Body Language and Assault Prevention:

A Review of the Literature

by Brad Binder, Ph.D.

© 1999, 2007

Please do not reprint or repost this article without first obtaining permission from the author.

Introduction

It is a commonly held belief that training in self defense or a martial art leads to greaterself-confidence and a reduced likelihood of being attacked. A number of studies support the idea thattraining of either sort leads to greater self-confidence (Fuller, 1988; Weiser et al., 1995; Heyden et al.,1999). What has been less studied is whether or not displaying a high degree of self-confidencereduces the likelihood of assault.

One often hears that assertiveness in walking, standing, talking, eye contact, etc. will help reduce thelikelihood of being targeted and assaulted by a criminal. While this advice makes a great deal ofsense, and is probably true, it would be nice to know if the idea is supported by research.

Research in this area falls into two general categories: 1) comparing the psychosocial profiles ofsurvivors of assault to either non-assaulted subjects or survivors of an attempted assault; and 2)analysis of non-verbal cues to isolate behaviors that are interpreted as conveying vulnerability toassault.

At this point, some disclaimers should be made. First, this paper summarizes published data aboutbody language as related to assault prevention. In no way do I wish to infer that victims of assault areinviting attack or are in any way responsible for the assault on their person. Second, there are manyfactors relevant to assault prevention. For instance, Bart and O'Brien (1985) identified variables suchas: the time of the assault (day or night), locale of the assault (inside or outside), use of physical force,and use of a weapon as factors that influenced the outcomes in sexual assault. Finally, it is clear thatone may have to use multiple strategies in self defense. Research supports the idea that using severalstrategies leads to a better likelihood of escaping assault (Bart and O'Brien, 1984, 1985; Quinsey andUpfold, 1985; Zoucha-Jenson and Coyne, 1993), at least in the case of sexual assaults. While thispaper examines one strategy to reduce the likelihood of assault, it would be wise to remember thatother strategies such as fleeing, making noise, verbal techniques, and physically resisting may benecessary.

Are Survivors of Assault Different from Survivors of Attempted Assault orNon-assaulted People?

An early study by Selkin (1978) compared 32 women who had survived rape to 23 women who had

survived attempted rape. He calls the first group "victims" and the second group "resisters", although,it is unclear from the report whether either group resisted. For this reason, I will use the terminologyof Bart and O'Brien (1985) and refer to them as raped women and avoiders. All subjects werevolunteers recruited from public appeal and through community groups. The study was conductedover a one year period and used the Cornell Medical Index (CMI), the California PsychologicalInventory (CPI), and a questionnaire about rape. Results from the CMI showed that the raped womenhad higher scores for fear and inadequacy, depression, nervousness and anxiety, neurocirculatorysymptoms, and startle response while results from the CPI showed that avoiders had higher scores fordominance and scales related to social skills. The rape questionnaire evaluated the subjects' emotionsexperienced during the assault. Rape victims were more likely to report feelings of fright, terror,humiliation, and feeling "frozen" than avoiders.

Myers et al. (1984) compared the coping skills of 72 survivors of rape to 72 non-assaulted (control)subjects. They focused on vulnerability to rape as a function of coping skills in 5 domains including:psychosocial characteristics, mental health as determined by psychiatric histories, drug or alcoholabuse (past or present), cognitive abilities, and physical characteristics (height, weight, strength,handicaps, athletic ability, participation in self defense classes). Using the CPI, women who hadsurvived a rape scored lower in assertiveness, social presence, achievement via independence, anddominance than women in the control group. Significant others of survivors rated the assertiveness oftheir partners lower than significant others of control women.

While these reports show psychosocial differences between survivors of sexual assault and eithernon-assaulted subjects or survivors of attempted sexual assault, it is unclear whether or not thesedifferences predate the sexual assault or not. It seems likely that at least some of the differences haveto do with the assault experience itself. For this reason, it is hard to draw any concrete conclusions.However, they do suggest that there may be some differences and at least some of these differences(such as increased social skills, dominance, and assertiveness) may help prevent sexual assault. Inorder for this to occur, there must be some sort of behavioral cues that assailants pick up on.

What are the Non-verbal Cues That Convey Vulnerability?

Several studies have examined how nonverbal cues affect perceptions of submissiveness andvulnerability. Grayson and Stein (1981) made black and white videotapes (no sound) of 60 peoplewalking in New York City. The videotaping was done at the same location for all people and was donewithout the knowledge of the videotaped individuals. The taped subjects were divided into 4 groups(men who appeared under 35, men who appeared over 40, women who appeared under 35, womenwho appeared over 40). A scoring system to rank assault potential was developed with the aid of 12prison inmates incarcerated for violent assaults. Videotapes were then shown to 53 prison inmates (outof 80 solicited) incarcerated for a variety of violent assaults. They were asked to the rank assaultpotential of each person on the videotape. Each of the 4 groups had individuals perceived as easyvictims. An equal number from each group was chosen to fill the non-victim group. The movement ofeach was analyzed using Labananalysis. This analysis looks at a variety of movement characteristicsincluding: stride, arm movement, tempo, uprightness, weight shift, gaze, head movement, type ofwalk, and energy in the movement. Under the conditions of this study, only 4 of these characteristicsshowed significant differences between the victim and non-victim groups. These were: type of weightshift, body movement, type of walk, and foot movement. Essentially, people in the non-victim group

tended to move with a normal stride and with postural movement; that is they moved their entire bodywith coordination rather than each part (hand, arm, leg, foot, head, etc.) moving in an uncoordinatedmanner. People in the victim group tended to move in a non-synchronous or anti-synchronous mannerwith a stride that was either too long or too short for their height .

Murzynski and Degelman (1996) followed this study with one where they trained 3 female models towalk in two typical victim profiles and one typical non-victim profile as described by Grayson andStein (1981). They videotaped each of the models performing each of the walks. They showed thevideotapes to 41 college students and 33 police officers. No sound was used for these tests. For eachperson, each profile was shown with a different model. Each model was used for all the profilesequally throughout the study. Each subject was asked to first rank the confidence of the person, and,after seeing the videotape a second time, rank the vulnerability to sexual assault of that person. Bothvictim profiles had significantly lower scores for confidence and higher scores for vulnerability tosexual assault than the non-victim profile. Neither victim profile significantly differed from each other.

Richards et al. (1991) showed men tend to select submissive women for exploitation. They selected 4women who had low scores and 4 who had high scores for dominance on the CPI. They videotapedthese women and showed one submissive and one dominant woman under 4 of 16 conditions to malecollege students. The men were first asked to rate the women using a standard semantic differentialinstrument consisting of 17 scales. Under the conditions used in this study, the men were able todifferentiate the submissive woman from the dominant woman based on the videotapes. This occurredindependent of whether sound was used or not. The men were then asked to evaluate which of the twowomen he would prefer to approach to do something she did not want to do. The men picked thesubmissive woman. These researchers also evaluated the differences in non-verbal cues betweendominant and submissive women. They found that the submissive women generally gestured with lessexpansive movements and wore more body concealing clothing than dominant women.

All three of these studies suggest that there is a causal relationship between body language andjudgments of vulnerability. In addition, the study by Richards et al. (1991) suggests that thisperception of vulnerability is used in the selection process for exploitation.

Summary

The papers summarized above support the idea that non-verbal cues can affect perceptions aboutvulnerability and ease of exploitation by criminals and potential criminals. These cues are probablyused (either consciously or subconsciously) when criminals are assessing whether or not to perpetratean assault. It seems that a person with assertive body language is less likely to be chosen as a targetfor assault or exploitation. At least some non-verbal cues have been identified that conveyvulnerability or not. This research supports the advice commonly given by self defense instructors.Obviously, this will not prevent all assaults from happening. However, it fits in well with usingmultiple other strategies (such as fleeing, making noise, verbal techniques, and physical resistance) tosurvive a violent assault.

References

Bart, P.B. and O'Brien, P.H. (1984) Stopping Rape: Effective Avoidance Strategies. Signs 10(1):83-101.

Bart, P.B. and O'Brien, P.H. (1985) Stopping Rape: Successful Survival Strategies Pergamon Press,NY.

Fuller, J.R. (1998) Martial Arts and Psychological Health. British Journal of Psychology 61: 317-328.

Grayson, B. and Stein, M.I. (1981) Attracting Assault: Victims' Nonverbal Cues. Journal ofCommunication 31 (1): 68-75.

Heyden, S.M., Anger, B.F, Jackson, T.T-W., and Ellner, T.D. (1999) Fighting Back Works: The Casefor Advocating and TEaching Self-Defense Against Rape. Journal of Physical Education, Recreationand Dance 70(5): 31-34+.

Murzynski, J. and Degelman, D. (1996) Body Language of Women and Judgments of Vulnerability toSexual Assault. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26 (18): 1617-1626.

Myers, M.B., Templer, D.I. and Brown, R. (1984) Coping Ability of Women Who became Victims ofRape. Journal of Clinical Psychology 52: 73-78.

Quinsey, V. and Upfold, D. (1985) Rape Completion an dVictim Injury as a Function of FemailResistance Strategy. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 17(1): 40-50.

Richards, L., Rollerson, B. and Phillips, J. (1991) Perceptions of Submissiveness: Implications forVictimization. The Journal of Psychology 125 (4): 407-411.

Selkin, J. (1978) Protecting Personal Space: Victim and Resister Reactions to Assaultive Rape.Journal of Community Psychology 6: 263-268.

Weiser, M., Kutz, I., Kutz, S.J. and Weiser, D. (1995) Psychotherapeutic Aspects of the Martial Arts.American Journal of Psychotherapy 49(1) : 118-127.

Zoucha-Jenson, J.M. and Coyne, A. (1993) The Effects of Resistance Strategies on Rape. PublicHealth Briefs 83 (11).

Books about assault and assault prevention

[Self Defense Workshops] [Security Services] [Other informational articles] [Contacting Us][Site Map] [Home]

[TOP]