Teasing Among College Men and Women

Abstract

To explore potential sex differences in the teasing of late adolescents, 95 men and 111 women indicated the frequency, impetus for, and impact of their typical teasing experiences. Teasing was common; both sexes reported that it occurred at least once or twice a week. Teasing occurs primarily for fun, for bonding, to cheer others up, and to show liking, although there was also an occasionally competitive element to men's teasing episodes. Instigating teasing with the other sex occurs frequently for the purpose of flirting. Although men evaluated the impact of teasing as positive in all conditions, women responded favorably when teased by a man and neutrally when teased by a woman. Teasing appears to be an important form of bonding and flirting among college students of both sexes.

Keywords:

• Bonding
• Flirting
• Gender Differences
• Relationships
• Sex Differences
• Social Interaction
• Teasing

The authors thank Sara Templin for assistance with the data analysis.

Notes

Note. A Tukey test indicated that the means with different subscript are significantly different from each other.

Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses below the means.

Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses below the means.

Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses below the means.

The term “impetus” and “reasons for teasing” are used interchangeably in this project. No assumption is made that the teaser gave conscious thought to a reason for teasing prior to the event but, upon reflection, was able to indicate the probable impetus for initiating a tease. The 12 reasons included in the questionnaire emerged from open-ended descriptions of teasing episodes, along with a description of the reasons for the episode, obtained earlier from a group of 48 participants drawn from the same type of classes as the participants in this study.

When the term “teasing episodes” is used, it includes instances where the individual is either the instigator or the target.

For all nonsignificant results reported, the power to detect a medium difference between means (d = .5) was .92.

Not all results of this analysis are reported, since not all are meaningful. For instance, a significant main effect was found for role of the participant, but because some of the reasons offered as the primary impetus for teasing are prosocial and others are not, a comparison of means that is averaged across all of the motives offers no clear interpretation.

This manuscript was accepted by the previous editor, Professor Jim L. Query.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Stephenson Beck

Stephenson Beck is graduate student of University of Kansas

Sarah Elizabeth Clabaugh

Sarah Elizabeth Clabaugh is employed by Bearing Point.

Ruth Anne Clark

This project was completed by students in a research methods class at the University of Illinois under the direction of Ruth Anne Clark, Professor of Speech Communication.

Megan Connelly Kosovski

Megan Connelly Kosovski is on the staff at Parkland College

Rivka Daar

Rivka Daar is employed by Caterpillar, Inc.

Veronica Hefner

Veronica Hefner is doctoral student at the University of Illinois.

Tracy Kmetz

Tracy Kmetz is employed by the Archdiocese of Denver, Colorado

Shelia McDaniel

Sheila McDaniel is on the staff at Illinois Central College

Laura Miller

Laura Miller is doctoral student at the University of Illinois.

Cortney Moriarty

Cortney Moriarty is doctoral student at the University of Illinois.

Zhilong Qian

Zhilong Qian is graduate student of University of Hawaii

Siddhartha Raja

Siddhartha Raja is doctoral student at the University of Illinois.

Mary Ramey

Mary Ramey is doctoral student at the University of Illinois.

Ratnadeep Suri

Ratnadeep Suri is graduate student of Indiana University.