awareness of behavioral differences, differences in modes of dress and display were consciously recognized as a sign of vulnerability.
A number of studies (6, 10, 13, 16) have called attention to the fact that people participate in their own victimization through the situations in which they place themselves. The results reported here extend these findings to include movement as an important component of potential victimization. A nonverbal dialogue seems to exist between criminal and victim through which the victim communicates his or her vulnerability to the criminal in much the same way that releasor mechanisms operate in the animal world (18; see also 2). This finding might be relayed to potential victims in programs of behavior modification. Those who could not be properly trained to adopt new movements might at least be alerted to those aspects of their behavior which appear to signal vulnerability to assault.
These are a few postural ways to impact your perceived victimability. And although it’s not your fault if it happens again, I think we can all agree it would be great if it didn’t.
Thank you for being here, examining both papers:
Psychopathy and Victim Selection: The Use of Gait as a Cue to Vulnerability
Angela Book, PhD, Kimberly Costello, PhD, and Joseph A. Camilleri, PhD
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
2013
and
Attracting Assault: Victims’ Nonverbal Cues
by Betty Grayson and Morris I. Stein
Journal of Communication
1981
Practice your empowered walk, it’s a good way to increase mindfulness and skeletal alignment while you take a stroll. Which is a great way to get out of your head and manage stress while noticing what’s really going on inside that body. And with all our embodiment challenges, leading to disjointed and attention-earning movements, psychosomatic illness, chronic numbness, and so many other problems – let’s take all the multimodal self-help we can get.
If you care to hear the extra six pages of research excerpts that informed this summary, check that patreon for the FULL CHOMP – a title inspired by Marcus Barkus.
Thanks again for being here, supporting this project when there are so many other ways to spend your time, attention, or money. I love learning about trauma with you.
And until we speak again next time…
Hail yourself
Heal your damn walk.
Come hear me talk about physical therapy, doing just that, after years of perceived victimization, in the bonus episode following this one. DID this paper hit a little too close to home when it spoke about asynchronous movement? Yesh it did. Explained enough that I screamed out loud. I’ll tell you what I’ve seen.
And I’ll talk to you soon, as we discuss the VERBAL clues that help them pick us out of a crowd.