Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 63–85 | Cite as

Person Perception through Gait Information and Target Choice for Sexual Advances: Comparison of likely Targets in Experiments and Real Life

  • Kikue SakaguchiEmail author
  • Toshikazu Hasegawa
Original paper


Point-light and full-view short video clips of female walkers were displayed on a CRT monitor and male students rated the likelihood of selecting a walker for various advances. Relationships between the ratings, the walkers’ self-reported frequencies of being approached, gait cues, and self-rated personality traits were examined. In the point-light condition, raters selected slow walkers with a short stride length and personality traits implying vulnerability as targets for inappropriate touching. In the full-view condition, the raters selected fashionably groomed or physically attractive walkers as sexual advance targets. These criteria corresponded partially with reported occurrences of advances. Awkward movement impression was suggested as a kinematic gait quality influencing sexual advance target choice.


Gait Kinematic information Person perception Point-light display Sexual advance 



This research project was partly supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Scientific Research (C) “Gender” (No. 1611272), from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan.


  1. Aalsma, M. C., Zimet, G. D., Fortenberry, J. D., Blythe, M., & Orr, D. P. (2002). Reports of childhood sexual abuse by adolescents and young adults: Stability over time. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 259–263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 387–395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allport, G., & Vernon, P. (1933). Studies in expressive movement. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 236–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 431–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Conner, B. (1999). Accuracy of judgments of sexual orientation from thin slices of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 38–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barclay, C. D., Cutting, J. E., & Kozlowski, L. T. (1978). Temporal and spatial factors in gait perception that influence gender recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 3,145–152.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1992). Trait inferences: Sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 645–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1993). Consensus and self-other agreement for trait inferences from minimal information. Journal of Personality, 61, 477–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Briggs, S. R., Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1980). An analysis of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 679–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, T. A., Cash, T. F., & Noles, S. W. (1986). Perceptions of physical attractiveness among college students: Selected determinants and methodological matters. The Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown, W. M., Palameta, B., & Moore, C. (2003). Are there nonverbal cues to commitment? An exploratory study using the zero-acquaintance video presentation paradigm. Evolutionary Psychology, 1, 42–69.Google Scholar
  14. Browne, A., & Finkelhor, D. (1986). Impact of child sexual abuse: A review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 66–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  16. Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. R. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 330–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Pychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  19. Cutting, J. E., & Kozlowski, L. T. (1977). Recognizing friends by their walk: Gait perception without familiarity cues. Bulletin of the Pshychonomic Society, 9, 353–356.Google Scholar
  20. Cutting, J. E., Proffitt, D. R., & Kozlowski, L. T. (1978). A biomechanical invariant for gait perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 357–372.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Driscoll, D. M., Kelly, J. R., & Henderson, W. L. (1998). Can perceivers identify likelihood to sexually harass? Sex Roles, 38, 557–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eisenberg, P., & Reichline, P. B. (1939). Judging expressive movement: II. Judgments of dominance-feeling from motion pictures of gait. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Finkelhor, D., & Browne, A. (1985). The traumatic impact of child sexual abuse: A conceptualization. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55, 530–541.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1988). Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 149–158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Furby, L., Fischhoff, B., & Morgan, M. (1989). Judged effectiveness of common rape prevention and self-defense strategies. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 44–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gangestad, S. W., Simpson, J. A., DiGeronimo, K., & Biek, M. (1992). Differential accuracy in person perception across traits: Examination of a functional hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 688–698.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisasl and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530–555.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gidycz, C. A., Coble, C. N., Latham, L., & Layman, M. J. (1993). Sexual assault experiences in adulthood and prior victimization experiences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grayson, B., & Stein, M. I. (1981). Attracting assault: Victims’ nonverbal cues. Journal of Communication, 31, 68–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hammond, K. R., Hursch, C. J., & Todd, F. J. (1964). Analyzing the components of clinical inference. Psychological Review, 71, 438–456.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ickes, W., & Barnes, R. D. (1977). The role of sex and self-monitoring in unstructured dyadic interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The Big Five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61, 521–551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kenny, D. A., Horner, C., Kashy, D. A., & Chu, L. (1992). Consensus at zero acquaintance: Replication, behavioral cues, and stability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 88–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kozlowski, L. T., & Cutting, J. E. (1977). Recognizing the sex of a walker from a dynamic point-light display. Perception & Psychophysics, 21, 575–580.Google Scholar
  36. Lemke, M. R., Wendorff, T., Mieth, B., Buhl, K., & Linnemann, M. (2000). Spatiotemporal gait patterns during over ground locomotion in major depression compared with healthy controls. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 34, 277–283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lippa, R. (1978). Expressive control, expressive consistency, and the correspondence between expressive behavior and personality. Journal of Personality, 46, 438–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lippa, R. A., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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, 547–556.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Murzynski, J., & Degelman, D. (1996). Body language of women and judgments of vulnerability to sexual assault. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1617–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Myers, M. B., Templer, D. I., & Brown, R. (1984). Coping ability of women who become victims of rape. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oltmanns, T. F., Friedman, J. N. W., Fiedler, E. R., & Turkheimer, E. (2004). Perceptions of people with personality disorders based on thin slices of behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 216–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sakaguchi, K., & Hasegawa T. (in press). Personality correlates with the frequency of being targeted for unexpected advances by strangers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology Google Scholar
  46. Schmitt, D. P. et al. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shimonaka, Y., Nakazato, K., Gondo, Y., & Takayama, M. (1999). NEO-PI-R, NEO-FFI manual for the Japanese version. Tokyo: Tokyo shinri, Inc.Google Scholar
  48. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Snyder, M., Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. (1986). Personality and sexual relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottmann, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Behavior, 4, 8–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Watson, D. (1989). Strangers’ ratings of the five robust personality factors: Evidence of a surprising convergence with self-report. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 120–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. White, J. W., & Smith, P. H. (2001). Developmental antecedents of violence against women: A longitudinal perspective. U. S. Department of Justice. (Document No. #98WTVX0010).Google Scholar
  53. Wolff, W. (1935). Involuntary self-expression in gait and other movements: An experimental study. Character and Personality, 3, 327–344.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hasegawa lab, Department of Cognitive and Behavioral Science, College of Arts and ScienceThe University of TokyoMeguro-kuTokyo
  2. 2.Japan Society for the Promotion of ScienceTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations