Poster #123 - Is Teasing Meant to be Mean or Nice? Associations between Victimization Experiences in Adolescence and Attitudes toward Teasing

• In Event: Poster Session 14

Abstract

Teasing is often used as a contrast against bullying, but it is unclear whether those who are teased see teasing as less harmful than bullying (Bosacki et al., 2012). Indeed, researchers have used contradictory conceptualizations of teasing, including teasing that is playing, functional, and productive (Mills & Carwile, 2009), and teasing that is akin to bullying (Kowalski, 2003). This confusion in terminology may result in teachers dismissing incidents of teasing among peers at school, or not being sufficiently able to recognize the nuance that separates ‘playful’ from ‘harmful’ teasing. Further, despite the potential overlap between teasing and bullying/victimization, it is unknown how victimization experiences impact individuals’ views of teasing. Goals were to 1) validate a new measure of teasing attitudes (i.e., is teasing seen as affectionate and/or aggressive) and 2) identify whether teasing attitudes are related to past victimization experiences.

Young adults (N = 281, 17-25 years old [M = 19.68 years], 92% female) responded to a 13-item teasing scale created for this study (modified from DiCioccio, 2001), including items of affectionate teasing (6 items), aggressive teasing (4 items), and romantic interest teasing (3 items; see Table 1 for all items). Participants reported retrospectively on how often they were the victim of bullying (aggressive behavior by someone with more power than them) and non-bullying victimization (aggressive behavior by someone with equal or less power than them) during their adolescence, using a 5-point Likert scale from never to very often.

On the teasing attitudes scale, the expected three-factor structure emerged, with factors representing affectionate teasing, aggressive teasing, and teasing based on romantic interest (see Table 1). Two items were removed that loaded highly on multiple factors, and the remaining items were averaged within each factor for use in further analyses. Preliminary analyses indicated that participants who endorsed teasing as affectionate tended to report more non-bullying victimization in their adolescence (victimization by someone equally or less powerful than them), r = .17, p = .007. Participants who endorsed teasing as aggressive reported more bullying victimization in their adolescence (victimization by someone more powerful than them), r = .13, p = .04. Viewing teasing as both affectionate (r = -.17, p = .005) and aggressive (marginal, r = -.11, p = .08) was negatively associated with being a non-victim. That is, those who did not report victimization in their adolescence were less likely to endorse teasing as either affectionate or aggressive. Finally, viewing teasing as based on romantic interest was not significantly related to either bullying or non-bullying victimization. Continued analyses will explore multivariate links between constructs of interest, as well as the potential moderating role of social status and popularity.

Results have implications for our growing understanding of teasing as a nuanced and complex construct (see Bosacki et al., 2012; Buglass et al., 2021). Further, interesting patterns emerged that suggest the possibility that the nature of one’s victimization experiences may shape one’s attitudes toward teasing. More work is needed to fully elucidate why and under what circumstances teasing can be ‘playful’ versus ‘harmful.’

Authors

• Naomi Andrews, Brock University
  Presenting Author

• Molly Dawes, University of South Carolina