Across studies, researchers have suggested that certain traits, such as submissiveness and dominance, are distinguishable based on nonverbal cues such as body language and gait (Hall et al., 2005; Richards et al., 1991). For example, Richards et al. (1991) identified that women perceived as submissive were more likely to maintain sitting positions and use their hands and feet during conversation, while those perceived as dominant were more likely to change sitting positions and use their arms and legs during conversation. These findings persist even after controlling for factors beyond the nonverbal cues assessed (e.g. clothing, attractiveness; Montepare and Zebrowitz-McArthur, 1988). With consistent evidence supporting nonverbal cues as predictors of perceived dominance and assertiveness, it is not surprising that gait has also been identified as a cue for vulnerability (Corbin et al., 2001; Grayson and Stein, 1981; Johnston et al., 2004; Murzynski and Degelman, 1996). A study conducted by Grayson and Stein (1981) established that specific components of gait (i.e. walking movement) were associated with vulnerability, where individuals perceived by male offenders as potential victims significantly differed from those not perceived as potential victims across five movement categories: stride length (i.e. medium vs long stride), type of weight shift (i.e. transfer of weight from one foot to another), type of walk (i.e. postural, gestural, or nonspecific), body movement (i.e. contralateral vs unilateral), and foot movement (i.e. swung/ lifted). Results were consistent across subsequent studies which measured these movement categories, where typical victim movement profiles were rated as significantly more vulnerable to attack than typical nonvictim movement profiles (Murzynski and Degelman, 1996; Sakaguchi and Hasegawa, 2006). Gunns et al. (2002) provided additional support for gait as a cue for vulnerability, noting that a large proportion of variability in vulnerability ratings appeared to be accounted for by gait characteristics. Thus, it may be possible to reduce the likelihood of victimization by adapting gait to reflect less vulnerable cues ( Johnston et al., 2004). In addition to identifying the cues consistently associated with vulnerability to victimization, researchers have also focused on examining whether individuals with certain personality traits are more proficient in identifying these cues than others. More specifically, given that psychopathy is associated with increased manipulation and victimization of others, it is possible that people with high levels of psychopathic traits would be better at victim selection than people with low levels of these traits, partly because they engage more often in victimization.