Abstract
Teasing is both a playful act that can be used to convey closeness among friends and a hurtful act that can create distance among enemies. This study explores the nature of this complicated communicative act and how it changes with age, as evidenced in children’s talk through in-depth interviews with participants in 3rd, 6th, and 10th grade. In fact, children and teens deftly use the term “teasing” to mean different things. Teasing for third graders is a negative activity used only among disliked peers. It can be used to harm and hurt feelings. In fact, any positive banter between children is referred to as “just teasing,” which is different from teasing. Although negative teasing persists throughout childhood, by sixth grade, children have learned to use teasing with friends by relying on relational cues to interpret the ambiguous act and begin to see teasing as a functional activity. By 10th grade, teens continued social and cognitive development correspond with their use of teasing to build relationships, broach difficult topics, and manage embarrassing situations. Recommendations are made for better understanding how adults, teachers, and researchers might better approach teasing developmentally, as well as why we should consider further work to help understand its relationship to bullying and harassment, while retaining the prosocial aspects of teasing.
Keywords
Teasing is a chameleon-like communicative phenomenon, able to take on the identity of a simple joke among friends that displays affection and affiliation as well as a cloak for brutal aggression that intentionally inflicts emotional pain. Keltner, Capps, Kring, Young, and Heerey (2001) define teasing as “an intentional provocation accompanied by playful off-record markers that together comment on something relevant to the target” (p. 234). Similarly, Mills and Babrow (2003) define teasing as “the juxtaposition of two potentially contradictory acts: (a) a challenge to one or more of the target’s goals and (b) play” (p. 278). In the past 20 years, studies of teasing have increased as scholars have become more aware that teasing is not just child’s play, but rather both a skill and a defense used to exploit the ambiguity inherent in the juxtaposition of both challenge and play that lie at the very heart of teasing.
Academic interest in teasing in children’s social relationships has been driven by social crises such as school shootings (Kowalski, 2003; Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003), and self-directed harm such as suicidal thoughts (Eisenberg, Neumark-Sztainer, & Story, 2003). In contrast to the dark side of teasing, other scholars provide evidence that teasing can be a positive force in children and adolescents’ social relationships (Campos, Keltner, Beck, Gonzaga, & John, 2007; Sherer & Clark, 2009). Research has shown that teasing increases positive interactions in families (Eisenberg, 1986), prepares children for later life challenges (Miller, 1986), helps build friendships (Shapiro, Baumeister, & Kessler, 1991), and is used to manage conflict (Eder, Evans, & Parker, 1995). Therefore, it is important to determine how and when children learn to use that communicative activity and why perceptions of teasing change with age. Ultimately, we may be able identify some of the developmental processes and social rules that differentiate harmless, playful teasing from antisocial, detrimental teasing.
Teasing in relationships
Relational cues are often used to determine the meaning, or intentionality, of a tease (Drew, 1987), but Sharkey (1992) argued that even among friends, the target of a tease might perceive an act as ridicule as he or she sorts out the ambiguity that arises from the interplay of the “irritating activity” with the “positive affect” (p. 269). Boulton (1993) reports that teasing is a common precursor to fighting among boys. Mooney, Creeser, and Blatchford (1991) reported that two thirds of 7-year-old children were upset after being teased, and they thought teasing as a negative and insulting activity. Scambler, Harris, and Milich (1998) found that when children aged 8 to 11 were asked, “What is teasing?” the majority of the respondents defined teasing in negative ways, such as “making someone mad” or “making fun of someone” (p. 244).
In their classic work, Shapiro, Baumeister, and Kessler (1991) found that although only 20% of the third graders thought that teasing could be good; by the fifth grade, 33% of the children recognized the positive potential of teasing with friends, and by eighth grade, 82% of the children reported that teasing could be positive as well as negative. Similarly, Warm (1997) found that nearly all of his participants defined teasing as a negative activity designed to induce discomfort, but children over age 11 also recognized that teasing can be fun, and have positive consequences.
Although the extant works note the trends from negative to positive descriptions and definitions of teasing, they do little to explore the catalysts that move teasing from being a predominantly negative interaction to the more complex and positive interaction. We know it can and does change, yet, we don’t know why, how, or the ways in which children and teenagers make the decisions that identify teasing as “good” or “bad.” In other words, how do children make sense of when teasing is being used to harm them, or when their peers are using it to have fun with them?
Factors influencing when and how children tease
Social cognition
Research in social cognition and communication suggests some specific expectations about the developmental trends that would shape children’s ability to understand the nature of teasing. Young children are egocentric and therefore limited in their ability to take the perspective of other people (Piaget, 1932). Building on Piagetian works, Delia, O’Keefe, and O’Keefe (1982) characterize social cognitive development as a process that involves individuals’ transition from immature forms of thought to increasingly complex, sophisticated forms of thought. In short, persons who have highly developed capacities for social cognition understand more of the complexity and multifaceted nature of human interaction (Burleson & Kunkel, 2002). Work by Pexman, Glenwright, Krol, and James (2005) supports this line of reasoning finding that although 7- and 8-year-olds struggled to see that ironic criticism could be funnier than literal criticism, 9- and 10-year-olds could clearly see the distinctions between the ironic and literal criticism. Moreover, the older children could see that ironic criticism functions as a form of teasing, while younger children could not.
Emotional development
In addition to social cognitive changes, children’s emotional development may also affect their ability to think about and respond to ambiguous messages (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). Seja and Russ (1999) explain that emotional development is necessary for children to be able to understand others’ nonverbal displays as well as plan appropriate responses. Further, Harter and Whitesell (1989) found that young children (mean age 5.2) are incapable of understanding that they can experience conflicting emotions simultaneously, such understanding how a message that provokes them can also be funny. However, children gradually learn that divergent emotions can coexist (Harter & Whitesell, 1989), thus something that can be irritating can also be humorous.
As children develop, they become better able to infer the emotions of others, demonstrate appropriate emotional self-regulation behaviors (Saarni, Campos, Camras, & Witherington, 2008), and can learn to disguise their own emotional displays (Harter & Whitesell, 1989). Larson and Brown (2007) argue that these developments permit adolescents to regulate complicated emotions such as “pride, shame, and embarrassment,” (p. 1084), which are emotions that may be triggered as individuals work thorough the ambiguity of teasing messages.
Functions of teasing
In order to have a more meaningful understanding of teasing as it emerges and shifts across ages, we must also know how children think about its functions. Dunn (1987) found that young children tease to annoy each other. Voss (1997) provides examples of elementary-aged children teasing to resolve conflicts, and Thorne (1986) and Tholander (2002) demonstrate ways that teasing can be used for gender boundary management and dissolution in school. In naturalistic observations, Eder, Evans, and Parker (1995) recorded a variety of functions of teasing among high schoolers that included policing socially acceptable behavior, increasing intimacy among friends, introducing taboo topics, and alienating disliked peers.
Thus, ample evidence suggests that teasing is a functional activity, but we do not know if children and adolescents are aware of how they use teasing, nor do we know how those functions change with age, if at all. Thus, the first research question brings together the work on emotional and social development with the work on teasing functions to ask:
Relationship development
In addition to social cognitive and emotional development, and the functions of teasing, we can expect that the relationship between the target and the teaser will have an affect on how teasing is understood. Research by Jones, Newman, and Bautista (2005) suggests that children consider the relationship they have with the teaser when interpreting the meaning of tease, a tendency that they labeled the “positivity bias” (p. 433). However, we do not yet know whether that bias holds true from early childhood through adolescence, particularly given in Sherer and Clark’s (2009) finding that from sixth grade through high school, the rate of teasing friends increased dramatically, from 10% to 60%, yet the increase was not accompanied by a decrease in negative teasing of disliked peers with advancing age. As children age, increasingly complex ways of communicating are necessary to comment on social life. In part, increased communicative sophistication is necessary because the relationships initiated and fostered by individuals become more nuanced and intimate (Bigelow, Tesson, & Lewko, 1996). One way to look at developmental shifts and how they might affect and be affected by teasing is to examine the peer relationships and their importance for varying age-groups.
From 6- to 12-years-old, children begin to spend time in school, and more time away from their parents. Children are concerned with inclusion in group activities; they want to avoid rejection and present positive self-images to others (Hartup, 1992). Until age 9, they are primarily concerned with social comparison processes: they desperately want to fit in with the group. However, their relationships are fleeting and unstable (Rawlins, 1992). By early adolescence, children turn their attention from larger social networks to more close friendships (Gottman, 1986).
Given these changes in friendship and peer group foci, by the end of middle childhood (ages 10–12), we should continue to see teasing used for group goals and group maintenance tasks but also begin to see a more pronounced use of teasing to foster friendships and more dyadic relationships (Aikins, Bierman, & Parker, 2005). In adolescence, friendship becomes even more central as young people begin to explore adult themes of intimacy, emotion, and self (Erath, Flanagan, & Bierman, 2008; Gottman, 1986). Therefore, given the changes that transpire from childhood into adolescence, the following research question is warranted:
Method
I interviewed 35 participants ranging in age from 7 to 16. Using a symbolic interactionist (SI) perspective, I probed into children’s understanding, asked questions when contradictions arose, and then examined the complexities and richness in their talk in hopes of better understanding the (in)formal rules they use to make sense of social and personal relationships. The SI approach focuses on the meaning that people create from their own interactions, ways in which their constructed meanings become their lived experiences, and interrogates way in which their meanings affect their later encounters (Patton, 1990). Prior research using forced-choice questionnaires or written descriptive remarks allows us to see trends in children’s perceptions of teasing but does not allow for rich investigations of their complex sense making that can only come as they talk through several experiences or scenarios. Further, studying naturally occurring teases requires the researcher to determine what counts as a tease and what does not. This study seeks to understand teases as they are experienced and understood by participants in the interaction. Thus, a researcher could code an interaction as “teasing” or “messing around” when the participants themselves call it “bullying.” Alternatively, a researcher may label an event bullying or “harassment” while the participants considers the event to be playful and label it teasing. Put most generally, the researcher may see neither the play nor the challenge in what is a teasing act for those most directly involved. Hence, this study of teasing seeks to access participants’ experiential understanding of the activity.
Participants
Purposive sampling was used to select participants for the study. Given the developmental focus of this investigation, participants were needed to represent appropriate age categories. This research was conducted with children enrolled in 3rd grade (ages 7 and 8), 6th grade (ages 11 and12), and 10th grade (ages 15 and 16) in the Midwestern United States. Although development is not linear, these age-groups were chosen to correspond with various major shifts in development (Harter & Whitesell, 1989; Selman, 1981) and are consistent with previous age-related studies of teasing (e.g., Mooney, Cresser, & Blatchford, 1991; Shapiro, et al., 1991). Further, these ages were chosen to maximize any changes that may be evident in shifts in the understanding and functions of teasing as detailed in the literature review above. Approximately, equal number of males and females was included in the study. The final sample consisted of 35 students: fourteen 3rd graders, ten 6th graders, and eleven 10th graders. The only minority participants were 10th graders: one Black female and one Asian female. Their conversations did not reveal any substantive differences from the white interviewees nor did they discuss race or cultural issues.
Procedures
The instrument (Appendix) was developed through five pilot interviews with children ranging in age from 7 to 15 years of age. The pilot interviews helped refine the protocol by revealing leading questions, alerting the interviewer to language that the children and teens would or would not use, and shortening the number of questions asked. The interviews took place during a class period such as art, study hall, or physical education. All interviews took place in a quiet room on school property and ranged in length from 17 to 50 min, with an average length of 40 min.
Given the spontaneous nature of children, and their varying degrees of ability to answer the questions asked initially, I was flexible during the interviews. In addition, I kept notes about interactions I observed once I entered the school, that would help me better understand the phenomenon. For instance, if I witnessed one of the participants interacting with another child in a way that might be relevant to teasing, I wrote it down. During the interviews, I noted any nonverbal displays that were relevant to the study, such as cues of sadness, anger, or disappointment. I annotated the written transcripts with those notes.
Analysis
A grounded theory analysis was conducted on verbatim transcriptions of the interviews (approximately 227 pages) with the assistance of the notes I kept during the interview process (see Glaser & Strauss, 1967). I began with close, iterative readings of the 35 interviews, using open coding, and constant comparative analysis to identify recurrent issues and experiences (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). In this stage, I relied on emic coding, which according to Fetterman (2008) allows researchers to understand the complexity of participants’ “mental maps” (p. 249) recognizing that people often have inconsistent, even competing, views about the world.
After emic, I turned to etic coding, which involves the use of the investigator’s perspective, or sense-making activities, that may help explain the participants’ views. As the trends became apparent, examples of the recurring themes, as well as any discrepant instances, were organized into categories (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Trends were codified and considered viable if represented in at least half of the interviews. Finally, I reexamined the full-text version of the transcripts to better understand the nuances of each discussion and to check original interpretations of the data (Patton, 1990).
In order to safeguard validity, I consulted with experts in the field, who acted as sounding boards for the appropriateness of the given themes (see Patton, 1990). Further, given the constraints of the local school board, I was not allowed to share my results with the children to obtain true member checks (see Creswell, 2002); however, I was asked to return to share my results with the teachers. The teachers confirmed that I seemed to capture the essence of what they observed.
Results and discussion
After examining the transcripts, it was apparent that teasing is a social act understood and used differently by members of diverse social age cohorts, and the two research questions are inextricably linked, thus the results are organized by age-group. Within that organization, I highlight the uses and functions of teasing that help explain how children decide what teasing means (Research Question 1/functions of teasing) and how it is used among varying peers (Research Question 2/teasing in relationships).
Third graders
Research Question 1/functions of teasing
The predominant trend in third grade participants was that they compartmentalized the definition and functions of teasing. Consistent with extant literature (Shapiro et al., 1991), the first noticeable trend in the interview data is that teasing is bad. This perspective is typified in the following comment from Grace, “It’s about just about people making fun of, saying bad stuff about you, calling you names, and just being mean to somebody else.” There was little acknowledgment that teasing could be fun, good, or positive. In fact, the children used phrases such as, “calling names,” “telling lies about people,” and “putting people down,” to “being rude” and “saying ugly things.”
Given their negative definitions, it follows that the most common function third graders understood is that teasing can be used to irritate or provoke emotion. Nearly every child commented that people teased to get an emotional reaction, to “make people mad” (Steve) or “get me mad” (Chris and Nick). Several students also noted that teasing could be used to exact revenge. Grace noted that she was “trying to get him (a teaser) back,” when she teased, and Jacob said teasing was “kind of getting revenge.”
However, the next trend among this group was that although their initial responses were one-dimensional, deeper discussions prompted by the question “Why do people tease?” revealed that underlying their initial reactions was a more sophisticated understanding: teasing affects perceptions. Although they label teasing negatively, they recognize that teasing serves several other social functions and can be entertaining for the initiator. As Jessica noted, “Well sometimes they think that, that do that (tease), all the people will think like they’re cool and stuff. They have the nerve to do that and stuff.” Despite not being part of the original bad definition, children recognized that teasing could be functional for crafting identity and gaining status. Thus, teasing can demonstrate an almost rebel-like quality for the teaser; a person willing to violate rules because he or she will look “cool” or has the “nerve” to do something bad. Note here, even teasing for “coolness” has a negative connotation; it is violating a social norm or rule.
Research Question 2/teasing in relationships
Given that teasing is perceived as something bad with functions of upsetting others and getting revenge, it is not surprising that the analysis revealed that teasing does not occur frequently among friends in third grade. The major trend for whom children tease and avoid teasing is simple: friends don’t tease friends. By definition, friends are nice to each other and given that teasing is mean, teasing and friendship are not compatible. Consistent with her peers, Samantha explained that her friends would not tease her saying, “I can’t think of anything else because my friends don’t usually tease me.” When I asked her why she responded, “Because they’re nice. They’re really good friends.” Even when asked if they could tease with friends, most of the third graders said “no,” and when asked why responded similarly to Matthew who said simply, “Because they’re my friends.” In fact, in one instance when I thought a child, Steve, was going to acknowledge teasing among friends, the conversation quickly shifted.
I think I was on the playground with some of my friends and they started calling me names.
Like what kind of names might they call you?
Stupid.
Why would friends do that?
My friends weren’t really there. Some of the older kids were calling me stupid. (emphasis his)
Notice here, he would not say “friends” teased him. This theme was so pervasive that even when they engage in teasing behaviors, they reframe the actions into “not really teasing,” as seen below.
Do you ever tease your friends? (pause). Or think it’s okay to tease people you like?
No. Not unless I’m playing a joke on them or I’m mad at them or something. That’s about all I do to my friends.
If you’re like playing jokes on them or jumping out at them?
That’s not really teasing.
This is a particularly interesting exchange because the child attempted to explain how friends can be playing with teasing but then she pulled back and asserted that “play” teasing is not really teasing.
Examining the two research questions in tandem, third graders could not integrate the play and challenge aspects of teasing functions at this age, even though, on some level, they understand that teasing can be playful. Thus, the type of teasing one does with friends is not considered “really” teasing, which explains how they are defining the term teasing, itself. In fact, third graders asserted that teasing friends would result in a termination of the relationship. In fact, most children insisted they do not tease at all—because, of course, they do not do bad things.
This negative view of teasing is contrasted with another emergent trend: the understanding of the phrase “just teasing.” When asked what just teasing means, nearly all of the children reported that they understood the phrase to mean that the preceding talk was not serious. That is, they could understand that just teasing means “take what I just said as play.”
Like I mean I was just playing around.
That we’re just joking around with you.
Hence, they recognized that the word teasing does not always connote something negative. The combination of words, just teasing, served as an indicator of play that was apparent to the kids at this age, even though teasing by itself was understood as an indicator mean-spiritedness.
Sixth graders
Research Question 1/functions of teasing
Like younger children, the sixth graders initially defined teasing as negative, yet the trend in this group was not just that teasing is bad by definition, but they understood that teasing can cause emotional harm to others. Jen said teasing is, “When they go up to somebody and then they call them names and are mean to them and push them around. I think it is mean to the other person. You can hurt their feelings by saying words you shouldn’t say.” Another student, Kelly, said, “I think it’s something that kids do to, thinking they’re, act cool, and if they’re like jealous of someone, then they’ll tease them to hurt their feelings.” This trend is important because they explained that teasing can have emotional effects on the targets and result in hurting others’ feelings with a thus it isn’t just bad, but bad because of the outcome. They are not simply following a definition for teasing, but understanding how negative teases operate.
Notice in Kelly’s example above, the teasers often hurt others’ feelings while trying to raise their own status or address their own insecurities. Several sixth graders were able to recognize and discuss multiple functions of teasing. The most prominent trend at this age that teasing reinforces social hierarchy and improves social status. For example, Tony noted that teasing makes people feel “be big in front of their friends and all,” and Ryan voiced a similar thought saying, teasers tease “Because you seem like you’re the bigger person because like you’re not getting made fun of.” In both instances, they recognized that teasing allows the initiator to elevate his or her status while devaluing another’s status. Other children clarified the link of this function: Kelly noted: Uh, maybe to stand out or look good and make the other person look bad…. Well, maybe if the there’s a person who looks different, or is like from a different culture, then if they tease them about something and then everybody else sees, then they’ll think, oh yeah, they’re showing that person.
Within this identity performance, teasing is a form of power and social control emerged. Nicole talked about teasing’s ability to manipulate how others feel noting that teasers: feel more powerful…. Somebody might think that it makes them more powerful because after they’ve been cut down, it’ll make them more powerful to do it to somebody else. You know, take control of somebody else and they know it.
Another trend was noting how teasing was used as a mechanism for exerting peer pressure. Ricky said, “If you’re teasing someone to, if someone says they’re going to go bungee jumping and you start teasing them saying, ‘that’s dumb and besides you can get hurt.’ Peer pressure.” Another child discussed a time that he followed the peer pressure from teasing only to get hurt. He said: I knew I shouldn’t try that trick on my board. My parents told me that I’d get hurt and that they’d stop lettin’ me skate, but the kids were teasing me about being chicken and like a girl. I’m no girl. But I got hurt then I couldn’t go no more for a while.
Research Question 2/teasing in relationships
As evidenced by their increased understanding of functions, by sixth grade, students teased people they did not like and also incorporated teasing into their communication repertoire with the friends and people they liked. One trend that emerged was creation of the play frame. That is, teasing is acceptable when the play frame is clear. Tony explained how teasing can work within friendship: “if you’re just joking around, yeah. Uh, I mean, I think that’s okay if they know if it’s, if you’re joking around. But if they don’t know, you shouldn’t do it.” Rebecca echoed Tony’s comments saying, “Well, maybe, like if you tease them, like if they like someone or something like that. That’s just playing around. You’re not serious.” In these cases, the students believed that teasing could occur among friends, as long as the element of play was apparent, whether it was through joking or playing. These examples demonstrate the link between the cognitive and emotional developmental ability to integrate both play and challenge and illustrate that the ability to see teasing as positive is contingent on the ability to see the play component.
This does not discount teasing as potentially negative; in fact, a second recurring trend in sixth graders’ talk is that friendship endures: relationships can withstand problems. Given the more stable understanding of friendship, the probability of undesirable consequences stemming from teasing among friends is lower than in third grade. Jen gave an example when teasing went wrong, “Well we were at this restaurant and we were playing with the salad and I took a piece of salad and threw it at her and she got mad at me because I got it on her shoe. And, I said I was just teasing, and she was mad at me for a while.” By sixth grade, children understood that sometimes friends get mad at one another, but that the relationship could be repaired. Ryan supplied another example where the friendship was ultimately restored.
Well we, we have a friend name Elijah, and uh, one day he was, uh, some girls brought some pizza for lunch and we brought Arby’s, and he ate the pizza with them, so we called him a traitor and he thought we were serious. But, then, we were never really were trying to hurt him. So we told him we were sorry and he forgive, uh, forgave us, so it’s back to normal now.
The final trend in children’s understanding of teasing in sixth grade relationships noted was teasers and targets see things differently. Friendship is a voluntary relationship (Wiseman, 1986) and can be destroyed by teasing if it is taken as a hostile attack. Tony said, “I can’t remember what (I teased him) about, but…. I guess I said something too bad. I, I meant it as a joke, but I guess I carried it too far.” Reflecting on why the tease went awry, he said, “I think he would say I, I was putting him down.” Here, the tease failed when the challenging aspect of the tease was the primary focus for the target. Tony recognized his failure, asserting that he was to blame, perhaps by carrying the tease “too far.” This is an important development because in third grade, participants were not able to see that others might have different interpretations of the same event, and also important because he took responsibility for not managing the tease well.
Overall, sixth graders presented the view of teasing that was less likely to result in negative outcomes among friends than third graders. The functions of teasing were to create social hierarchy and illicit desired behaviors. Although negative outcomes were acknowledged, teasing was a more acceptable activity than for younger children and, as such, came with great imperatives to tease responsibility among friends.
Tenth graders
Research Question 1/functions of teasing
Consistent with the initial definitions of teasing given by 3rd and 6th graders, the 10th grade participants initially asserted that teasing was bad and hurt target’s feelings. In fact, some of the examples given might represent what most people think of when envisioning the type of cruel teasing that is attributed to teen suicide or perhaps school violence outbreaks. For example, Mason reported that he was teased because he frequently wore a uniform for his part-time job to school. When asked what he thought they were doing, he replied: “Basically making fun of the whole job saying it’s stupid.” As he talked, it became clear that Mason gets teased regularly. He defined himself as “not very popular” and said he gets “picked on” a lot. While escorting Mason back to his classroom after the interview, a young man walked behind us mocking Mason. Turning to see the teaser’s demeanor, he looked fairly happy and simply said, “I’m just teasin’. I do it all the time,” as if to offer a harmless justification for his verbal provocations. In essence, the teaser seemed to excuse his behavior by redefining his taunt as a humorous, harmless act of teasing. Through this experience observed first hand, the negative teasing which haunts younger kids was not absent in high school.
Although negative teasing persists, 10th graders had a more developed sense of the functions teasing and a more sophisticated understanding of not just who could or could not be teased but also how the teasing could be framed and enacted. Tenth graders recognized the social and pragmatic functions of teasing. The first trend was similar to that of sixth graders: teasing can be identity work. It can be used to mask insecurity or elevate status. Kyle noted that teasing helps “people feel better about themselves,” and Jack echoed this saying that the person doing the teasing is trying “to look better and making the other person look bad.” In 10th grade, there was a continued understanding of teasing as a facework strategy that could be used to protect or harm others’ face (see Mills & Babrow, 2003).
Another trend noted in 10th graders talk is that teasing can be a shield. They commented on how teases can be used to help a person alleviate embarrassment by noting how a mistake or problem was uncharacteristic. One example came Kyle discussing what he did when a friend fell down the stairs. He said that by teasing, he was trying to add levity, “Just to get everybody to laugh, you know, it was funny you know, just don’t worry about it.” In our discussion, it was clear that Kyle thought a tease could make the person see the humor as well as the normalness of the faux pas. It could provide climate of solidarity and an attempt to reframe the situation in a positive light. Further, there was recognition that teasing is performed for a larger audience and can actually be for the benefit of the teasing recipient and put the teaser and “target” together and an identity performance team.
In addition to the ability to use teases to reframe and perform identity for audiences, teasing was also used when an initiator wanted to broach a potentially embarrassing topic without committing fully to it. One participant characterized teasing as way to give compliments otherwise too embarrassing to utter.
If you see a guy like Doug, you’re like “man he looks good, you are so hot today” (said in a high-pitched, presumably feminine, voice). That’s messing around, but that is a compliment. And straight guys laugh, laugh.
Why wouldn’t you just go up to Kirk and say hey, you look great today?
I just don’t feel comfortable. I don’t care if somebody is gay or not. I just don’t feel comfortable like saying that another guy looks real good, even when he does.
Not only does this example point to ways teasing can be used to express difficult sentiments by not going “on record” (see Brown & Levinson, 1987), it may also point to ways in which indirectness and teasing can be used to balance tensions in friendships, such as the need to be complimentary, but not overly sentimental with a male peer (Weger & Truch, 1996). Further, it highlights how norms of homophobia and beliefs about masculinity become part of the everyday meaning-making process for young men, where the norms are so pervasive they are seen as part of normal discourse (Pascoe, 2003).
Teasing also allows teens to go “off-record” (Brown & Levinson, 1987) to broach difficult topics. Vanessa pointed out that sometimes individuals are curious about differences but afraid to acknowledge them directly, so teases could help raise the topic of interest. Discussing a peer who was quite petite, Vanessa, who said she had been overweight most of her life, had the following comments:
I didn’t understand, and I had to say something and I’d never feel comfortable just saying “Why are you so skinny?” but teasing was an easy way of asking questions you wouldn’t normally ask. Like why, if I tease you tease because your hair is purple, I’m not teasing you to be mean. But, I couldn’t just ask, “Why is your hair purple?”
Thus, teens not only use teasing to talk about difficult topics, they strategically choose teasing as a way open up conversations with their peers. Thus, just like with the negative and intentionally cruel teasing, they have the recourse of saying, “I was just teasing,” or “I wasn’t being serious. I was just joking around” if their peers do not respond well to the bid to open dialogue.
Research Question 2/teasing in relationships
All of the 10th graders believed that teasing has a lighter side; that teasing among friends is normal. The trend in this grade is that friends give and get the benefit of the doubt. Many of the teens asserted that teasing among friends is acceptable because those closest to them know their intentions. Rawlins (1992) noted that friendships are more stable by adolescence, and the stability seems reflected in teens’ talk about teasing. For instance, David said, “Your friends, they, how you’re playing around, or kidding, whatever. I guess. I’m around them a lot and they know how I am. They know my personality, and pretty much know if I’m playing or not.” In other words, friends can understand motivations and know that they should not take challenges seriously. Justin explained that the relationship is central to choosing who you tease; he said, “That’s why I only tease with my good friends that I know very well…‘Cause we’re really good friends and good friends don’t try to hurt each other, ever.”
Given the stability of friendships, they also talked about an increased level of care and responsibility. Tenth graders were aware of that teasing can be a double-edged sword (Mills & Babrow, 2003). Anna stated that even with her closest friends, she had to remember that some people had “open wounds” and that teasers needed to be very cautious about “pushing people’s buttons.” There was an understanding that friendship is valuable, and teasing could be dangerous, so care had to be exercised. Therefore, many of them noted that it was important to establish the boundaries very clearly.
With my friends, I tease ‘em, but I guess it’s the person – there’s a certain level. I don’t think you should tease at all, but I, I mean, I tease my friends but I would never say anything I know they won’t be able to handle (inaudible). Like with a friend if she feels she is ugly I would never say “you’re ugly.” It’s mean. But a friend could say that to me and it’s not a big deal.
Therefore, teasing was not just about having fun but also about understanding personal boundaries and recognizing other’s responses. There is also a recognition that if a tease is true with no room for play (calling someone who feels unattractive ugly), then the tease is inappropriate—even bullying; yet, the same tease may be playful for someone who feels differently.
In sum, these developments and changes in how children define and use teasing among peers are important. When asking, “How do children talk about the functions of teasing at different levels,” these interviews demonstrate that in young children (third graders), teasing is primarily bad and thus avoided among friends. What older children and teens might call teasing among friends is given a separate label by third graders. With development, teasing becomes more intricate with children and teens recognizing both positive and negative functions, and learning not just whom they can tease but how teases must be constructed to make them work within the confines of a good relationship. Teasing becomes not just a way to hurt and divide but also a way to enhance relationships, demonstrate solidarity, and discuss difficult topics. It is also recognized as dangerous, requiring skill and empathy to execute effectively among friends. In fact, rather than simply assuming one can tease friends as they do in sixth grade, the 10th graders recognized that most people have a proverbial Achilles’ heels that should not exploited. Thus, teasing is not understood or enacted the same by all people; it is defined, created, and performed differently at different ages.
Conclusion
Theoretical contributions
This work adds to prior research on teasing in at least three ways. First, it explains teasing as it is related to developmental changes from middle childhood through adolescence. Second, it explores how those changes affect children’s understanding and use teasing. Third, it illuminates how they talk about teasing and the extent to which they are aware of their own social behaviors. These findings are important because children explained their own social worlds in their words rather than being assigned researchers’ predetermined categories, which advance our understanding of how teasing operates.
A noteworthy contribution of this study is that although children DO engage in what adults call teasing in both positive and negative ways, they just do not call it teasing at the younger ages. Young children create categories that work within their developmental abilities: teasing is bad and reserved for disliked peers. Therefore, if an activity is fun or playful, it must be labeled differently such as a “playing” or just teasing. From a research perspective, this helps us realize that if we use the word teasing in our studies, we may only get the negative cases from younger children rather than the broader types of teasing we are looking for since the word primes younger children to think about negative rather than positive examples. Conversely, this also helps us understand precisely why children see teasing as bad and helps us respect their definitions of the term.
In spite of their initial definitions, the children were able to articulate ways that teasing is functional in relationships while also noting how the activity affects relationships. As children get older, they begin to see clearly the functions of teasing and how teasing can be used to accomplish instrumental, relational, and identity goals. In fact, we can see this develop as children in sixth grade begin to recognize teasing among peers that is allowed within the safety of their social ties, and by 10th grade, they not only rely on the security of their bonds but also recognize their responsibility to treat those relationships with care. Moreover, negative teasing does not end by middle or high school; in fact, children and teens are well aware of how they are using teasing to control the behaviors of others, reinforce social norms, and discuss difficult topics. However, when they do get “caught” engaging in negative behaviors with disliked others, they use the term just teasing as a pass for their bad behavior.
Practical implications
Although this is a limited sample, the trends found are consistent with prior work in social, cognitive, and emotional development, and several recommendations can be made. First, when young children are hurting from teasing, and adults tell them that their peers are teasing and it is “no big deal,” we are being patronizing and trivializing—even fundamentally misunderstanding their social world. In practice, when a young child comes crying to a parent or teacher, explaining that another child was calling him or her silly names, and the adult says “Honey, they are teasing you,” what the child may hear is “Honey, they are just being cruel.” Thus, attempts to comfort may be antithetical to the goal of making the child feel better. Upset recipients need to be shown how the message can be interpreted in alternative ways and taught strategies for engaging in playful banter.
Conversely, when children are teasing, they need to be taught to stop if the other person looks sad or agitated. It is also useful to know that by sixth grade, children are aware that teasing is a tool for both play and irritation, thus, when they claim to be just teasing, we can talk to them about their goals, the other person’s response, and appropriateness. By 10th grade, if children are harming others and claiming to tease, they are quite aware that positive teasing requires intimacy and friendship. Thus, when they are teasing disliked or low status peers, they are probably using teasing as a cloak for bullying. They do know the differences, and teachers and parents can stop the negative actions and deny their bid for an excuse.
Limitations and future research
To strengthen the findings of this study, future research should employ a more diverse group of children, particularly given evidence that different socioeconomic (Eisenberg, 1986) and racial groups (Abrahams, 1962) may use verbal provocations in different ways. This work can also benefit from even a greater variation in age ranges, from the time children are first talking through later life adults; doing this might allow us to see critical moments of insight or change. Finally, this study illuminated how teasing is used in friendship and among peers but did not examine parent/child, marital, or coworker relationships, among others. This is important for two reasons. First, development does not necessarily proceed the same in all contexts (Vygotsky, 1980). Second, as noted in a related domain, bullying (Berry & Adams, 2016), teasing may be different in a context of very close relationships. For instance, the conditions of living together, in an involuntary relationship, may require different methods of teasing given various levels of personal knowledge, relational security, and needs for identity management.
This study was developmental in nature, but results indicate a further exploration of politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1987) and facework (Goffman, 1955) could shed light on teasing strategies and social enactment. Further, more research is needed to provide ways for us to more clearly delineate teasing from bullying. Most work conflates terms such as teasing, bullying, relational bullying, verbal aggression, and so on. The lack of clarity is problematic because these behaviors do overlap, yet are distinct. Even in these interviews, it is clear that teasing must have some element of play in order to be teasing; bullying has no such requirement. Given the increase in school violence, it is critical for scholars to develop ways to help educators assess when teasing is a playful exchange or minor irritant, and when it is a mask for darker bullying that has the potential to destroy relationships, self-esteem, and academic performance, and result in social isolation and ultimately violence.
Finally, we cannot neglect the fact that teasing is a prosocial activity and that children from at least sixth grade can recognize when teasing can be positive, when it helps them discuss difficult topics, and when it is used for effective facework in personal and social relationships. Rather than focusing solely on the negative, we can look more extensively at ways that teasing is used in positively among peers and develop strategies to help children and teens use the benefits of teasing in ways that improve their social status and enable them to deal effectively with conflict: even as a strategy to combat bullying itself.
Footnotes
Acknowledgement
The author wishes to thank Professor Austin Babrow for his contributions to and support of this work.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.