Content uploaded by Joseph A Camilleri
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joseph A Camilleri on May 18, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
28(11) 2368 –2383
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0886260512475315
jiv.sagepub.com
475315JIV281110.1177/0886260512475315
Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceBook et al.
2013
1Brock University, Catharines, Ontario, Canada
2Westfield State University, Westfield, MA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Angela Book, Department of Psychology, Brock University, 500 Glenridge Avenue, St. Catharines,
Ontario, L2S 3A1, Canada.
Email: abook@brocku.ca
Psychopathy and
Victim Selection: The
Use of Gait as a Cue to
Vulnerability
Angela Book, PhD,1 Kimberly Costello, PhD,1
and Joseph A. Camilleri, PhD2
Abstract
Previous research has shown that victims display characteristic body lan-
guage, specifically in their walking style (Grayson & Stein, 1981). Individu-
als scoring higher on the interpersonal/affective aspects of psychopathy
(Factor 1) are more accurate at judging victim vulnerability simply from
viewing targets walking (Wheeler, Book, & Costello, 2009). The present study
examines the relation between psychopathy and accuracy in assessing victim
vulnerability in a sample of inmates from a maximum security penitentiary
in Ontario, Canada. Forty-seven inmates viewed short video clips of targets
walking and judged how vulnerable each target was to victimization. Higher
Factor 1 psychopathy scores (as measured by the PCL-R; Hare 2003) were
positively related to accuracy in judging victim vulnerability. Contrary to
research with noninstitutional participants (Wheeler et al., 2009), inmates
higher on Factor 1 of psychopathy were more likely to rationalize their vul-
nerability judgments by mentioning the victim’s gait. Implications of these
findings are discussed.
Keywords
psychopathy, vulnerability, victim selection, gait, body language
Article
Book et al. 2369
Serial killer Ted Bundy once stated that “he could tell a victim by the way she
walked down the street, the tilt of her head, the manner in which she carried
herself, etc . . .” (as cited in Holmes & Holmes, 2009, p. 221). The assertion
that vulnerability can be judged by our everyday body language is compel-
ling. Do our bodies betray our insecurities? Research has found that nonver-
bal 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/submis-
siveness (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).
Although nonverbal cues appear to be reliable indicators of vulnerability,
some people are naturally more attuned to decoding body language than oth-
ers (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, pre-
vious 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.
Furthermore, we examine whether psychopathic inmates pay conscious
attention to body language cues, particularly a victim’s gait, when making
vulnerability judgments. While this was not true in the student sample, we
expect that individuals who have experience in victim selection (i.e., violent
offenders) will be more practiced in paying attention to cues relating to vul-
nerability. That is, we expected psychopathic offenders to be more likely to
mention gait as a reason for their assessment of vulnerability.
Psychopathy
Psychopathy is largely conceptualized as a personality construct involving a
cluster of disordered traits, including (but not limited to) a lack of empathy
2370 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(11)
and remorse, glibness, manipulation, poor behavioral controls, and callous-
ness (Cleckley, 1941; Hare, 1991). Psychopathy as a personality construct is
most commonly measured using the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-
R; Hare, 1991). The PCL-R is a clinical assessment tool that assesses two
main factors of psychopathy, each consisting of 2 facets. Factor 1 of the
PCL-R captures the core interpersonal (e.g., glibness) and affective (e.g.,
lack of empathy and remorse) traits of psychopathy. Factor 2 of PCL-R cap-
tures the unstable lifestyle (e.g., impulsivity) and antisocial behavior (e.g.,
delinquency) symptoms of psychopathy. There is debate about whether anti-
social behaviors are an essential component of psychopathy or rather a con-
sequence of the core psychopathic traits. As such, a three-factor model for
the underlying structure of psychopathy has been proposed excluding the
antisocial facet of the PCL-R (Cooke & Michie, 2001; Cooke, Michie, &
Skeem, 2007). For purposes of the present study, we retain the original hier-
archical two-factor structure of psychopathy as measured by the PCL-R
(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 exploit-
ing the weaknesses of others. Such reasoning is in line with Frank (1988),
who proposed that to be successful in exploitation an individual needs to be
adept at recognizing cues of vulnerability in potential victims. Successful
predation therefore is thought to be dependent on the availability of reliable
cues to victim vulnerability/weakness.
Cues to Vulnerability
Body language cues have been found to be reliable predictors of vulnerabil-
ity. 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
Book et al. 2371
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 con-
tact, body posture, and body gestures, are indeed related to actual and per-
ceived ratings of targets’ dominance.
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, nonlateral
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 vul-
nerability 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 move-
ment 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.
Psychopathy and Victim Selection
Previous research, then, has established a clear link between body language
(specifically, gait) and vulnerability to victimization. This opens the door to
examining whether certain individuals are better than others at perceiving
these cues. An obvious candidate for such a skill would be a psychopath, who
is described as “social predator” (Book et al., 2007; Hare, 2001; Mealey,
2372 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(11)
1995; Wheeler et al., 2009). Indeed, a psychopath’s ability to detect the suit-
ability 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 corre-
lated with the ability to remember targets that may be more or less exploit-
able. For example, Camilleri et al. (2010) found that psychopathic traits were
associated with better memory for “helpers” (i.e., objects that assisted another
object in attaining a goal), versus “hinderers” (i.e., objects that prevented
another object from attaining a goal). This study offers initial support for
earlier descriptions of psychopaths as effective social predators (Hare, 1991;
Mealey, 1995), suggesting that psychopaths may be more likely to target
“altruistic” people given their increased exploitability. It should be noted,
however, that others have not found the same effect when using different
operational definitions (see Barclay & Lalumière, 2006).
Perhaps these conflicting findings can be explained by the failure to con-
sider the unique impact of Factor1 and Factor 2 of psychopathy. There is
reason to believe that the interpersonal/affective characteristics (e.g., manip-
ulativeness, superficial charm, and lack of empathy) prototypical of Factor 1,
are more central to effective victim selection, whereas Factor 2 characteris-
tics (e.g., poor behavioral control and impulsivity) inhibit the planning and
attention to detail required for predatory victim selection. Indeed previous
research indicates that Factor 1 traits are associated with instrumental vio-
lence, whereas Factor 2 traits are negatively related to the level of instrumen-
tality in crime, and instead predict reactionary aggression (e.g., Cunningham
& Reidy, 1998; Woodworth & Porter, 2002). Two previous studies deal with
the issue of victim selection directly and also consider the unique impact of
Factor 1 and Factor 2 of psychopathy. Given that Factors 1 and 2 often cor-
relate differently with a variety of dependent variables, possibly because
Factor 2 scores may identify antisocial people who are not psychopathic,
failing to consider the factors separately can result in null findings.
In the first study, Book et al. (2007) examined the ability of psychopathic
criminals to judge vulnerability in others based solely on observing the target
in a natural conversation with a confederate. Inmate’s ratings of the target’s
perceived assertiveness were compared with those of the actual target. Only
Factor 1 (interpersonal/affective traits) of the PCL-R was positively corre-
lated with accuracy in judging other’s assertiveness (Book et al., 2007). In a
second study, Wheeler et al. (2009) examined whether psychopathic traits in
a noninstitutional sample of undergraduate students were associated with
accuracy in judging vulnerability to victimization. In this study male students
Book et al. 2373
viewed short video clips of targets walking from behind and then rated each
target’s vulnerability to assault. Male students scoring higher on self-reported
interpersonal/affective traits of psychopathy in particular, were more accu-
rate in assessing target vulnerability. Across both studies, Factor 2 was unre-
lated to accuracy in victim selection.
If psychopathic inmates exhibit superior accuracy in identifying victims,
do they also pay conscious attention to the targets’ body language, or gait in
particular, when judging vulnerability? Wheeler et al. (2009) examined stu-
dent’s explanations for vulnerability ratings but found no relationship
between psychopathy and the frequency for which gait was used by partici-
pants to explain vulnerability judgments. In other words, students scoring
higher on psychopathic traits did not consciously base their vulnerability
judgments on the victim’s gait. It is possible that this null finding is a product
of the student sample used in Wheeler et al. More specifically, the partici-
pants were unlikely to have experience in victim selection. An examination
of the relationship between psychopathy and victim selection in an institu-
tional population may yield different results, given that the participants would
have more experience in selecting victims. For this reason, we chose to focus
on a sample of violent offenders in the present study.
The goal of the present study, therefore, is to examine the relationship
between psychopathy and perceived victim vulnerability in a sample of
violent inmates. In keeping with Wheeler et al. (2009) and previous descrip-
tions of psychopaths as social predators (Book et al., 2007, Hare, 2001), we
predicted that inmates scoring higher in Factor 1 of psychopathy (interper-
sonal/affective symptoms) would be more accurate in victim vulnerability
ratings. Furthermore, inmates higher in Factor 1 were also expected to pay
more conscious attention to reliable vulnerability cues, specifically a tar-
get’s gait. In other words, there should be a positive correlation between
Factor 1 traits and the number of times gait is mentioned as a reason for
vulnerability ratings.
Method
Participants
Participants included forty-seven male inmates from a maximum security
institution in Ontario, Canada (Mage = 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
2374 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(11)
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 research-
ers 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 stu-
dents, 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 victim-
ized 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 clarifica-
tion, 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). As discussed in the
original Wheeler et al. study, interjudge reliabilities were high for all gait
characteristics (kappa = .77 to 1.00). Essential to the idea that body lan-
guage cues indicate vulnerability, targets coded as displaying vulnerable
body language in the Wheeler et al. were more likely to have self-identified
as a victim, rho (11) = .68, p < .05.
Measures
Psychopathic traits. Psychopathic traits were assessed using the Psychopathy
Checklist–Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003). The PCL-R has been shown to be
reliable and valid in many contexts and populations (see Hare, 2003 for a
Book et al. 2375
review). The PCL-R total, Factor 1, and Factor 2 scores were on file for all
participants (Mtotal = 21.83, SD = 8.16, in line with other institutional sam-
ples; 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 victim-
ization). 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 partici-
pants. Participants then responded to an open-ended item prompting them to
provide reasoning for their vulnerability judgments.
Results
Data Preparation
In keeping with Wheeler et al. (2009), accuracy in victim selection was deter-
mined by categorizing participant’s ratings of target vulnerability into correct
or incorrect judgments based on the target’s actual self-reported history of
victimization. Participants were considered to be accurate in their judgments
if they gave “nonvictims” a vulnerability score between 1 and 5 and if they
gave “victims” a vulnerability score between 6 and 10. The midpoint of the
scale was used because the values from 1 to 5 described the person as not
being vulnerable to victimization, while values from 6 to 10 described the
target as vulnerable to victimization. The number of correct assessments
across the 12 videos was added to compose an overall measure of accuracy in
victim selection, higher scores reflecting greater victim selection accuracy.
Psychopathy and Victim Selection
Descriptive statistics and correlations among key variables are presented in
Table 1. Because we had directional hypotheses for Factor 1’s relationships
with victim vulnerability and the number of times gait was mentioned, these
tests were one-tailed. All other statistical tests were two-tailed. Correlations
between factor scores and dependent variables were partial (controlling for
the other factor), allowing us to isolate the unique effects of each factor. We
predicted that inmates higher in the core interpersonal/affective traits (Factor 1)
of psychopathy would be better at distinguishing victims from nonvictims. As
indicated in Table 1, accuracy in judging other’s vulnerability to victimization
2376 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(11)
was positively correlated with Total psychopathy and with Factor 1 (interper-
sonal/affective traits) of the PCL-R, after controlling for Factor 2. In contrast,
no significant relationship emerged between victim accuracy and Factor 2
(antisocial/lifestyle) of the PCL-R, after controlling for Factor 1. These results
indicate that psychopathy in inmates, particularly the core interpersonal and
affective traits (Factor 1), enables successful victim selection.
Attention to Body Language
Open-ended responses for vulnerability rating rationales were coded by two
independent judges for mention of 11 vulnerability cues: gait, body posture
(body movements not related to gait), age, sex, attractiveness, build, cloth-
ing, attention, fitness, environment (e.g., lack of lighting), and whether target
was alone. The category labels and examples are listed in Table 1. For each
target video, participants received a score of 1 if the vulnerability cue was
mentioned or 0 if the cue was not mentioned. Often, participants gave mul-
tiple reasons for their vulnerability assessment, and thus their response
would be coded into as many categories as they had given. Prior to resolving
discrepancies via discussion, interjudge agreement for coding vulnerability
rating rationales was excellent (Kappas ranged from .86 to .99). Of particular
interest to the present investigation was mention of gait, which had the high-
est interrater reliability.
Psychopathy and Attention to Gait Cues
As mentioned above, Factor 1 was expected to correlate positively with the
number of times gait in particular was given as a reason for vulnerability
ratings. We did run correlations between the two factors of psychopathy and
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations Among Key Variables.
M SD Range Factor 1 Factor 2
Victim
Accuracy Gait
PCL-R total 21.83 8.16 4-34 .78** .90** .38** .10
Factor 1 8.13 3.63 2-15 — .48** .47p** .26p*
Factor 2 11.77 5.23 0-19 — –.04p–.13p
Victim accuracy 6.35 2.65 0-12 — .17
Note. N = 47. PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist–Revised. Subscriptp = partial correlation.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Book et al. 2377
all of the categories described above. All tests were two-tailed, with the
exception of the relationship between Factor 1 and mentioning walking/gait,
because of the specific prediction regarding this relationship. Correlations
can be seen in Table 2. Consistent with predictions, inmates higher on Factor
1 of psychopathy were more likely to rationalize their vulnerability judg-
ments by mentioning the victim’s gait, r(44) = .26, p < .05. Factor 1 was not
significantly related to any of the other cues to vulnerability. None of the
partial correlations between Factor 2 and the various reasons for vulnerabil-
ity judgments were significant.1
Table 2. Category Coding and Frequencies for Vulnerability Rating Rationales.
Examples Frequency F1 F2 PCL-Total
Category
Fitness Greater probability of fighting
back; Able to defend self
38 .18 –0.1 .06
Body type In good physical shape;
Heavy set and will be slow
34 .17 –.23 –.11
Sex Because she’s a woman;
Female (wouldn’t mug a
girl)
33 .19 –.03 .16
Walk/gait Walks with confidence; Walks
like an easy target
31 .26* –.13 .10
Attention Not paying attention to;
Appears to be cautious
29 .03 .04 .06
Clothing Expensive clothing; Clothes
restrict warding mugger off
23 –.06 –.07 –.14
Body posture Fidgeting with hair; Hands in
pockets
21 .15 –.08 .05
Alone No one around; Being alone
increases vulnerability
19 –.01 .14 .15
Environment Too much light in vicinity;
Secluded places to hide
17 –.09 –.09 –.15
Age Victim is too young; Young
male
14 .09 –.26 –.18
Attractiveness Looks are enticing to mugger;
She is attractive
5 –.01 –.01 –.03
Note. All correlations are two-tailed with the exception of F1 and walking/gait (because of
specific prediction). For correlations with Factor scores, the values are partial correlations
(removing the impact of the other factor score). N = 47.
*p < .05.
2378 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(11)
Discussion
Overall, results are in keeping with previous research (Book et al., 2007;
Wheeler et al., 2009) and support predictions that psychopathy enables accu-
rate 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 underly-
ing 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., impul-
sivity/irresponsibility) but not among psychopaths who also score high on
Factor 1 as is evidenced by the correlation between total PCL-R scores and
accuracy. These findings are also in line with recent suggestions that Factor 1
traits are at the core of psychopathy and that some traits falling under Factor 2
are less integral to the construct, such as antisocial behavior (Skeem & Cooke,
2007) and impulsivity (Poythress et al., 2011).
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 pre-
vious 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. This finding is in contrast to Wheeler
et al. (2009) who found that psychopathic traits were unrelated to the ten-
dency to mention gait in judging reasoning. The lack of relationship is likely
due to the student participants who had lower psychopathy scores and little
experience in victim selection, while the present sample is made up of violent
offenders who arguably have loads of experience in victim selection.
There are limitations to the present research that need to be discussed.
First, the targets in the video stimuli included 8 women and 4 men. Most
previous studies have used exclusively female targets (e.g., Murzynski &
Degelman, 1996, given their focus on sexual assault. While our mixed
Book et al. 2379
sample could be seen as a limitation, it also adds to the literature by including
male targets. We were unable to examine whether the target’s sex had an
effect on ratings, given the small number of targets, but future studies should
examine this issue to determine whether body language cues and ratings of
vulnerability are similarly related in each sex.
Our second limitation is the relatively small sample of inmates who par-
ticipated in the present study. There are unique challenges involved in col-
lecting data from specialized populations especially within maximum security
penitentiaries. The overall response rate for participation was relatively low
(approximately 50%) and data collection was slowed due to unexpected lock-
downs and disruptions within the institution. That being said, the sample in
the present study was comparable in terms of PCL-R scores to other studies
conducted with inmate populations (e.g., Hare, 2003) and it was well suited
to our research question, as most participants had committed violent crimes,
and psychopathy scores were relatively high.
As in Wheeler et al. (2009), our results may be limited to the type of crime
participants were instructed to focus on, specifically targets’ vulnerability to
mugging. While our results and methodology are in line with Grayson and
Stein (1981), most of the research on body language and vulnerability has
focused on sexual assault (e.g., Murzynski & Degelman, 1996). Nonetheless,
care needs to be taken when generalizing the results of the present study
(involving mugging/assault victims) to sexual assault victims. Indeed,
Sakaguchi and Hasegawa (2007) demonstrated that perpetrators use different
criteria to assess victim vulnerability based on the type of crime scenario.
Future research can consider this possibility by including multiple crime sce-
narios. Moreover, the results do not negate the influence of vulnerability cues
other than gait. Recall that most participants noted the size, fitness, and sex
of the target as factors influencing their vulnerability judgments. Relatedly,
Gunns et al. (2002) found that restrictive clothing such as tight pants and high
heels positively influenced vulnerability ratings (but see Sakaguchi &
Hasegawa, 2006). Therefore, other cues such as age and sex may impact
vulnerability judgments in general, but psychopaths in particular are more
sensitive to gait cues. Nonetheless, it would be worthwhile to systematically
control for these other cues to vulnerability (i.e., clothing, attractiveness, etc.)
in future studies to ensure that it is gait, not correlates of gait, that participants
are attending to.
Although responsibility for victimization always lies with the perpetrator,
our findings have implications for the prevention of future and repeated vic-
timization. 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. These
2380 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(11)
findings may account for why some individuals become repeat victims; social
predators are attracted to external displays of vulnerability (Fattah, 1991). As
such, individuals at risk for victimization can be instructed on how to avoid
displaying vulnerable body language (see Johnston, Hudson, Richardson,
Gunns, & Garner, 2004) and in turn reduce their likelihood of being chosen
as a victim. That being said, the effects of such training appear to be tempo-
rary, and the natural gait reasserts itself over time.
Another interesting direction for future research is the nature of vulner-
ability itself. Some researchers have suggested that the identification of
oneself as a victim is more influential on body language than is actual his-
tory of victimization (as asserted by Theriot, Dulmus, Sower, & Johnson,
2005). Past victimization, therefore, may only lead to an increased chance
of future victimization if victims perceive themselves as vulnerable to vic-
timization. If a target’s vulnerability (display of vulnerable body language)
is not elucidated by actual victimization but rather a vulnerable self-con-
cept, then Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) addressing self-perceived
vulnerability may be useful for reducing vulnerability to victimization and
may outperform instruction on nonvulnerable walking characteristics.
Indeed, training victims in how to walk assertively works, but the effect
seems to disappear with time (Johnston et al., 2004). Addressing percep-
tions of vulnerability through CBT may therefore be a more effective way
to prevent revictimization.
To conclude, we found support for the notion that psychopaths are “social
predators” (Book et al., 2007; Hare, 2001; Mealey, 1995; Wheeler et al.,
2009). Total PCL-R scores and Factor 1 traits were positively correlated
with both accuracy in judging vulnerability to victimization and with the
tendency to mention gait as a reason for that judgment. In other words,
inmates scoring higher on the core psychopathic personality traits (as mea-
sured on Factor 1 of the PCL-R) are more accurate in judging victim vulner-
ability and they are more likely to consciously attend to a target’s gait when
selecting a victim. It would seem, then, that Ted Bundy may have hit the nail
on the head.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by a grant to
Angela Book from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Book et al. 2381
References
Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Conner, B. (1999). Accuracy of judgments of sexual
orientation from thin slices of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 77, 538-547. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.538
Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). On judging and being judged
accurately in zero-acquaintance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 69, 518-529. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.3.518
Amir, M. (1971). Patterns in forcible rape. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Book, A. S., Quinsey, V. L., & Langford, D. (2007). Psychopathy and the percep-
tion of affect and vulnerability. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 531-544.
doi:10.1177/0093854806293554
Camilleri, J. A., Kuhlmeier, V. A., & Chu, J. Y. Y. (2010). Remembering helpers and
hinderers depends on behavioral intentions of the agent and psychopathic charac-
teristics of the observer. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 303-316.
Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity: An attempt to clarify some issues about the
so-called psychopathic personality. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopath: Towards a
hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13, 171-188. doi:10.1037/1040-
3590.13.2.171
Cooke, D. J., Michie, C., & Skeem, J. (2007). Understanding the structure of the
psychopathy checklist–revised. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190, 39-50.
doi:10.1192/bjp.190.5.s39
Cunningham, M. D., & Reidy, T. J. (1998). Antisocial personality disorder and psy-
chopathy: Diagnostic dilemmas in classifying patterns of antisocial behavior in
sentencing evaluations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 333-351.
Fattah, E. A. (1991). Understanding criminal victimization: An introduction to theo-
retical victimology. Scarborough, Ontario, Canada: Prentice-Hall.
Frank, R. H. (1988). Passions within reason: The strategic role of emotions. New
York, NY: Norton.
Grayson, B., & Stein, M. I. (1981). Attracting assault: Victims’ nonverbal cues. Jour-
nal of Communication, 31, 68-75.
Gunns, R. E., Johnston, L., & Hudson, S. M. (2002). Victim selection and kinematics:
A point-light investigation of vulnerability to attack. Journal of Nonverbal Behav-
ior, 26, 129-158. doi:10.1023/A:1020744915533
Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & Smith-Le Beau, L. (2005). Nonverbal behaviour and the
vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
131, 898-924. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.898
2382 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(11)
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised. Toronto, Ontario, Can-
ada: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D. (2001). Psychopaths and their nature: Some implications for understand-
ing human predatory violence. In A. Raine & J. Sanmartin (Eds.), Violence and
psychopathy (pp. 5-34). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (2nd ed). Toronto,
Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D., & Jutai, J. W. (1983). Criminal history of the male psychopath: Some
preliminary data. In K. T. Van Dusen & S. A. Mednick (Eds.), Prospective studies
of crime and delinquency (pp. 225-236). Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (2009). Serial murder (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
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. Jour-
nal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 514-537. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.
tb02559.x
Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary
model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 523-599. doi:10.1017/S0140525X
00039595
Montepare, J. M., & Zebrowitz-McArthur, L. A. (1998). Impressions of people cre-
ated by age-related qualities of their gaits. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 55, 547-556. doi:547-5560022-3514/88/
Murzynski, J., & Degelman, D. (1996). Body language of women and judgments of
vulnerability to sexual assault. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1617-
1626. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb00088.x
Poythress, N., & Hall, J. (2011). Psychopathy and impulsivity reconsidered. Aggres-
sion and Violent Behavior, 16, 120-134.
Richards, L., Rollerson, B., & Phillips, J. (1991). Perceptions of submissiveness:
Implications for victimization. Journal of Psychology, 125, 407-411.
Sakaguchi, K., & Hasegawa, T. (2006). Person perception through gait information
and target choice for sexual advances: Comparison of likely targets in experi-
ments and real life. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 63-85. doi:10.1007/
s10919-006-0006-2.
Sakaguchi, K., & Hasegawa, T. (2007). Personality correlates with the frequency of
being targeted for unexpected advances by strangers. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 37, 948-968.
Skeem, J. L., & Cooke, D. J. (2010). Is criminal behavior a central component of psy-
chopathy? Conceptual directions for resolving the debate. Psychological Assess-
ment, 22, 433-445.
Book et al. 2383
Theriot, M. T., Dulmus, C. N., Sower, K. M., & Johnson, T. K. (2005). Factors relat-
ing to self- identification among bullying victims. Children and Youth Services
Review, 27, 979-994. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.12.024
Wheeler, S., Book, A., & Costello, K. (2009). Psychopathic traits and percep-
tions of victim vulnerability. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 635-648.
doi:10.1177/0093854809333958
Woodworth, M., & Porter, S. (2002). In cold blood: Characteristics of criminal homi-
cides as a function of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 436-
445. doi:10.1037//0021-843X.111.3.436
Yeagley, E., Morling, B., & Nelson, M. (2007). Nonverbal zero-acquaintance accu-
racy of self-esteem, social dominance orientation, and satisfaction with life. Jour-
nal of Research in Personality, 41, 1099-1106. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.12.002
Author Biographies
Angela Book is an associate professor of psychology at Brock University, Canada.
Her research interests include psychopathy and its relation to emotion perception,
deception, and victim selection.
Kimberly Costello is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Psychology at Brock
University, Canada. Her research interests include intergroup prejudice, psychopathy,
and victimization.
Joseph A. Camilleri is an assistant professor of psychology at Westfield State
University, USA. His research interests include the effects of psychopathy and sexual
conflict on sexual coercion in relationships.
