Nine Interventions for Bullying Behaviour

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

Nine Interventions for Bullying Behaviour

By Murray Irwin

it is useful to have a selection or suite of interventions. The evaluation research available regarding the outcomes of different interventions is currently limited. This makes it difficult to be able to compare the effectiveness of each intervention and therefore comparison relies more heavily on the known strengths and weaknesses.

These interventions are usable in a variety of setting such as schools, workplaces and sporting clubs. Liefooghe and Roongrergsuke (2012) argue that bullying in the workplace and school bullying have similarities and it makes sense to cooperate more and draw on both areas for research and practices. While many of the interventions discussed have a history of only being used in school settings, there is no reason why they cannot be used more widely.

Nine Interventions The nine interventions described are:

A review of interventions at the individual level for bullying behaviour indicates there are nine possibilities currently in use.

This summary provides a brief overview of each intervention with an aim, short intervention description, list of strengths and weaknesses and references to refer to.

One type of intervention cannot handle the large range of bullying behaviours and situations it occurs in. To do so would seriously underestimate the complexity of the issue. The strengths and weaknesses of the different interventions suggest email: murray@saviconsulting.com.au www.saviconsulting.com.au

• • • • • • • • •

Direct response Punishment Strengthening the target Mediation Restorative justice Collaborative problem-solving and resolution Group support method Method of shared concern Referral to authorities

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

Response Options for Bullying Behaviour (ROBB) Model With all the options available it is difficult to decide when a specific option should or should not be used. To address this the ROBB model provides some guidance based on the known practical and theoretical strengths and weaknesses.

Having nine interventions to choose from makes it difficult to train and educate everyone in implementing them all. Using the model can help identify perhaps three to four interventions that best suit your organisational circumstances and can be used in your suite of interventions.

Terminology used The way we describe and talk about bullying behaviour is important. Sullivan (2011) raises concerns about labelling both “bullies” and “victims” in school settings, possibly creating once a bully/victim always a bully/victim mind sets. This labelling also leads to always looking at what is lacking in the person, rather than the whole picture and complexity of the issue. Similarly Capponcchia and Wyatt (2011) see issues in simply blaming individuals in the workplace without looking at the systemic factors such as the organisational culture.

There is a huge range of behaviours that fall under the category of “bullying” and the severity of “bullying” can vary substantially.

We can tend to stereotype and think about the more extreme types as well as discounting or overlooking the minor behaviours as not really being a psychological or physical hazard.

There is sometimes a trend to stereotyping bullying behaviour as if it is a personality disorder. Freeman & Rigby (2006) note that arguments for not labelling disorders in children and adolescence include it causes people to “quickly give up on the child without trying to help.” Blaming bullying behaviour on the personality of someone, whether it is a child or an adult is going to make it more difficult to address. It is important to focus on the actual behaviour that needs to change than try and use “pop psychology” to blame the person. This makes it easier to create change.

Our language therefore needs to reflect these issues and ensure people are held responsible for their actions. The terms used to try and address these issues are: bullying behaviour user of bullying behaviour bullying behaviour user target of bullying behaviour witness to bullying behaviour bystander - someone who witnesses bullying behaviour (there are a number of types of bystanders however this is beyond the scope of this document to identify them) • practitioner - someone who is addressing bullying behaviour (e.g. teachers, supervisors, managers, leaders, coaches etc) • organisation - used in its widest sense meaning simply an organised group of people (e.g. team, workplace, sports group, school etc) • • • • • •

(c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 2

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

References: Capponcchia, Carolo. and Wyatt, Anne. (2011) Preventing Workplace Bullying: An Evidence-based Guide for Managers and Employees Freeman, Arthur & Rigby, Andrea (2006) (p441) Personality Disorders among Children and Adolescents. Is it an unlikely diagnosis? In Mark. A. Reinecke, Frank. M. Dattilio and Arthur.

Freeman (Eds.) Cognitive Therapy with Children and Adolescents (2nd ed). (pp434-464).

Liefooghe, Andreas and Roongrergsuke, Siriyupa (2012) Systematic Suffering. In Noreen, Tehrani (Ed.) Workplace Bullying: Symptoms and Solutions (pp. 278-290).

Sullivan, Keith. (2011) The Anti-Bullying Handbook (2nd ed.)

(c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 3

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

Direct response This intervention is used when a practitioner is actually present when the bullying behaviour occurs and can therefore immediately act. This differs to the majority of others discussed as they are generally applied after the act based on a complaint or report.

Aim: Address the inappropriate behaviour at the time it has occurs in a way that promotes behavioural change.

Implementation: When you see bullying behaviour occurring you act to address it immediately. Four types of responses could be used along with six different strategies. The options and strategies (Irwin, 2012) are: 1. Coaching by either questioning what is going on or discussing how the behaviour is eroding respect and the relationship.

2. Challenging by referring to the expectations of your behaviour agreement/policy or looking to swap the behaviour with an appropriate behaviour.

3. Reprimand by naming the behaviour to establish the expectation that it stops.

4. Consequences or punishment are issued. These consequences can be scaled in severity based on the severity and number of occurrences of the behaviour.

This is the foundation of dealing with bullying behaviour. If this does not occur or is done inconsistently, the organisational climate will encourage inappropriate behaviour.

Strengths • Immediately addressing behaviour makes consequences more effective because they link directly to the bullying behaviour (Baldwin & Baldwin, 1998) • Demonstrates to bystanders what behaviour is not tolerated and that it is addressed • Focus is on the behaviour and not the person • Enables investigation into the specific incident to establish the possible underlying context for the behaviour • The target cannot be labelled an informer • Promotes a positive organisational culture • Offers different way of changing behaviour • Acts as a deterrent to others • Well understood and accepted practice by all stakeholders • Reinforces established organisation wide behaviour agreement Weaknesses • Requires the behaviour to occur where it is seen • Requires constant vigilance to identify behaviours • Focus is on behaviour seen and may not capture other behaviours prior to event • May not capture indirect or relationship bullying behaviour • It might fail to recognise repetitive behaviours

(c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 4

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

• Behaviour addressed may be retaliation to prior events which victimises the target who receives punishment while instigator gets no penalty • Does not allow practitioner much time to consider different ways of responding • Needs to be consistently applied by all practitioners • Seeing the event can create an emotional response in practitioner that is unhelpful (e.g. angrily applying excessive punishment) • Punishment can become the default type of response Reference: Baldwin, John. D. & Baldwin, Janice. I. (1998) Behaviour Principles in Everyday Life, 3rd ed.

Irwin, Murray (2012) Encouraging Appropriate Behaviour: A SIxStep Approach

(c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 5

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

Punishment Approach Aim: Is to discourage and deter through punishment or consequences.

Implementation: Establish rules and policies based on a whole of organisation approach. Training and information is then provided to everyone of the rules and expectations. On going monitor and reporting leads to investigate of breaches, judgement on culpability and punishment if proven.

Punishment can at times be dependent on circumstances. It is sometimes associated with zero tolerance policies where no distinction is made regarding the severity or circumstances and everyone is punished with the same consequences.

Strengths Whole organisation approach Has wide community support and appeal Is easily understood Is shown to be more successful with younger children (Rigby, 2010) • Advocates suggest straight forward and simple • Provides suitable consequences in severe cases • Can use a range of consequences depending on the case • • • •

Weaknesses • Lack of evidence that it works effectively in schools (Rigby, 2010) • Can foster simplistic set and forget approach because once rules implemented the problem is deemed to be fixed.

• Strongly associated with zero tolerance approaches which based on a 20 year review have a lack of evidence to support that it works in school settings (APA 2008) • Kowalski, Limber & Agatston (2012) suggest possible lack of reporting of incidents in school settings due to students lack of confidence in teachers/administrators handling of incidents.

Potentially the wide spread reliance on disciplinary approaches could be impacting on this perception • Behaviour studies show that to be effective, punishment responses needs to occur as soon as possible after the act (Baldwin & Baldwin, 1998), but this is often delayed due to the investigation process • Difficulty in being able to frame rules that capture indirect bullying behaviour • Unintended consequences by capturing acceptable behaviour e.g. not inviting a person to birthday party on the weekend captured under rules to stop the exclusion of others • Limited effectiveness of punishment creating longer term behaviour change (Baldwin & Baldwin, 1998) • Negative reactions of the behaviour user towards the punisher (Baldwin & Baldwin, 1998) • Possible stigmatisation/stereotyping of the behaviour user • Bullying behaviour user blames target for punishment and retaliates by victimising the target further • Does not in itself teach the bullying behaviour user pro-social behaviour (c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 6

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

• Has difficulty in dealing with complex group bullying behaviour situations • Does little to support the target of the behaviour • Fails to deal with situations where there is provocative behaviour from the target or can mean punishing the victim who as well • Requires investigation skills and ability to get all the facts to provide natural justice to all concerned Reference: American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force (2008) Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations. American Psychologist Baldwin, John. D. & Baldwin, Janice. I. (1998) Behaviour Principles in Everyday Life, 3rd ed.

Kowalski, R.M., Limber, S.P. & Agatston, P.W. (2012) Cyberbullying: Bullying in the Digital Age Rigby, Ken (2010) Bullying Interventions in Schools: Six Basic Approaches

(c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 7

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

Strengthening the Target Approach Aim: Support the target emotionally and provide skills to enable the target to become less vulnerable, deal with issues, deflect bullying behaviour and resolve conflict.

Implementation: Training programs to the general population or specifically identified individuals that focus on providing prosocial skills and resilience. Can involve one to one counselling and support including therapy.

Strengths • Assertive training can help targets manage low level incidents themselves • Can provide early intervention by allowing everyone to address minor incidents before they escalate • Helps develop a positive organisation wide culture • There is lots of training options available • Can be used in whole organisation approach without specifically identifying targets • Recognises that targets need and require support after incidences • Targets can be highly self motivated to participate

Weaknesses • Likely only to help change bullying behaviour in low level incidences or isolated occurrences.

• The target might be doing their best to no avail. Liefooghe & Roongrergsuke (2012) suggest coping by targets is a process rather than a trait and if bullying behaviour continues after attempts to actively deal with it, targets will generally “adopt more passive strategies.”

• Can blame the target for being a victim of bullying behaviour • Requires the target to change and not the bullying behaviour user • Does little to address or change the behaviours of the bullying behaviour user’s • Requires good assessment of the situation as to when this is effective • Fails to adequately address problems of group behaviours • Power difference or skill level might make it impossible for the target to overcome the disadvantage References: Field, Evelyn. M. (1999) Bully Busting Liefooghe, Andreas and Roongrergsuke, Siriyupa (2012) Systematic Suffering. In Noreen, Tehrani (Ed.) Workplace Bullying: Symptoms and Solutions (pp. 278-290).

Rigby, Ken (2010) Bullying Interventions in Schools: Six Basic Approaches

(c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 8

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

Mediation Approach Aim: Bring both parties together to work through the conflict and arrive at a solution.

Implementation: A neutral party helps both parties to discuss their personal feeling and issues in relation to the conflict, so that each understands the other parties feeling and situation. Parties then suggest ways to change and resolve the issue which usually requires both parties to undertake some change. Mediator helps both to express their cases and develop solutions. Mediator can be a peer, staff member or outside facilitator.

Strengths • Helpful in low severity cases where power difference and fear is not significant • Useful when victim has provocative behaviours or behaviour stems from actual conflict • Voluntary participation • Can be competed on the spot after an incident • Uses whole organisation approach with ethos, structure and peer norms • Can use peer mediators which increases access to support as well as monitoring through out the organisation • Peer and/or staff mediation training provides valuable conflict management skills

Weaknesses • • • • • • • • • • • •

Evidence of success in schools is inconclusive (Rigby, 2010) This can only be used in conflict situations Cannot address issues if one party refuses to be involved Impossible to use if there is fear or large power differences at play (Tillet and French, 2006) Requires impartial third party who is trained When used for bullying behaviour it blames the target. It expects them to make concessions or adjust when they have not been provocative or involved in any conflict Bullying behaviour users gain nothing from the process but can loose socially (e.g. peer standing) so can resist or later victimise target to regain status Pressure on mediators to support the less powerful can undermine their neutral status Requires widespread acceptance of the person(s) used as peer mediators Involvement of peer mediator can be seen as a weakness and so can develop norms of fighting it out to maintain social status Objections held by community stakeholders over process Does not handle group situations very well

References: Rigby, Ken (2010) Bullying Interventions in Schools: Six Basic Approaches Sullivan, Keith (2011) The Anti-Bullying Handbook (2nd ed.)

Tillet, Gregory and French, Brendan (2006) Resolving Conflict: A Practical Approach (3rd Ed.) (c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 9

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

Restorative Justice Approach Aim: Support the bullying behaviour user to change by developing empathy for the target.

Implementation: Facilitated meeting between the individuals or group and possibly other community members to speak about the experience and to explain their feelings. The trained facilitator prepares the user(s) of bullying behaviour and target(s) prior to the meeting and run meeting using a series of scripted questions.

The questions allow both sides to discuss the event with the outcome of developing empathy, so that the user(s) of bullying behaviour changes their behaviour in the future. Theory is underpinned by the use of reintegrative shame and avoiding negative shame.

Strengths • Focus is on the behaviour and not the person • While disapproving of the behaviour the person is still respected • Can be used in group situations • Relationship building between target and bullying behaviour user • Can allow for responses to provocative behaviour

• Supports both target and bullying behaviour user • Complementary to disciplinary system • Can involve bystanders and other community members Weaknesses • Requires the target to face the bullying behaviour user which can further victimise them • Provides no solution if bullying behaviour user does not or will not acknowledge culpability • Can create negative shame through blaming to stigmatise the bullying behaviour user • Pressure on the bullying behaviour user when reluctant to acknowledge wrong doing can lead to insincere outcomes • Can at times be used in combination with punishment thereby confusing the process • Confusion regarding underlying theory of using shame • Possible unknown outcomes when starting the process • No rigorous or systematic support for effectiveness in schools (Rigby, 2010) • Misperceptions of process creating resistance in stakeholders References: Meyer, Luanna. H. & Evans, Ian. M. (2012) The Teachers Guide to Restorative Classroom Discipline Rigby, Ken (2010) Bullying Interventions in Schools: Six Basic Approaches Thorsborne, Margaret and Vinegrad, David (2009) Restorative Justice Pocketbook (c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 10

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

Collaborative Problem-Solving and Resolution (CPR) Approach Aim: Allow the targets voice to be heard and balance restored so that the bullying behaviour user acknowledges responsibility and accepts change.

Implementation: On receipt of a report separate mentors are assigned to the target and bullying behaviour user to act as their representatives and coaches. The mentors meet with their assigned parties.

Afterwards the mentors meet to collaborate independently of the parties and discuss the respective issues.

Mentors then return to their respective person and inform them about the other parties feelings, perspective and situation.

Mentors provide support and coaching with the aim of their party being able to reach a stage where a joint meeting can occur. This meeting includes the target, the user of bullying behaviour and their respective mentors.

At the joint meeting the discussion is facilitated by the mentors with the aim of getting agreement to change behaviour. A followup or closure meeting is held once it has been shown that positive actions have occurred.

Strengths • • • • • •

Individual and independent support provided to each party Can address provocative behaviour of the target Helps build empathy and understanding Solution focused Allows mentor to focus support on their party Bullying behaviour user can be held to account without target having to commit to change if they are not provocative

Weaknesses • Staffing required • Can take time to build up targets strength to agree to a joint meeting • Training required for facilitators/mentors • Stakeholders can be more focused on having consequences as the outcome rather than changed behaviour • Does not handle group situations or bystanders • Appears no supporting evaluation of effectiveness has yet been carried out Key reference: Sullivan, Keith (2011) The Anti-Bullying Handbook (2nd ed.)

(c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 11

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

Group Support Method (GSM) Aim: Build empathy and use peer influence in a selected peer group so that they take shared responsibility for changing the bullying behaviour.

Implementation: Once issue reported, a group of peers which contain the suspected bullying behaviour user(s) and others likely to support the target are called into a group meeting. After reassuring that no one in the group is to be disciplined, the meeting focuses on how the target is feeling to build empathy. The meeting is not use to shame, seeking to find out who is to blame or get an apology.

Once the targets feelings and situation is explained, the facilitator then asks for suggestions on what group members can do personally to help the target and improve the situation.

Good idea's are encouraged but no specific expectations are placed on individuals to carry out their idea's. The focus is that it is great individuals in the group are going to do something to help. It is left to the group to carry out the suggested idea's.

Followup is carried out some days later with the target to see if things have improved. If so a final meeting of the group is arranged to thank them for supporting the target.

Strengths Useful for less severe behaviours Can be used for groups using bullying behaviour Uses group influence to take positive action Emphasis placed on evidence of the targets distress Group can also contain peers with strong pro-social behaviours The group structure can be managed by who is selected You do not need to be able to identify the ringleader Does not require involvement of others in community Number of studies suggest it is an effective intervention (Rigby, 2010) • Studies in schools show useful for upper primary and lower to middle secondary (Sullivan, 2011) • • • • • • • • •

Weaknesses • Attacked by political figures & key practitioners because of the "no blame" being attributed and it does not issue punishment • Stakeholders wanting more punitive action to be taken • Key motivation to change is provided by empathy which may not work in some cases • No exploration of the justification of behaviour so may not address any provocative behaviour by target • Group dynamics can at times be difficult to understand and control • Requires targets to be interviewed first which can expose them to retaliation & victimisation • Assumes the target cannot be strengthened • Requires facilitator training and sound group management skills (c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 12

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

Key reference: Maines, Barbara & Robinson, George (2010) The Support Group Method Training Pack Rigby, Ken (2010) Bullying Interventions in Schools: Six Basic Approaches Sullivan, Keith (2011) The Anti-Bullying Handbook (2nd ed.)

(c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 13

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

Method of shared concern (MSC)

carried out a few days later individually with all group members and the target.

Aim:

Once things have improved there is a whole group meeting to thank them for their help and acknowledge that things have improved for the target. Any issues such as provocation from the target can then be discussed. After this meeting the target can be consulted about wether they wish to be involved in a facilitated meeting with the group to close the matter.

Build empathy, understanding and use peer influence in a selected peer group so that they take shared responsibility for changing the bullying behaviour.

Implementation: Once issue is know it is key not to interview the target to avoid the possibility of victimisation or retaliation. The group of peers which contain the suspect bullying behaviour user(s) and others likely to support the target are called into meetings individually.

The meeting focuses on reports or observation from others specifically emphasising it is not from the target - that the target is having problems.

They are asked what have they noticed. As soon as they acknowledge the target is having issues, the facilitator asks them what they personally could do to help the situation. It is not use to shame, seeking to find out who to blame or get an apology.

Once the group member suggests something helpful they are thanked and encouraged to carry out the suggestion. A further individual meeting time is set to meet again in a few days time.

All of the group is interviewed similarly as a matter of urgency.

After the group interviews, the target is then interviewed and more details gained. They are advised that group has offered suggestions to improve the situation and they should look out for changes. It is left to the group to carry out the idea's. Follow up is

Prior to the target attending a group meeting, the target can be supported regarding any revealed provocative behaviours and suitably prepared for the group meeting. This final group meeting is about allowing all concerned to discuss what went on and to move forward.

Strengths • Therapeutically based intervention • Meeting suspects first reduces changes of victimisation • Process has more influence over adolescences than younger children (Rigby, 2010) • You do not need to be able to identify the ringleader • Uses peer group influence • Meeting the group members individually reduces the possibility of any initial negative reactions influencing other peers in the group • Is not judgmental or blaming • Uses cognitive dissonance to improve the groups attitudes towards the target • Group meeting helps reinforces positive peer behaviour and influences (c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 14

Savi Consulting • • • •

Supporting you to help others

Deals with any provocative behaviours of target Flexible regarding if target joins final whole group meeting Deals with group issues and social aspects Considerable evidence to support that method can address a large proportion of cases (Rigby, 2011)

Weaknesses • Ambitious intervention • Time consuming due to number of individual meetings • Requires some type of report or observation of bullying behaviour to instigate process which can make it impractical not to interview the target first • Requires training and sound interview/group management skills References: Developer: Pikas, Anatol (1989) The common concern method for the treatment of mobbing and (2002) New developments of the shared concern method Rigby, Ken (2010) Bullying Interventions in Schools: Six Basic Approaches Rigby, Ken (2011) The Method of Shared Concern: A positive approach to bullying in schools

(c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 15

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

Referral to Authorities

• Investigators impartial and less personally involved • Can offer better protection in cases of violence

Aim:

Weaknesses

Referral of all very serious or illegal behaviours to the appropriate authorities.

• Uses significant resources that can be costly to the community • Begins a pathway into the legal/justice system for the user of the behaviour with longer term impacts especially for young people • Authorities work within frameworks that may not be able to provide the most relevant assistance • Adversarial approach to resolving the case • Outcome base on punishment framework • Removes the power and outcome decisions from the organisation • Process may not offer any support to the victim • Requires support the user of the behaviour (e.g. legal representation) to ensure fairness and natural justice

Implementation: Assessment of the bullying behaviour to review the seriousness of the behaviour and the possible level of risk that is posed to the target. Behaviours that are potentially illegal, aggressive or violent may need to be referred to the appropriate authorities.

Behaviours to consider might include: physical aggression or violence, use of weapons, theft, damage to property, threats to harm or kill, stalking, harassment (including sexually), sexual assault, sexting, vilification and depravation of liberty.

Strengths • Actively addresses high levels of fear, injury or personal danger through serious action and consequences • Authorities have the training and legal powers to deal with serious issues • Authorities have experience and powers in effectively gaining the necessary evidence required • Provides access to independent processes and support services • Demonstrates the seriousness of the behaviours and that there are consequences

(c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 16

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

Response Options to Bullying Behaviour (ROBB) Individual

Group

Level of: Severity of behaviour Power difference Fear Lack of remorse Lack of empathy

Level of: Severity of behaviour Fear

000

Punishment CPR MSC

Method Shared Concern (MSC)

GSM Restorative Justice Mediation

Group Support Method (GSM)

Strengthening

Individual

Group

CPR = Collaborative Problem-Solving & Resolution 000 = referral to legal authorities

A Theoretical Model for Selecting Interventions Given the range and difficulty of bullying behaviour, one response method does not suit all situations. Having a range of tools to approach these issues is likely to be the only way to fully address the complexity and make serious inroads into reducing it’s occurrence.

The Response Options to Bullying Behaviour (ROBB) model can help understand the strengths of various approaches and when they could be use.

The aim of this model is to help practitioners assess a range of indicators that will guide them in selecting an appropriate response option.

(c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 17

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

It is not intended to guide responses to behaviour when you directly see or experience them. The ‘direct response’ option should generally be used in this instance and so this option is not included in the ROBB model.

ROBB is founded on the basis of the theoretical and practical strengths and weaknesses of the different interventions. Key indicators that appeared in the intervention summaries have been used in differentiating when a method should be selected.

These indicators are: • Individual or group bullying behaviour • Level of severity of the bullying behaviour • Level of power difference between target and the user of bullying behaviour • Level of fear experienced by the target • Possible lack of empathy and/or remorse from the user of bullying behaviour The ROBB model locates the interventions based on the presenting severity of the indicators. This will require the practitioner to assesses the situation and what is known about the incident(s). The first step is to separate the handling of cases between individual and group bullying behaviour. The indicators of power, empathy and remorse are not used for groups. Groups are always going to hold a great deal more power than an individual and different group members will have different feelings toward the target.

rated (most significant impacting) indicator. This is then cross referenced with the intervention options.

For example if the severity of the case is low but the power difference is high, you use the power difference ranking. The low severity ranking might indicate the use of strengthening but using the power difference might indicate a higher level intervention such as GSM or MSC. This way the most suitable response is used despite the differences in various indicator rankings.

Practitioner judgement is required in deciding on how the perceived level of the indicator relates to the various responses.

ROBB cannot provide guidance on exactly what level of any indicator directly equates to specific responses. The complexity of the issues involved makes practitioner experience and ability to analysis and judge situations key in using the model.

The placement of interventions in the model hierarchy is based on it’s characteristics and how this might theoretically interact with the indicators. ROBB is currently a draft model still under going development and there may be other factors that could prove useful.

Ongoing assessment of the rankings may be require. What initially appears a minor case may uncover indicators that require action different to what was originally selected. While posing difficulties if an intervention is part the way through, it is important to continually reassess changing circumstances to select the most appropriate response.

The use of all the indicators (severity, power, fear, remorse and empathy) is by considering all of them and selecting the highest

(c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 18

Savi Consulting

Supporting you to help others

Disclaimer: The aim of this summary is to provide information relating to the management of bullying behaviour in a variety of general settings, situations and circumstances. The information is intended only as a guide and does not replace appropriate professional training and adherence to ethical, professional and legal standards.

Special care needs to be taken in situations where aggressive and/or violent behaviour occurs or there is concerns about the safety of others. Seek help from appropriate sources and professionals if required.

This summary is provided on the understanding that the author and publisher are not engaged in rendering psychological or counselling professional services and is not providing advice for specific situations. If assistance is needed, please seek the assistance of a suitably qualified professional. The author and the publisher accept no responsibility or liability for the actions of any person who may use the information in this summary.

(c) Murray Irwin 2012 - page 19