Download Why Bystander Intervention Training Must Start With

Why bystander intervention training must start
with communication skills
by Jill Weisensel
Our bystander intervention strategies are garnering national interest, because they focus on
training the group that has the power to make things better.
Bystanders generally know right from wrong -- but are unsure of how or when to take action to
prevent a situation from getting worse. Most people think that
intervention strategies require some drastic form of physical
Bystanders generally
intervention; however, many appropriate strategies have very
know right from
little to do with physical defense, and have EVERYTHING to
wrong — but are
do with communication skills.
Assuming that students will be able to safely intervene and
“talk” their way to a peaceful resolution is a very dangerous
assumption. Communication skills HAVE to be trained.
unsure of how or
when to take action
to prevent a
situation from
getting worse.
In learning skills such as LEAPS, the persuasion sequence,
deflectors, peace phrases/engagement phrases, and anger
guards, bystanders will be better equipped to confidently diffuse situations through conversation.
There are many bystander intervention programs out there right now coming from college
campuses across the country. We have now started delivering the VDI Bystander Intervention
training curriculum to high school and grade school students. We are having great success
teaching kids how to notice potential problems, and how to intervene early, safely, and
effectively.
The key to their success? The VDI Communication Model.
The VDI Communication Model is based upon Aristotelian theory of rhetoric and modes of
persuasion. It has been tested for over 30 years as the go-to public service communication
strategy for influencing behavior and gaining compliance.
It is no surprise then that the VDI Communication Model should be at the heart of every
bystander intervention program.
There are several communicative challenges of bystander intervention. Primarily, there is the
need to know your goal of intervention, prior to opening your mouth. The goal of the
intervention (your actual intention and motivation for intervening), needs to be specifically stated
and clearly outlined during your intervention conversation.
www.vistelar.com 877-690-8230
10352 N. Port Washington Road, Mequon, WI 53092
Sometimes, we must intervene in socially awkward situations that are difficult to communicate
in. These situations require a hefty dose of tact on the part of the intervener, including
considerations for what to say (specific words and content), why we’re saying it (our intentions
and goals), when we should say it (timing), where we say it (in relationship to other people), and
how we say it (tone). These situations also require us to be cognizant of where we’d like the
conversation to go, so much so, that it is desirable to have a pre-practiced and pre-planned
response in mind (think of having an arsenal of engagement phrases, deflectors, anger guards,
and the persuasion sequence at your disposal). With that being said, one can argue that
intervention communication requires a high level of self-awareness, proxemic management, and
message design logic.
A new research study, which I am extremely grateful for, addresses this specific issue and 100%
validates my research conclusion that the VDI Communication Model is the safest and most
effective communication strategy for bystander intervention.
Cindy White and Jennifer Malkowski, under the direction of the Department of Communication
at the University of Colorado, recently published a study in Health Communication titled:
Communicative Challenges of Bystander Intervention: Impact of Goals and Message Design
Logic on Strategies College Students use to Intervene in Drinking Situations.
Individual communication skills and beliefs about communication will shape intervention
strategies across different contexts. The authors examined individual’s varying goals during
interventions, and the types of messages the individuals used to intervene. They then looked at
the effectiveness of each goal, and the type of communication message used. Not surprising, they
found that differences in outcome goals were related to the types of messages used for
intervening. Additionally, the authors reflect that students who have strong communication skills
demonstrated a stronger sense of “bystander efficacy,” as in, people with stronger
communication skills felt more confident in their ability to safely intervene in a situation.
The beauty of this point is this: individuals who do decide to help in a given situation must
figure out what to say to effectively achieve their goals. In using a non-escalatory engagement
phrase and the persuasion sequence, individuals no longer have to struggle to figure out what to
say. Introverted individuals, who generally don’t speak up and intervene, now have a tried and
true blue print for communication success. People can very quickly inject themselves into the
situation (non-threateningly), ask a question, and set the context for the individual in an attempt
to elicit voluntary behavior change. “Bystander intervention” represents an “influence situation”
whereas the intervener has different approach motivations and different goals for intervening.
Understanding these goals up front will provide the intervener with the exact context they need
to safely negotiate behavior change.
Additionally, the authors discuss the concept of message design logic (MDL), a communication
theory that guides how individuals approach communicating in a given situation. MDL holds that
individuals use one of three different “design logics” when producing a message in goal
situations. The three design logics are: expressive (expressing thoughts and feelings),
conventional (that communication is a “game played cooperatively according to socially
www.vistelar.com 877-690-8230
10352 N. Port Washington Road, Mequon, WI 53092
conventional rules”), and rhetorical (which “reflects an understanding of communication as
creating an opportunity to negotiate social selves”).
The authors confirm that there is a growing body of MDL research indicating that the “rhetorical
communicator” is the most effective in these types of “goal situations,” as they tend to see
possibilities for managing the interaction and invoke communication to create a “suitable
context whereby intended outcomes can be achieved.”
White and Malkowski also found that individuals with rhetorical logic felt significantly more
bystander efficacy than those with expressive logic, as rhetorical communicators hold the belief
that communication involves the negotiation and outcome of social situations. VDI trained
operators, who have been trained in communicating from a rhetorical perspective, have a
substantial intervention advantage. This is groundbreaking news for bystander intervention
programmers.
In conclusion, the authors state, “From a communication perspective, intervention can be seen as
a compliance gaining situation whereby individuals are encouraged to act on the needs of others
largely for the sake of communal wellbeing.”
We must understand the art of compliance gaining in different contexts if we are to better
understand what people are doing as they seek to influence behavior change in others.
To read the entire research article visit: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23402306.
Jill Weisensel
Consultant, Verbal Defense & Influence
___
Jill has developed bystander intervention programming for bullying
and sexual violence prevention, with a particular focus on threat
assessment and bystander mobilization.
Jill is a consultant/instructor for Verbal Defense and Influence.
Additionally, she directs and manages shift patrol operations within an
urban campus environment. She has a Master’s degree in Kinesiology
with an emphasis in Sports Psychology from the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee, and her
Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice and Sociology from Carthage College.
www.vistelar.com 877-690-8230
10352 N. Port Washington Road, Mequon, WI 53092