Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are we Revealing Hidden Aspects of our Personality When we Walk?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research suggests that certain individuals exhibit vulnerability through their gait, and that observers select such individuals as those most likely to experience victimization. It is currently assumed that the vulnerable gait pattern is an expression of one’s submissiveness. To isolate gait movement, Study 1 utilized kinematic point-light display to record 28 individuals walking. The findings suggested that victimization history was related to gait vulnerability. The results also indicated that, contrary to expectation, individuals with more vulnerable features in their gait were more likely to self-report dominant personality characteristics, rather than submissive characteristics. In Study 2, a sample of 129 observers watched the point-light recordings and rated the walkers on their vulnerability to victimization. The results suggested that observers agreed on which walkers were easy targets; they were also accurate in that the walkers they rated as most likely to experience victimization tended to exhibit vulnerable gait cues. The current research is one of the few to explore the relationship between internal dispositions and non-verbal behavior in a sample of self-reported victims. The findings provide exciting insights related to the communicative function of gait, and the characteristics that may put some individuals at a greater risk to be criminally targeted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although the seemingly high number of victimized walkers could have implications for the observer’s judgments of vulnerability in Study 2 (such that they might have expected only one or two walkers to be vulnerable to victimization, unduly contributing to lower ratings of the others), the relatively equal divide of victimized versus non-victimized walkers is actually reflective of the university from which they were sampled: A mass call was sent to all incoming first and second year undergraduate psychology students. N = 1397 responded, and 51.8% (n = 720) reported that they had been victimized. While the rate of victimization tends to be lower in the general population (e.g., approximately one quarter of all Canadians report that they have been criminally victimized in preceding years [Perreault and Brennan 2010]), similar percentages have been reported in other studies investigating victimization in student populations (e.g., Fass et al. 2008).

  2. Preliminary research exploring the type of victimization that individuals have experienced has found that observers may be more proficient at identifying those with violent and sexual victimization histories, relative to those who have been violated less interpersonally (e.g., Selkin 1975; Stevens 1994; Wheeler et al. 2009). However, the definition of victimization has remained arguably quite broad in gait vulnerability studies. For example, in Wheeler et al.’s (2009) study, victimization was simply defined as being equal to or greater than bullying. Therefore, the present study attempted to focus on sexual and violent victimization specifically. Sexual victimization was defined as, “sexual abuse, any non-consensual sexual activity (e.g., sexual assault, rape, etc.), threat of unwanted sexual contact, sexual trafficking, sexual defamation (e.g., sending of nude photos), sexual coercion, etc.” Violent victimization was defined as, “physical bullying, in addition to any of the following crimes: Robbery, mugging, assault, physical abuse, neglect, harassment, battery (e.g., intimate partner violence), kidnapping, gang violence, threats, etc.”

  3. Several of the walkers indicated that they had been both violently and sexually victimized; these walkers contributed to both the violent victimization count and the sexual victimization count.

  4. If a participant responded positively to any of the victimization questions, then they were directed to answer 11 additional questions. One question asked about the frequency with which they had experienced victimization (e.g., once versus 5 + times), another question asked them to report how long ago the victimization event had occurred (e.g., very recently versus very long ago [5 + years ago]), and nine of the questions pertained to the subjective impact/influence that the experience had on them. These questions are not explored in the current paper.

  5. Several participants had already fulfilled their study credit maximum and/or simply requested to volunteer their time.

  6. To maintain a level of consistency across studies, Study 2 utilized the same adjectives comprising the Unassured-Submissiveness and Assured-Dominance scales (Trapnell and Wiggins 1990) in Study 1. However, only four items from the two scales were included (chosen at random); this limited the power to find an effect, but was done to reduce rating fatigue and maintain internal validity.

  7. Although 28 videos were recorded altogether, each participant in Study 2 viewed only half of the videos (randomly selected); this was done in an attempt to reduce participant attrition and/or fatigue, and maintain internal validity.

  8. Between 56 and 65 participants viewed each video and completed each accompanying questionnaire.

  9. Some research suggests that a small percentage of the general (non-offender) population possess psychopathic traits (e.g., “subclinical psychopathy;” Levenson et al. 1995; Williams et al. 2007). Given that the present sample consisted of community members, it is possible that those possessing more psychopathic characteristics may have displayed greater accuracy in their ratings.

  10. The study of characteristics that are theorized to increase one’s vulnerability to experience victimization does not excuse the offender from his/her exclusive responsibility. A comprehensive study of both the characteristics that make one vulnerable to an attack, as well as the elements that result in an offender perpetrating a crime, are necessary in order to fully understand the interactions involved in victimization. Similarly, techniques or tactics aimed at reducing one’s vulnerability does not supersede interventions instituted to prevent offenders from perpetrating the act in the first place.

References

  • Ambady, N., Conner, B., & Hallahan, M. (1999). Accuracy of judgements of sexual orientation from thin slices of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 538–547.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beardsworth, T., & Buckner, T. (1981). The ability to recognize oneself from a video recording of one’s movements without seeing one’s body. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 18, 19–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauregard, E., & Leclerc, B. (2007). An application of the rational choice approach to the offending process of sex offenders: A closer look at the decision-making. Sex Abuse, 19, 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11194-007-9043-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beauregard, E., Rossmo, K. D., & Proulx, J. (2007). A descriptive model of the hunting process of serial sex offenders: a rational choice perspective. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9101-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beltran, R. O., & Silove, D. (1999). Expert opinions about the ICD-10 category of enduring personality change after catastrophic experience. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 40(5), 396–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Book, A., Costello, K., & Camilleri, J. A. (2013). Psychopathy and victim selection: The use of gait as a cue to vulnerability. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(11), 2368–2383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512475315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K. (1985). Nonverbal signals. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 344–390). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carli, L. L., LaFleur, S. J., & Loeber, C. C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1030–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, D. B., & Clark, R. V. (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cutting, J. E. (1977). Recognizing friends by their walk: Gait perception without familiarity cues. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 9, 353–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutting, J. E., & Kozlowski, L. T. (1977). Recognizing friends by their walk: Gait perception without familiarity cues. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 9(5), 353–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989). Human ethology. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. (1964). Body position, facial expression, and verbal behavior during interviews. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68(3), 295–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1965). Personality, pathology, affect, and nonverbal behavior. Hawaii: Paper presented at the Western Psychological Association Convention.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1968). Nonverbal behavior in psychotherapy research. In J. Shlien (Ed.), Research in psychotherapy (Vol. III, pp. 179–216). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 11, 49–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fass, D. F., Benson, R. I., & Leggett, D. G. (2008). Assessing prevalence and awareness of violent behaviors in the intimate partner relationships of college students using internet sampling. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 22(4), 66–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, K. A., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Patrick, C. J. (2009). Detecting psychopathy from thin slices of behavior. Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014938.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grayson, B., & Stein, M. I. (1981). Attracting assault: Victims’ nonverbal cues. Journal of Communication, 31, 68–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunns, R. E., Johnston, L., & Hudson, S. M. (2002). Victim selection and kinematics: A point light investigation of vulnerability to attack. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 26(3), 129–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2006). A first large cohort study of personality trait stability over the 40 years between elementary school and midlife. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 763–779. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.763.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2006). The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy: Development, structural properties, and new directions. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 58–88). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

  • Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217–246. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hareli, S., Shomrat, N., & Hess, U. (2009). Emotional versus neutral expressions and perceptions of social dominance and submissiveness. Emotion, 9, 378–384.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikeda, H., & Watanabe, K. (2009). Anger and happiness are linked differently to the explicit detection of biological motion. Perception, 38, 1002–1011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, L., Hudson, S. M., Richardson, M. J., Gunns, R. E., & Garner, M. (2004). Changing kinematics as a means of reducing vulnerability to physical attack. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(3), 514–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joslin, C. (2010). Motion capture. Retrieved May 5, 2015 from http://mocap.csit. XXXXX.ca/index.php?Section = Overview&Item = Default&Page = Default.

  • Kilpatrick, D. G., & Acierno, R. (2003). Mental health needs of crime victims: epidemiology and outcomes. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16(2), 119–132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, D. G., Acierno, R., Resnick, H. S., Saunders, B. E., & Best, C. L. (1997). A two year longitudinal analysis of the relationship between violent assault and alcohol and drug use in women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(5), 834–847.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Social psychology: A general reader. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Books Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauritsen, J. L., & Quinet, K. F. D. (1995). Repeat victimization among adolescents and young adults. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11(2), 143–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 151–158.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lippa, R., & Dietz, J. K. (2000). The relation of gender, personality, and intelligence to judges’ accuracy in judging strangers’ personality from brief video segments. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2009). A brief assessment of the Interpersonal Circumplex: The IPIP-IPC. Assessment, 16(4), 352–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191103940382.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marois, R., & Ivanoff, J. (2005). Capacity limits of information processing in the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(6), 296–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Melchior, L. A. (1990). Sampling the three components of shyness: The Shyness Syndrome Inventory (Doctoral dissertation).

  • Mischel, W. (1999). Personality coherence and dispositions in a cognitive-affective personality system (CAPS) approach. In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization (pp. 37–60). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montepare, J. M., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1993). A cross-cultural comparison of impressions created by age-related variations in gait. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 17, 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montepare, J. M., & Zebrowitz-McArthur, L. (1988). Impressions of people created by age-related qualities of their gaits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 547–556.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murzynski, J., & Degelman, D. (1996). Body language of women and judgements of vulnerability to sexual assault. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(18), 1617–1626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, M. B., Templer, D. I., & Brown, R. (1984). Coping ability in women who become victims of rape. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.52.1.73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, C. S., Kosson, D. S., & Salekin, R. T. (2007). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the psychopathy construct: Methodological and conceptual issue. In H. Herve´ & J. C. Yuille (Eds.), The psychopath: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 79–104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perreault, S., & Brennan, S. (2010). Criminal victimization in Canada, 2009 (Vol. 30). Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prabaharan, N. (2015). Behavioural cues for the perceptions of victim vulnerability. Inkblot, 4, 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, L., & Mcalister, L. (1994). Female submissiveness, nonverbal behavior, and body boundary definition. The Journal of Psychology, 128(4), 419–424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, L., Rollerson, B., & Phillips, J. (1991). Perceptions of submissiveness: Implications for victimization. The Journal of Psychology, 125(4), 407–411.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, M. (2014). Perceptions of victim vulnerability: The role of personality and psychopathy (Unpublished undergraduate honour’s thesis). Carleton University, Ottawa Ontario.

  • Runeson, S., & Frykholm, G. (1983). Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception: Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 585–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakaguchi, K., & Hasegawa, T. (2006). Person perception through gait information and target choice for sexual advances: Comparison of likely targets in experiments and real life. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-006-0006-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satchell, L., Morris, P., Mills, C., O’Reilly, L., Marshman, P., & Akehurst, L. (2017). Evidence of big five and aggressive personalities in gait biomechanics. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41(1), 35–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S., Christensen, A., Haubinger, F. B., & Fallgatter, A. J. (2014). Show me how you walk and I tell you how you feel—A functional near-infrared spectroscopy study on emotion perception based on human gait. NeuroImage, 85, 380–390.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Selkin, J. (1975). Rape: When to fight back. Psychology Today, 8(8), 71–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Biek, M. (1993). Personality and nonverbal social behavior: An ethological perspective of relationship initiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 434–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snook, B., & Cullen, R. M. (2009). Bounded rationality and criminal investigations: Has tunnel vision been wrongfully convicted. In D. K. Rossmo (Ed.), Criminal investigative failures (pp. 71–98). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, R. (1981). Multiple victimization: Evidence, theory, and future research. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 762–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, D. J. (1994). Predatory rapists and victim selection techniques. The Social Science Journal, 31(4), 421–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stillman, T. F., Maner, J. K., & Baumeister, R. F. (2010). A thin slice of violence: Distinguishing violent from nonviolent sex offenders at a glance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(4), 298–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thoresen, J. C., Vuong, Q. C., & Atkinson, A. P. (2012). First impressions: Gait cues drive reliable trait judgements. Cognition, 124(3), 261–271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extension of the interpersonal adjective scales to include the big five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 781–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troje, N. F., Westhoff, C., & Lavrov, M. (2005). Person identification from biological motion: Effects of structural and kinematic cues. Perception and Psychophysics, 67(4), 667–675.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Truman, J. L. (2011). Criminal victimization, 2010. National crime victimization survey, U.S. Department of Justice, office of justice programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (NCJ 235508) (pp. 1–20).

  • Vanrie, J., Dekeyser, M., & Verfaillie, K. (2004). Bistability and biasing effects in the perception of ambiguous point-light walkers. Perception, 33(5), 547–560.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, S., Book, A., & Costello, K. (2009). Psychopathic traits and perceptions of victim vulnerability. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(6), 635–648. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809333958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, J. S. (1995). Interpersonal adjective scales professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D. (2007). Capturing the four-factor structure of psychopathy in college students via self-report. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 205–219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, W. (1943). The expression of personality. New York, NY: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolard, A. (1999). Vicon 512 manual. Retrieved May 5, 2015 from http://users.aber.ac.uk/hoh/CS390/512ViconSWManual.pdf.

  • Yeagley, E., Morling, B., & Nelson, M. (2007). Nonverbal zero-acquaintance accuracy of self-esteem, social dominance orientation, and satisfaction with life. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1099–1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Carleton School of Information Technology for providing the necessary technological resources for the project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada

    Brittany Blaskovits & Craig Bennell

Authors
  1. Brittany Blaskovits
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Craig Bennell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brittany Blaskovits.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blaskovits, B., Bennell, C. Are we Revealing Hidden Aspects of our Personality When we Walk?. J Nonverbal Behav 43, 329–356 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-019-00302-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-019-00302-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation