Factors Associated With Children's Anticipated Responses to Ambiguous Teases

Abstract

The authors used two studies involving 5th- and 6th-grade children to examine factors potentially associated with individual differences in children's perceptions of and anticipated responses to ambiguous teases. Study 1 assessed the extent to which the children would expect recipients to feel hurt in response to a series of ambiguous teases and whether the children would perceive those teases as more like antisocial or prosocial teases. In Study 2 the children were asked to evaluate emotional and behavioral responses to ambiguous teases with various gender compositions of the teaser-target dyad. Despite some gender of participant differences, the studies demonstrated that children with relatively negative attitudes toward teases and relatively negative experiences as recipients of teases tended to interpret ambiguous teases as if they were meant to be hostile and antisocial.

Factors associated with early adolescents’ anticipated emotional and behavioral responses to ambiguous teases on Facebook

“…Social media, such as Facebook, appears to be an ideal context in which to examine individual differences in adolescents' response to ambiguous teases because the "humorous" comments in such a forum are necessarily "devoid of any verbal (e.g., tone of voice) or nonverbal (e.g., facial expression) cues from the teaser...that individuals typically use to determine if the intent of a tease is hostile or affiliative" (Barnett et al, 2010, p. 57). As with the children in the prior investigation (Barnett et al, 2010), adolescents with relatively negative experiences with and attitudes toward teases were predicted to respond to ambiguous teases on Facebook as if they were meant to be hostile and antisocial (that is, they were expected to display a hostile attribution bias; Crick & Dodge, 1994, 1996. Although children's experiences with and attitude toward teases were found to be associated with both their anticipated emotional and behavioral responses to ambiguous teases in the prior study (Barnett et al, 2010), the pattern of relations among these variables was not systematically examined.…”

“…As with the children in the prior investigation (Barnett et al, 2010), adolescents with relatively negative experiences with and attitudes toward teases were predicted to respond to ambiguous teases on Facebook as if they were meant to be hostile and antisocial (that is, they were expected to display a hostile attribution bias; Crick & Dodge, 1994, 1996. Although children's experiences with and attitude toward teases were found to be associated with both their anticipated emotional and behavioral responses to ambiguous teases in the prior study (Barnett et al, 2010), the pattern of relations among these variables was not systematically examined. Weiner's (1980) cognitive (attribution)-emotion-action model of RESPONSES TO TEASES 5 motivated behavior proposes a "temporal sequence of attribution-affect-action in which attributions guide our feelings, but emotional reactions provide the motor and direction for behavior" (Weiner, 1980, p. 186).…”

“…Given the growing importance and impact of social networking among 12-15 year olds (Kowalski & Limber, 2007;Kwan & Skoric, 2013;Twyman, Saylor, Taylor, & Comeaux, 2010), the present study sought to determine whether the prior results concerning children's reactions to hypothetical face-to-face teases (Barnett et al, 2010) would be replicated with early adolescents' anticipated responses to hypothetical teases on the popular social medium of Facebook. Social media, such as Facebook, appears to be an ideal context in which to examine individual differences in adolescents' response to ambiguous teases because the "humorous" comments in such a forum are necessarily "devoid of any verbal (e.g., tone of voice) or nonverbal (e.g., facial expression) cues from the teaser...that individuals typically use to determine if the intent of a tease is hostile or affiliative" (Barnett et al, 2010, p. 57).…”

“…As an extension of the prior research (Barnett et al, 2010), path analysis was used to test this model in the present investigation.…”

“…In an investigation of children's perceptions of and anticipated responses to hypothetical face-to-face teases, Barnett, Barlett, Livengood, Murphy, and Brewton (2010) asked fifth-and sixth-grade students to complete questionnaires assessing their experiences with antisocial and prosocial teases as well as their general attitudes toward teases. Subsequently, the children were asked to read four ambiguous teasing scenarios, one at a time, in which they were to imagine having been teased on four separate occasions by different peers at their school.…”