Sticks and Stones: Evaluations of Responses to Childhood Teasing

Abstract

The present study addresses children's assessments of responses to teasing. Participants viewed videotaped interactions in which one child was being teased by two other children and responds in one of three ways (i.e., with humor, by ignoring, or with hostility). Participants rated the humorous response to teasing as the most effective way to respond to teasing, followed by ignoring. The hostile response was rated the least effective. The target's response to teasing significantly affected perceptions of the friendliness and popularity of the teasers and target. In addition, participants' previous experiences with teasing, as both victim and teaser, significantly affected their perceptions of the teasing interaction. Results are discussed as they relate to understanding childhood teasing and effective ways of responding to teasing.

“Your Lunch Pail Is Silly!” Children’s and Teachers’ Views on Teasing

“…In keeping with previous research (Lightner, Bollmer, Harris, Milich, & Scrambler, 2000;Scrambler et al, 1998), here, too, the teachers' and children's perceptions on how to respond to teasing varied considerably. Overwhelmingly, the children of this study reported responding "seriously" to teasing.…”

“…And I got kind of upset. (Grade 1 Female Participant) Thus, most often, the children who are deemed different in appearance and ability are the frequent targets of teasing (Martlew & Hodson, 1991;Mooney, Creeser, & Blatchford, 1991;Psunder, 2010;Scrambler, Harris, & Milich, 1998;Shapiro, Baumeister, & Kessler, 1991;Warm, 1997).…”

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

“…Although the distinction between antisocial and prosocial teases may be relatively clear to some individuals under some circumstances, the inherent ambiguity of most teases allows the intent of a particular tease to be open to different interpretations (Alberts, 1992;Shapiro, Baumeister, & Kessler, 1991). Furthermore, differences in personality (Bollmer, Harris, Milich, & Georgesen, 2003;Georgesen, Harris, Milich, & Young, 1999), culture (Campos, Keltner, Beck, Gonzaga, & John, 2007), and personal history with teasing (Bollmer et al, 2003;Lightner, Bollmer, Harris, Milich, & Scambler, 2000;Scambler, Harris, & Milich, 1998) may influence an individual's perception of and, ultimately, his/her response to a particular tease.…”

The Phenomenon of Sibling Teasing: Three Mothers' Perceptions of Their Children's Teasing Behaviors

“…Similarly, agreeable individuals tended to experience more remorse for teasing others (Georgesen et al, 1999), whereas extraverted individuals were most likely to be nonempathic toward teased individuals. Adding to the existing literature that correlates individuals' evaluations of victims' and perpetrators' actions based on their own predispositional attitudes (Scrambler, Harris, & Milich, 1998), personality characteristics have been linked to persons' perceptions of teasing (Georgesen et al, 1999;Kowalski, 2000).…”

“…The research on children's evaluations of teasing response strategies indicates that children's own history of teasing (i.e., infrequent teasers vs. frequent teasers) affects their perceptions of targets and teasers (Lightner, Bollmer, Harris, Milich, & Scrambler, 2000;Scrambler et al, 1998). Lightner et al (2000) found that children who experienced teasing frequently rated the empathic response to teasing less favorably than children who were not often victims of teasing.…”