Angle and Direction

Humans are directional beings. Our bodies signal intention and attention through subtle shifts in angle and direction. Where our bodies face, where our feet point, and where our eyes go—these movements may appear inconsequential, but they often tell a more honest story than our words.

We Move Toward What We Like, and Away From What We Don’t

Humans seem wired to approach that which is rewarding and avoid what feels threatening or unappealing (Schneirla, 1959). This basic approach-avoidance principle is often reflected in the way we angle our bodies during interactions.

When we like someone—or what they’re saying—we may turn toward them. Conversely, if we’re uncomfortable, bored, or distrustful, angling away is more likely, even if we remain physically close. This angling can be a substitute for greater linear distance when social norms or context prevent us from simply walking away (Morris, 1994).

Consider a housewarming party. You find yourself in conversation with a stranger. At first, you sit shoulder-to-shoulder, angled away. But as common ground emerges—perhaps a shared love for hiking or retro video games—one or both of you begins to rotate your chair or body to face the other. That movement isn’t random; it signals increased comfort, rapport, and attention (Pease & Pease, 2004).

Trunk Angle as a Trust Barometer

The frontal alignment of the upper body—especially the chest and shoulders—is one of the strongest indicators of openness or confrontation.

Square-on posture (facing fully frontally) often occurs in emotionally intimate or confrontational settings. In close relationships, it signals attention and trust. But in heated discussions or debates, it may signal readiness for verbal or even physical conflict (Navarro & Karlins, 2008).
In contrast, angled torsos—with the feet or legs still pointed toward someone but the chest rotated slightly away—often suggest ambivalence or guardedness.

Joe Navarro, a former FBI agent and expert in nonverbal behaviour, writes that we unconsciously angle our torsos and ‘honest’ feet toward people we like or respect and away from those we do not (Navarro & Karlins, 2008). These small shifts are less likely to be consciously controlled, which makes them highly reliable indicators of genuine emotion.

Leaning In or Out: Comfort vs. Discomfort

Another valuable cue comes from how the body leans:

Leaning forward typically signals interest, attentiveness, or attraction (Morris, 1994).
Leaning back, especially when coupled with crossed arms or legs, may suggest discomfort, emotional distance, or a desire to disengage (Pease & Pease, 2004).

This principle also applies when someone leans back or tilts their head before responding to a question. This backward movement can indicate that they are processing discomfort, buying time, or even considering deception. It's not definitive proof of dishonesty—but in the context of other behaviours (like repeating the question or blinking excessively), it may point to cognitive stress or internal conflict (Ekman, 2009; Hartley & Karinch, 2010).

Body Angle in Everyday Interactions

Understanding and observing trunk angles can greatly enhance your interpersonal sensitivity. Here’s what to look out for:

Angled away: possible discomfort, disagreement, or disinterest.
Square-on facing: high trust—or confrontation/competition.
Leaning in: curiosity, engagement, or attraction.
Leaning back: possible discomfort, uncertainty, or evasiveness.

These cues, while not diagnostic on their own, are powerful when interpreted in clusters and considered in context. As with all body language, baseline behaviour matters: observe how someone behaves when relaxed and use that as your comparison point (Ekman, 2009). For example, someone may move closer for reasons of cultural norms (their expected proxemics) or due to eyesight reasons.

The Head: Tilt, Turn, and Tension

A head tilted back may convey arrogance, dominance, or superiority, especially when paired with a downturned chin or a fixed gaze. It’s a classic posture seen in power displays and competitive social environments (Navarro & Karlins, 2008).

In contrast, a head cant or tilt to the side—where the ear moves closer to the shoulder—is more likely a nonverbal cue of submission, empathy, or curiosity. Desmond Morris (1994) notes this as an “attentive posture,” offering both metaphorical (lending an ear) and literal openness. It is frequently used in listening contexts and when combined with raised eyebrows shows interest.

Conversely, the head hung low is universally recognised as a posture of defeat, disappointment, or sadness—especially when paired with hands on hips or arms akimbo. This combination suggests frustration, exasperation, or a need to reclaim control (Pease & Pease, 2004).

Head movements during speech are also telling. Animated or exaggerated movements can show confidence or conviction, while hesitant or conflicting motions may indicate uncertainty or internal disagreement (Ekman, 2009).

The Eyes: Where Attention and Intention Converge

Eye direction, movement, and contact are central to human social communication. As early as two days old, infants show a preference for direct eye contact, suggesting an innate mechanism for detecting and responding to gaze (Parrett et al., 2005).

Unlike most other animals, humans have a prominent sclera (the white of the eye), which makes gaze direction more visible and interpretable—an evolutionary adaptation thought to aid cooperation and joint attention (Kobayashi & Kohshima, 1997).

Our eyes follow power structures. In non-human primates, such as chimps, dominant individuals attract more gaze from subordinates. When mutual eye contact is made, the lower-ranking individual often breaks the gaze first, a dynamic mirrored in human social hierarchies (Chance, 1967).

In humans, gaze behaviour shifts with context. Whilst most people engage in more eye contact as a listener in a conversation that the speaker (usually because there is less cognitive load), someone of higher status such as a boss may look away while listening but increase eye contact while speaking—a pattern associated with authority and control (Navarro & Karlins, 2008). Intense, prolonged gaze can signal either deep attention or confrontation, depending on context.

Sideward shifts of the eyes—particularly when accompanied by verbal hesitation—can signal cognitive load or internal processing. Research on eye-accessing cues suggests that rightward eye movement may indicate symbolic or constructed thinking, while leftward shifts are associated with memory recall or creative imagery (Bandler & Grinder, 1979), but I have much more on this HERE.

Even domestic dogs have evolved to respond to human gaze. Shelter dogs that furrow their brows and seek eye contact tend to be adopted more quickly, suggesting a biological sensitivity to gaze-driven emotional communication (Walker et al., 2013).

The Feet: Undervalued Communicators

Our feet have evolved to often need to act before we have time to process an interaction.

The direction feet point may be a direct indicator of interest or intention. In conversations, feet pointing toward the door or another person can suggest a desire to exit or shift attention—even when the upper body remains engaged (Pease & Pease, 2004).

Children demonstrate this intuitively: when they’re done eating and want to go play, their feet drop to the floor before their words signal it. It’s a pre-verbal intention cue—and it stays with us into adulthood (Morris, 1994). In high-stakes scenarios, such as courtrooms, jurors who feel discomfort or disagreement may angle their feet towards the nearest exit, despite facing the speaker with their upper body. One foot turned away signals potential retreat; both feet turned away reveals a stronger desire to disengage (Navarro & Karlins, 2008).

The "starter’s position"—with one foot forward and weight on the balls of the feet—can indicate a readiness to act, speak, or leave. This is likely to be a deeply embedded limbic reaction to opportunity or threat: fight or fight (Givens, 2010).

When legs are crossed, the top foot often points toward the most liked or approachable person in the group, while an upward tilt of the toes can be a subconscious display of attraction or interest.

On the other hand, inwardly cocked feet, big toe to big toe, is more suggestive of awkwardness, self-consciousness, or insecurity—a regressive, protective posture (Pease & Pease, 2004).

Conclusion

From the arc of our gaze to the set of our toes, the angles we adopt are not random. Whether you're watching the subtle turn of someone’s foot or the sideways tilt of a head, these small signs may reveal our truest intentions.

To understand human communication fully, we must go beyond the words—and pay close attention to where the body wants to go.

References

Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1979). Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming. Real People Press.

Chance, M. (1967). Attention structure as the basis of primate rank orders. Man, 2(4), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.2307/2798434

Ekman, P. (2009). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. W. W. Norton & Company.

Givens, D. B. (2010). The nonverbal dictionary of gestures, signs & body language cues. Center for Nonverbal Studies Press.

Hartley, G., & Karinch, M. (2010). How to spot a liar: Why people don't tell the truth... and how you can catch them. Career Press.

Kobayashi, H., & Kohshima, S. (1997). Unique morphology of the human eye. Nature, 387(6635), 767–768. https://doi.org/10.1038/42842

Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Aldine-Atherton.

Morris, D. (1994). Bodytalk: The meaning of human gestures. Crown Publishers.

Navarro, J., & Karlins, M. (2008). What every BODY is saying: An ex-FBI agent’s guide to speed-reading people. HarperCollins.

Parrett, A., Sprengelmeyer, R., Gilbert, S., Young, A. W., & Perrett, D. I. (2005). The neural basis of eye gaze perception. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsi008

Pease, A., & Pease, B. (2004). The definitive book of body language. Bantam.

Schneirla, T. C. (1959). An evolutionary and developmental theory of biphasic processes underlying approach and withdrawal. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 7, pp. 1–42). University of Nebraska Press.

Walker, J. K., Dale, R., & Spring, A. (2013). Dog-human communication and visual signals of emotion. Animal Behaviour, 86(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.04.020