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

Abstract

Teasing is often regarded as a rite of passage, a normal and common activity of childhood. Yet teasing is a complex relational issue involving many elements, such as intent, verbal utterances, nonverbal behavior, meaning, interpretation, and emotional affect. Teasing within the sibling relationship can be a source of great parental frustration, as parents often lack a clear understanding of how to address the behavior. Mothers' perceptions of their children's teasing, their own self-history with teasing, and responses to observed teasing scenarios may directly affect the nature, form, and function of sibling teasing, at times acting as an unintended license to tease.

Keywords:

• teasing
• early childhood
• mothers' preceptions

This article reports on the perceptions of three mothers as they engaged in research conversations about their children's teasing and the potential implications of those perceptions that emerged. One primary purpose of the study was to gain an understanding of the nature, form, intent, and responses of young children to experiences of teasing within their sibling relationship from the instigators and recipients themselves. Sibling participants in the current study included two brother dyads and one male-female twin dyad. The mothers from all three families also participated in the study and are the focus of this article. Mothers' perceptions of their children's teasing behaviors were garnered through interviews and informal conversations with the researcher. The mothers' perceptions provided an opportunity to examine parent histories and child-rearing beliefs in relation to teasing, as well as the potential impact of those beliefs and actions as a license to tease between siblings.

The construct of teasing lacks a definitive definition and often is conflated and subsumed under such terms as verbal aggression, bullying, sarcasm, humor, irony, and word play. Despite the lack of clarity, teasing is a phenomenon experienced by many young children and can be a source of great stress, with “lasting powerful effects” (Georgesen, Harris, Milich, & Young, 1999, p. 1266). And despite the fact that teasing incidents can range from prosocial affects (such as give-withdrawal games between an infant and mother) (Eisenberg, 1986) to hostile intent (such as name calling, taunting, ridicule, and insult) (Mooney, Creeser, & Blatchford, 1991), most young children label teasing as a negative act (Mills & Carwile, 2009; Mooney et al., 1991; Shapiro, Baumeister, & Kessler, 1991).

In opposition, teasing has been credited for specific social and relational benefits to the involved parties. As Eisenberg (1986) noted, family members often utilize teasing to promote positive interactions, and peers have been found to tease to express affection, promote playful interactions, and as a means of building or maintaining group membership (Shapiro et al., 1991; Thorne, 1993; Voss, 1997). Moreover, teasing can function to increase one's social standing and popularity within a group (Keltner, Young, Heerey, Oemig, & Monarch, 1998). Thus, given the constructive functions of teasing found in previous studies (Meyer & Driskill, 1997), it is important to avoid dismissing teasing as solely an antisocial and hostile act. One must attend to the characteristics of teasing as encompassing elements of mock challenge (and sometimes but not always aggression), play, and ambiguity (Mills & Carwile, 2009) and consider that teasing lies on a continuum of social interaction from playful encounters to hurtful confrontation.

Thus in the current study, teasing was defined as “an intentional provocation accompanied by playful off-record markers that together comment on something relevant to the target” (Keltner, Capps, Kring, Young, & Heerey, 2001, p. 234). This allowed for the verbal and physical teasing of the young siblings to be recognized. The sibling teasing observed in this study included pulling hair, verbal jeers, poking, name calling, give-and-withdrawal activities, purposeful and repeated disruption of another's play, saying the opposite of what was true, keep away of desired objects, social or household norm violations, goading, and taunting. Thus, the traditional perspective of examining teasing as a verbal or communication act (Eisenberg, 1986) must be broadened to include physical forms of teasing that were more typical of these preschool-age siblings.

How sibling teasing functions and manifests within the sibling relationship and family unit is not readily understood. Moreover, the influence of mothers' prepositional attitude and personal history of teasing on their perceptions (and interventions) of teasing among their children has yet to be researched. Yet, from a family systems model, which recognizes the complexity of relationships and the bidirectional and reciprocal influences between and among members, teasing may be an important context in understanding how sibling teasing functions within the family unit.

MODEL OF FAMILY SOCIAL INFLUENCES

Young children's social lives are complex. By recognizing the family as “a complex, integrated whole, with organized patterns of interaction that are circular rather than linear in form” (Minuchin, 1974, p. 8), the individual child can be conceived of as part of a network of relationships, being “formed by and forming part of this network” (Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1987, p. 1). Thus, the family unit is a multifaceted system of complex relationships and bidirectional and reciprocal influences between and among members of the family (Sanders, 2004).

According to Minuchin's (1974) family systems model, the sibling subsystem is a third subsystem within the family unit. Thus, three subsystems are operating within the family unit: the parent-parent subsystem, the parent/child subsystem(s), and the child/child subsystem(s) (Sanders, 2004). After the addition of the second child into the family, six interacting social systems are established. The complexity of the relationships within that family increases as more siblings are added to the family mix. The sibling subsystem has been described as “the first laboratory in which children can experiment with peer relationships. Within this context, children support, isolate, scapegoat and learn from each other. In the sibling world, children learn how to negotiate, cooperate, and compete” (Minuchin, 1974, p. 59). This “laboratory of experimentation” not only affects the sibling relationship but also has a ripple effect on the family unit itself.

The importance of the context and the significance of the interrelationship between the various systems within which a child is embedded also was supported by Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory (1977, 1979). The mutual and bidirectional influences of children's close relationships within the family context have become the focus of recent research (Dyson, 2003; Eisenberg et al., 2003). And despite a long tradition of theoretical discussions that explore the role of peers in the development of socioemotional understanding (Hartup, 1983; Piaget, 1932; Sullivan, 1953), less emphasis has been placed on the role of the sibling relationship. Notwithstanding the crucial role of the father within this dynamic family systems model (Cabrera, Shannon, & Tamis-LeMonda, 2007; Clarke-Stewart, 1978; Flouri & Buchanan, 2004), as participation in the current study was limited to three mothers, the literature related to the complexities of maternal influence on sibling relationships is examined below.

MOTHERS' INFLUENCE ON SIBLING RELATIONS

The role of the mother on children's development of altruistic behavior has been well documented by Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, and King (1979). Maternal empathic caregiving (i.e., conveying of concern and modeling altruism) has been associated with children's reparations and prosocial behavior. The emotional climate of a family, specifically parental style (e.g., maternal emotional expressivity and parental warmth), also appears to affect the development of socioemotional understanding in young children (Eisenberg et al., 2001; Eisenberg et al., 2003; Zhou et al., 2002). Thus, familial interactions appear to have an impact on children's emotion regulation and socioemotional understanding and signify a legitimate and important research context in garnering an understanding of children's development.

For example, Dunn (1988) reported that firstborn girls who enjoyed a relatively high frequency of play and attention with the mother, prior to and immediately following the birth of the sibling, were more likely to exhibit hostile behavior toward their younger siblings. Siblings were more likely to be friendly toward each other in families that had a relative high frequency of confrontation between mothers and firstborn girls. Dunn and Munn (1986) also indicated that it is “the individual differences in friendly behavior by the older sibling that are linked with the development of relatively mature behavior by the second born in conflict incidents and in cooperative exchanges” (p. 282). For example, in follow-up observations the younger sibling was more likely to demonstrate a higher proportion of cooperative behavior, teasing behavior, and conciliatory behavior during conflicts, depending on the nature of the previous interactions with the older sibling. Thus, Dunn (1988) surmised that the sibling, like the mother, can “contribute greatly to the emotional life of the child” (p. 172), at times as a source of hostility as attention is supplanted, or as a source of affection and attention for children with more distant relationships with their parents. The study indicated that the degree of maternal attention and involvement with either child seems to directly affect the quality of the interaction between siblings.

MOTHERS AND TEASING

Mothers appear well-versed in the practice of teasing their children (Eisenberg, 1986; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). Teasing between a parent and infant can provide opportunities of provocative play that are enjoyable for both parties (e.g., a game of give-and-withdrawal of a desired object) (Labrell, 1994). Conversely, if tension and an adverse reaction occur, teasing between mother and child may become a negative experience (Reissland, Shepherd, & Herrera, 2005). Appreciably, mothers' sensitivity to the emotional reactions of their children appears to have a significant impact on whether the teasing interaction will be playful or hurtful. And mothers' own affective states appear to have a direct impact on the quality of playful teasing interactions (Reissland et al., 2005). Although mothers' perceptions and sensitivities to teasing between and among their children has yet to be addressed within the research literature thus far, one might hypothesize that maternal sensitivity to the emotional reactions of their teasing children would also affect the character of the hurtful or playful nature of that teasing.

Additionally, mothers' propositional attitude and personal history of teasing may directly affect their perceptions of (and interventions regarding) their own children's teasing. A propositional attitude determines “what is it about people that causes them to perceive and respond to teasing in contrasting ways” (Bollmer, Harris, Milich, & Georgesen, 2003, p. 560). In a study with college students involving teasing embedded within a problem-solving task, Bollmer and her colleagues (2003) found that individuals who generally seek positive interactions with others and uphold beliefs that the actions of others are well-intentioned (i.e., agreeable) reacted adversely to teasing episodes. 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).

Likewise, an individual's personal history with teasing appears related to one's perception about, use of, and reactions to teasing. 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. Perhaps, an empathy response may be more appropriate for children who are not victims of teasing than for those who experience teasing frequently and have misgivings of expressing hurt feelings and opening the door to further victimization.

Adult perceptions of teasing also appear related to one's personal history with teasing (Georgesen et al., 1999). Georgesen and his colleagues (1999) found an association between adults' previous experiences as a teasing recipient and levels of forgiveness and self-blame. Individuals who were frequent recipients of teasing reported greatest difficulty in “forgiving” the teaser and the highest levels of self-blame. Additionally, frequent teasers were more likely to forgive the teasing of others. Given the considerable differences between parental and child perceptions of teasing found in previous research and adults' general underestimation of the frequency of teasing experienced by young children (Lightner et al., 2000), examining the potential impact of the mothers' perceptions and personal history with teasing became an important facet of this research project.

METHOD & DESIGN

Children's real-world experiences with the phenomenon of sibling teasing are not readily understood. By “taking up residence” in three families' homes, this researcher sought to gain an understanding of sibling teasing “as it exists and evolves” (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1996, p. 109). Thus, a case-study approach afforded the opportunity to gain this insider's view of the complex “choreography” (Janesick, 2003, p. 47) of sibling teasing and mothers' reactions and perceptions of teasing among their children. Data collection centered on the observed interactions between siblings, as well as conversational interviews with the children and mothers, to gain an understanding of potential converging and diverging perceptions of sibling teasing.

Although the overarching research question that guided the inquiry was concerned with the experiences and perceptions of the children themselves with the phenomenon of teasing within their sibling relationship (see results reported in Harwood, 2008), two subquestions related specifically to the mothers' perceptions and understandings of teasing. Specifically, these questions were

1. What are the perceptions of the mother of the functions of a tease (within the sibling relationship)?

2. How do the perceptions of the mother either converge with, diverge from, or influence the experiences of the child?

Purposely, data collection involved naturalistic observations and conversational interviews with the sibling dyads and two interviews with each of the participating mothers. Three families (referred to as Families A, B, and C) with preschool-age siblings (27–51 months) volunteered for the study. All families were English first-language speakers and of European decent. The three families self-identified as middle-income earners and lived in residential neighborhoods of a mixed working- and middle-class status in a midsize city of eastern Ontario, Canada.

As a participant-observer and over a 5-month period, I made a total of 37 visits with the three families. Observations and interviews were conducted in the 50 hours of transcribed visits. Each mother was interviewed twice, the results of which inform the discussion below (the young children were engaged in conversations about teasing during the course of their play). The participant-observer role allowed great flexibility in following the rhythms of the children and limiting the “artificial nature” of a more detached researcher position. As previous researchers have noted (Dunn & Kendrick, 1982b), great flexibility is required, and one must vary between observing, conversing, interacting, and playing alongside children to gain an understanding and insider's perspective of the world of children. Thus, as a participant-observer, at times I shared in the children's experiences, while alternatively, a more detached stance was adopted during the writing of descriptive notes, interviews with the mothers, administering checklists of the children's behaviors, or when the children themselves opted to exclude the researcher.

Observational Protocol

In keeping with the naturalistic orientation of the research and during the observations, children were free to choose any area, toy, or play theme, and no attempts were made to restrict their movements. Mothers were encouraged to adopt their normal routines associated with monitoring their children's activities and freely roamed in and out of the play areas.

The observations were conducted in a manner to minimize the disruption to the families' daily lives (Dunn & Kendrick, 1982a). Primarily, observations followed an unstructured format (i.e., field notes), offset with some semistructured observations (i.e., checklists of observed play behaviors and coding the nature of siblings' interactions) (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000). Observations took place in each of the families' homes in the area where the siblings typically played and ranged from 55 minutes to 105 minutes (an average visit for Family A and Family B was 79 minutes, and 87 minutes for Family C). The unstructured, naturalistic observations concentrated on each of the siblings' behavior and conversational turns. More structured observations also occurred by administering three checklists: Play Observation Checklist (adapted from Rubin, 1989), Nature of Siblings' Interactions (adapted from Stocker, 1988), and Teasing Conceptual Framework (adapted from Keltner et al., 2001). In general, all the checklists were administered at each of the home visits at three different times and varied in the length of time to complete. In total, 260 minutes were dedicated to administering the checklists. Moreover, within each of the three families, the researcher was engaged as a participant-observer for approximately 13 hours.

The observations informed the nature of the siblings' playful interactions (Rubin, 1989); the effect of those interactions (Furman, Rahe, & Hartup, 1979); the incidences of aggression, conflicts, and disputes (Vespo & Pedersen, 1995); and the specifics of any teasing interactions. All home visits were also audiotaped and transcribed verbatim following each session.

Interviews With the Mothers

Interviews with the mothers combined an informal conversational interview approach and an interview-guided approach (Patton, 1980). The open-ended unstructured format provided a better “fitness of purpose,” in that the objective of the interview was to gain “personalized information about how individuals view [their] world” (Cohen et al., 2000, p. 270). Thus, the mothers were interviewed using a series of open-ended questions about their children's teasing interactions and the parent's own history of teasing. All of the mothers were initially interviewed after 1 to 2 months of the onset of the home visits, and again 4 weeks following the first interview session.

Additionally, each mother was provided with a vignette of her children's behaviors, conversations, and interactions three times over the course of the observations (see Appendix A). These vignettes provided a one-page summary and example of my observations and audio recordings of the siblings' play and interactions during the home visits. The mothers were invited to comment or make additions or deletions to the summaries. All of the mothers commented on the accuracy of the field notes in capturing the children's behaviors, and no requests for changes were made.

Rapport was first established with the mothers by conversing about everyday family life. Subsequently, the interviews were conducted and informed by an interview guide (Appendix B). Previous research has sought adult perceptions of teasing through self-report methods (Bollmer et al., 2003; Georgesen et al., 1999; Gropper & Froschl, 1999; Keltner et al., 1998), narrative accounts and questionnaires (Kowalski, 2000), and checklists (Thompson, Cattarin, Fowler, & Fisher, 1995). Teachers' perceptions of teasing in their classrooms and schools also have been the focus of previous survey studies (Gropper & Froschl, 1999; Shapiro et al., 1991) and interviews (Branvold, 1995). However, experimental research of manipulated teasing incidents has been criticized for potentially capturing only highly constrained forms of teasing behavior, and self-report methods may “over-represent extreme forms of teasing” while discounting nonverbal forms (Keltner et al., 2001, p. 229). Moreover, teachers' and parents' perceptions of teasing may be largely uncorrelated to children's own self-reports (Curtner-Smith, 2000). Thus, this naturalistic research design addressed some of those critiques of manipulated incidents in an attempt to achieve greater authenticity.

Some research studies have sought parents' perceptions of teasing through experimental designs (Lightner et al., 2000), survey method (Gropper & Froschl, 2000), and interviews (Branvold, 1995). However, there is a noticeable gap in research studies that combine naturalistic observations of teasing and interviews with parents and children. Given the limitations of this previous research and the exploratory nature of the current study, I devised and utilized questions that were unique to the current study. The questions helped orient the interviews and uncover the adults' perceptions, previous history, and general attitudes toward teasing. More specific and detailed questions were possible based on real-world examples of the siblings' ongoing behavior that I observed during the home visits. Overall, the parent interviews added to the understanding of the converging or diverging perspectives between the mothers and siblings on teasing in the home environment.

All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed immediately following. A themed approach was utilized to organize the data for analysis (Ely, Vinz, Downing, & Anzul, 1997). Themes were defined as “brief statements that described the content of individual units of data text” (Tesch, 1987, p. 231). From a process of reading and rereading the data, immersion with the data as a whole, “panning and surveying” the text for details (Tesch, 1987, p. 232), looking for revealing statements in the text, and comparing themes from one case (i.e., family) to others, several metathemes emerged. Metathemes refer to “a major dimension, major aspect, or constituent of the phenomenon studied” (Tesch, p. 231) and, in this sense, represent the overarching themes the researcher drew from the entire body of data (Ely et al., 1997).

Analysis, Discussion, and Implications

An inductive process guided the process of analyzing the data, and, as Denzin (1998) stated, “in the social sciences there is only interpretation.” The “highlighter approach” (Van Manen, 1984) proved most useful in identifying several themes in the data in relation to each specific family and some commonalities across the three families. Of interest to this article, the mother's role, perception, behavior, and personal experience with teasing emerged as a significant theme.

The mothers' perceptions provided several clarifications and contrasts to the children's own descriptions and reactions to teasing experiences and what the researcher observed. The findings from the observations and interviews with the children were greatly enriched by the inclusion of the mothers' perspectives. A summary of the findings for each mother's perspective is presented in the next section.

FINDINGS FROM THE OBSERVATIONAL DATA

In sum, incidences of observed teasing between the sibling dyads was relatively rare in comparison to play, aggression, and conflictual behaviors (for a complete discussion of the finding related to the observations of the siblings, see Harwood, 2008). Similar to previous research (e.g., Newman, 1994), the young children of the current study engaged more often in playful, cooperative interactions, with the rate of hourly play exceeding the rates of conflict, aggression, and teasing by a ratio of 2:1. The majority of the teasing was behavioral in form, specifically one sibling taunting another. Taunting accounted for 68% of all forms of teasing behavior enacted. Accessing resources (e.g., toys) and the play area, or controlling the pace of the play tended to dominate the theme of the teases enacted. And in contrast to teasing among peer groups (Martlew & Hodson, 1991; Mooney et al., 1991; Shapiro et al., 1991; Warm, 1997), physical differences between siblings were not a common focus. Despite the fact that the mothers were absent for the majority of the teasing (54%), all of the mothers indicated an awareness of their children's teasing behaviors. However, given the influence of mother's behavior on the quality of siblings' relationships established in previous studies (Brody, 1998; Dunn & Munn, 1985; Volling, 2003), general observations of the mothers' interactions with their children also was an important aspect of this research. Observational data hint at the potential influence of the mothers' management of conflict and differential treatment on the nature of sibling teasing.

Differences were apparent in the management of sibling conflict and nature of interactions among all three mothers. The mothers' differential treatment and management of sibling conflict may have contributed to the nature of interactions between the siblings and their overall relationship quality (Brody, 1998). Moreover, the nature of the siblings' interactions and the quality of their relationship also may have been affected by the difference in the children's ages.

With regard to her philosophy of managing children's behavior, Mother A emphasized themes of fairness, equity, and respect. She referred to these themes explicitly in the interviews and in the management of sibling conflict (e.g., she emphasized the importance of turn-taking and using a respectful voice during sibling disputes or conflict). Her management strategies included using verbal explanations (e.g., “Did you hear what xxxx [researcher's name] said? She said that really hurt when she got hit. I told you there was no more warnings, I would just take it away”; Family A, Transcript 12, p. 4) and redirection (e.g., tickling to distract one sibling's attention away from contested toys; Family A, Transcript 8, p. 7). On seven separate occasions, the mother physically removed a child from his activity (i.e., physically removed him from the immediate area or gave him a “time-out” in another area of the home). All of these instances involved the display of aggression by one child toward another or directed toward the mother. Despite Mother A's emphasis on fairness, equity, and respect, at times the management of conflict between the two siblings had very distinctive maternal patterns.

The younger child typically elicited a more lenient response from the mother for misbehavior, as evidenced by a gentler tone of voice and greater emphasis on providing explanations of expected behavior. She tended to demonstrate greater tolerance for his aggressive-type behaviors (e.g., spitting, hitting, and kicking) than what was granted to the eldest sibling. And at times, the youngest boy's aggression toward his older sibling was disregarded and ignored by the mother. Alternately, the mother tended to have greater expectations for the eldest in regard to his management of his behavior. Her management of his behavior centered more on emphasizing the “house rules” for governing behavior. And despite the fact that the youngest instigated more of the sibling teasing incidents (71%), the mother often placed the onus on the eldest to concede the disputed resource.

[Youngest taunts his sibling with a train track piece.] Eldest cries in frustration, “I need that straight piece.” Mom says, “How about you ask your brother nicely, you say, ‘[Name], could you please put this piece here so we can finish the track?’ ” Eldest crumbles onto himself and whimpers out a cry. Mom continues, “It works a lot better than yelling or hitting, sweetie.” Eldest continues to cry in distress. Mom admits, “Ya, you know he likes to take the pieces to bug you.” Eldest cries very distraughtly. Youngest says, “It won't work” [and places the track piece himself after Mom asks him to do so]. Eldest has moved off close to Mom and cries intensely. (Family A, Transcript 8, p. 3)

Conversely, the theme of freedom appeared to affect the nature of the siblings' interactions with one another, as well as the mother of Family B, and her management of her children's behavior. The children were invited to use any space within the home, as well as any resource within the context of their play. This pervasive philosophy of freedom appeared to influence the nature of the siblings' interactions.

The male twin pulls me [researcher] toward his Mom's room, telling me, “Let's make a trap.” I am reluctant to enter Mom's private room and try to tell him that it is my time to go. He insistently pulls me toward Mom's room, where the mother and the female twin have also retreated. I stand in the doorway of Mom's room as he shows me his “trap.” Mom tells me how he originally called it an exercise gym. The mother's room has a four-poster bed that the boy has wrapped a rope around all 4 posters, creating a square of rope around her bed. At one of the corners of the bed dangles a large, industrial-size pulley. The boy says excitedly, “Let's take it apart.” (Family B, Transcript 9, p. 11)

During the home visits, Mother B infrequently joined her children's play. Overall, the mother was observed engaged in other activities within the home (e.g., talking on the phone, doing laundry, preparing meals, or visiting with the grandmother) for 16 of the 17 hours. However, it was unclear if this pattern of limited interaction was typical or a result of the presence of the researcher.

Similarly to Family A, the mother in Family B appeared more tolerant of the male twin's inappropriate behaviors while having a greater expectation for the female twin to self-regulate. The mother stated a belief that the female was more competent in all developmental domains (“You know what, they are different. And they are going to be at different stages as well as different levels. You know she started speaking before him and he started toilet training before her and she mastered everything and he's still working on number two”) (Mother B, Interview Transcript 1, p. 11). Thus, she may have had less tolerance for the female twin's unacceptable behaviors. And given that the female twin instigated the majority of the teasing incidents (84%), as well as the mother's perception of teasing as hurtful and negative (see following discussion), a more direct disciplinary approach toward the daughter may have been perceived as reasonable. In general, the children's gender and varied developmental levels appeared to influence the differential treatment by the mother as well as the nature of the children's relationship.

A theme of survival of the fittest appeared to encapsulate the approach to managing the children's behavior and conflicts within Family C. Mother C was fully aware of the high levels of conflict and aggression that existed among the siblings but justified that a certain amount of sibling aggression and retaliation was appropriate (e.g., physical force by the youngest toward the elder sibling was justifiable as a means of dealing with what the mother labeled as the older sibling's “physical attitude”) (Family C, Interview Transcript, 1, p. 3). Again, a gentler approach was used in managing the younger child's aggression and teasing behavior, whereas a harsher tone of voice, and warnings of consequences (e.g., going to bed and time-outs), was used with the older sibling.

Aggression and conflict tended to characterize the sibling relationship in Family C. The number of aggressive and conflictual interactions between the siblings closely matched their rates of playful behaviors (on average, 2.7 conflicts and 3.0 aggressive acts were noted each hour between the siblings, whereas 6.9 initiated acts of play were noted and 0.6 acts of teasing were observed each hour). The physicality of the siblings' relationship also was highlighted by the mother as the most concerning aspect of the brothers' relationship. And despite the youngest boy's contribution to the incidences of aggression and teasing (30% and 60%, respectively), greater expectations for the elder sibling's compliance to the rules was the norm, whereas displays of tenderness (e.g., rocking, soothing, carrying, holding, hugging, patting on the back, snuggling together) were more frequent between the mother and youngest sibling.

As the two boys and I [researcher] move back toward the train tracks, the youngest tries to take a bite by gripping his brother's arm tightly. The older boy wails and throws his body to the ground, flailing his arms and legs. Mom does not intervene but says, “Now he [elder] will know how it feels.” (Family C, Transcript 3, p. 3)

Overall, the three mothers' differential treatment and management of conflict may have affected and influenced the nature of interactions between the siblings themselves. Brody, Stoneman, and Burke (1987) found that maternal favoritism affected the nature of interactions among siblings—namely, when the youngest sibling was favored, siblings conversed less with one another and interacted less frequently (negatively and positively).

Moreover, the observational data hint at the possibility that the mothers' propositional attitude and personal history of teasing may have affected their perceptions of (and interventions regarding) their own children's teasing. Thus, a more explicit approach (i.e., interviews) was essential in unearthing the potential influence of parent histories and perceptions of teasing and the potential impact of those beliefs and actions as a license to tease between siblings.

FINDINGS FROM INTERVIEW DATA

First, the mothers tended to define teasing more benignly than their children did and perceived teasing as a form of play and stimulation. The mothers noted sing-song or high-pitched voices, silly behavior, making faces, or increased escalation of undesirable behavior as clear indicators of a sibling's intent to tease. Additionally, they noted that though the children's teasing was a form of manipulation, torment, and taunt, it also served as an important tool for learning norms of social interaction: “I don't really see it [teasing] as any major emotional impact right now. I think it's more of learning or practicing, I think that's it. I don't really see them emotional too much cause you know it's the moment and then they kind of forget about it” (Mother B, Interview Transcript, 2, p. 7). All mothers indicated that playful teasing was an acceptable form of teasing and a mode of teasing favored between the parent and child. Moreover, parental teasing as a means to highlight children's inappropriate behaviors (e.g., being selfish) also was considered a positive aspect of teasing.

In general, the mothers participating in the current research had three distinct perceptions of teasing. Mother A viewed teasing as typical and a natural pattern of behavior within families. She also considered teasing as a subcomponent of sibling rivalry and a function of family constellation variables (e.g., gender, and the age spacing between the children). Mother B perceived teasing as a hurtful form of interaction between her children and detrimental to their overall development, whereas Mother C regarded teasing as a rite of passage, an unavoidable aspect of childhood. Mother A and C had a history of childhood teasing, one as the recipient (Mother A) and one as an instigator (Mother C). Mother B reported no such history: “Well, I've got sisters and a brother, oh ya. So I'm the oldest one and I did most of the teasing [smiles]. But of course my father always teased us, gave us a hard time. It's part of growing [up], isn't it?” (Mother C, Interview Transcript 1, p. 4). The findings hint at a possible connection between a parent's history of childhood teasing and how she perceives and then responds to teasing among her own children: “Well, ya in the first place they learn a little patience to put up with it [teasing]. They're going to learn to deal with other people that way, too, cause they're going to get teased at school, and they have to learn how to handle that” (Mother C, Interview Transcript 1, p. 7). Each mother perceived a function to teasing, with all three parents highlighting the cognitive or social aspects of teasing.

Mother A:	=	Well, I'm sure it helps ah with their cognitive thinking [laugh], you know, their figuring out making their brains work.
Interviewer:	=	When you say figuring out, what do you mean figure out?
Mother A:	=	The situation and the best way to go about getting what they want. [Laugh] (Mother A, Interview Transcript, 2, p. 3)

Although the three mothers each discussed the emotional impact of teasing, none believed that teasing affected the children's emotional development negatively over the long term. Mother A believed that the children learned to manipulate others, assess situations, and problem-solve through teasing interactions. Mother B also stressed manipulation and negotiating power within relationships as a function of teasing.

Well, I guess they be [pause] if they always get their own way it's a bit of manipulation. If I tease enough, they'll just let me do what I want [speaking in high-pitched child's voice]. That's a bad thing, um [pause] I'm just trying to think in their little minds what they'd be thinking [pause]. Um I guess it's probably not to let themselves feel inferior. They do have that little struggle I guess in who's going you know get their own way, who's going to win. (Mother B, Interview Transcript, 2, p. 5)

Mother C perceived that the children learned tolerance, patience, and social skills through teasing scenarios. All three mothers viewed the sibling relationship as a practice ground for learning social skills that would be later transferred to the context of peer relationships.

I mean, I realize that being at home with his brothers is a different thing; that's his comfort zone, and he's got to be able to do what he wants here and learn from that. I can't take him out and let him abuse other kids so that he'll learn that he can't do that [pause] I don't know. I think he's going to surprise us, I'm hoping, I think he's probably better than what we see him as, just because we see him here most with the kids [brothers]. (Mother C, Interview Transcript, 2, p. 4)

Each of the three mothers also foresaw a role for schooling in either perpetuating or curbing their children's teasing behaviors.

For the most part, I've noticed a little bit recently that the dynamics are changing a little, and I think that's from J's [older sibling] influence from school. Because he's a, well, as you stated last week, it was the first time you saw that aggression, really, where he just whacked him [younger sibling]. And I it's just like J is definitely changing and I know it's from being around the other schoolmates it's when the boys you know they get along like [holds fingers close together] this but the other boys are really rough and tumble prankster kind of thing and I think J is, I don't know how to really describe it, it's just well like before, before you got here the reason he ended up going upstairs was to me he just wasn't being a nice person. He was doing anything he could to bug his brother and the culmination was again some kind of physical thing where his brother came crying to me. And there's different types of crying, right? I mean, you know [laugh]. (Mother A, Interview Transcript 1, p. 8)

In the autumn of the year following the data collection, five of the six children in the current study would be attending an early childhood program (likely within the school system, as children in Ontario, Canada, enter junior kindergarten at age 4). The mothers all anticipated that participation in early years programs (i.e., schooling and/or early childhood programs) would influence their children's teasing behaviors. Mothers A and C stated that their children learned some of their current teasing behaviors from the early childhood programs they attended at the time of the research (all the children frequented the play group program offered through a regional family resource program and services center; additionally, the eldest boy of Family A attended a half-day junior kindergarten program). All three mothers anticipated that early childhood programs (and schooling) would proliferate teasing as well as actively address teasing by teaching appropriate response strategies and behavior management strategies.

If there's an easy going kid there [play group] that's a little bit older, but there's a couple of kids there that as soon as I walk through the door, I say ooh oh it's gonna be a rough day. I know who he doesn't get along with and it's always the same people, and if it's not the same kids it's always the same type of kids. The ones who are more aggressive and what can you do? He'll learn, next year is going to be great! He goes to school and I'm looking forward to that. (Mother C, Interview Transcript 1, p. 8)

All three mothers indicated that a verbal response was the best strategy for children to use to counter teasing. Mother C also supported retaliation (in the form of aggression) as an appropriate response strategy for the victim of teasing. Despite the observed use of humor, emotional responses, ignoring, and combined responses by the children as teasing recipients, none of the mothers listed any of these varied responses as appropriate strategies. Furthermore, the three children to generate interview responses all indicated that enlisting help from an adult was an appropriate response strategy. Conversely, only one mother specified enlisting the help of an adult as a strategy, and this was emphasized only in relation to persistent teasing.

It is important to note that the majority (54%) of the teasing behaviors occurred while the mothers were not present. When present, the mothers responded most often either verbally (34%) or by ignoring (27%) the teasing. Other response strategies were used (such as humor or distraction), but to a much lesser extent. Verbal responses were brief and did not include discussions of the behavior or consequences of teasing or any conversation concerning the recipient's feelings of being teased.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY

The quality of siblings' social interactions tends to be a concern for most parents. Sibling conflict, aggression, teasing, arguing, and bickering appear to be routine among young sibling pairs. How parents address these behaviors can influence and affect the quality of the siblings' continued interactions. The parents in the current study often indicated that they felt ill-prepared or overburdened in addressing their children's conflicts, teasing, and aggressive behaviors.

Teasing is a complex behavior that is often confused with bullying and aggression in the literature and by society in general. Here, too, the mothers participating in this research used the terms teasing and bullying interchangeably. In general, parents should be encouraged to use the language of teasing to define, label, and help their children understand the implications of teasing and their own behavior. For example, when one child uses name-calling, a parent can label this behavior as teasing and highlight the potential hurtfulness of this teasing. Parents also can use emotional and mental state terms to describe children's behaviors and feelings in connection to teasing (e.g., a parent can respond, “It sounds like what your brother said really hurt your feelings” in response to a teasing episode).

Although all three mothers of the current study had a clear definition of what constituted teasing, rarely did they define and label their children's behavior as such while it was occurring. Defining and labeling teasing behavior facilitates children's understanding of what is teasing (Froschl & Sprung, 2005). Young children can learn to differentiate between words and actions that are hurtful versus those that make others laugh and feel positive (i.e., making fun vs. having fun). Through discussions, parents can model that the home is a safe environment for talking about teasing and feelings about being teased, and help to expose the often hidden culture of childhood teasing.

Teasing exists in various forms and can be differentiated from bullying. Some parents may not be aware of the various forms of teasing (e.g., verbal, nonverbal, hurtful, playful) or the subtleties that differentiate teasing from bullying. Moreover, some response strategies may be effective in countering and negating the more negative effects of teasing (e.g., verbal, ignore, empathy inducing, humorous, or hostile responses). However, evidence to show the effectiveness of any response strategy has yet to be established (Lightner et al., 2000). Yet parents often coach their children to respond verbally (e.g., the parents in the current study) or by ignoring it (e.g., the adults in Shapiro et al.'s study, 1991). Parents and adults in general need to be aware of the varied strategies that are available and practice these strategies alongside children (Freedman, 2002). Children can then be empowered and equipped to find multiple ways of responding to teasing.

The three mothers of the current study perceived teasing as an influence on their children's social and cognitive development. However, none perceived a negative impact of teasing on the children's emotional developmental. Parents need to be aware of the emotional impact of teasing on children's development and the potential long-term detrimental effects of persistent, hostile teasing. Similar to bullying, children who are the victim of persistent hostile teasing can experience exclusion, social rejection, and internalizing difficulties (e.g., depression, loneliness) (Rubin, Coplan, Nelson, Cheah, & Lagace-Seguin, 1999). Preparing one's children for teasing scenarios at home and in their wider social networks requires a well-informed parent.

Information on teasing among siblings (and young children) needs to be disseminated through a variety of avenues, including parent education programs, parent cooperative training groups, parent associations in schools, teen parenting programs, parent websites, family resource programs, libraries, schools, and family magazines. Teasing as a focused topic of information and parent education could highlight the elements of a tease (i.e., intentional provocation, off-record markers, and relevance to target), as well as the differences between teasing and bullying. Teasing and bullying are often two distinct acts with divergent motivations, goals, and outcomes (Mills & Carwile, 2009). Perhaps, parents (like educators) need to explicitly address the play possibilities inherent in teasing and foster their children's abilities to discern these humorous and playful interpretations of teasing exchanges (Mills & Carwile, 2009). Moreover, information on why children tease, the content of children's teases, effective response strategies to teasing, and how parents can discuss teasing with their children could be disseminated through the various avenues discussed.

CONCLUSION

Three distinct portraits of the families emerged in the current study and provided a glimpse into the experiences of these families as they addressed and dealt with a common sibling phenomenon—teasing. Mothers were absent for the majority of the children's teasing. Despite this, the mothers were aware of it and stated that teasing occurred between their children. The results of the interviews with parents indicated that they perceive teasing as having social and cognitive functions in children's development, schooling and early childhood programs facilitate and act as a resource for children learning about teasing and teasing prevention, and personal history influences parents' perceptions and responses to teasing. Given that young children closely monitor their parents' interactions with a sibling, and the potential influence of propositional attitude and personal history of the parent on approaches to intervening in their children's teasing encounters, more research is required. Additionally, given the significance of the father's impact on sibling relationship quality found in previous studies (Brody & Stoneman, 1994; Brody, Stoneman, & McCoy, 1992), how a father might mediate or collude with teasing behaviors of siblings would be an avenue for future research. In general, how parents' interactions with their children, differential treatment, and conflict management affect teasing behavior between siblings remains unanswered.

However, given that children themselves are more likely to ascribe hurt feelings and an emotional affect of teasing than what their mothers described in the interview responses of the current study, perhaps parents unwittingly minimize the emotional impact of young children's teasing. Conceivably, as adults experience more benign forms of teasing in adulthood, the emotional experience for the child might be underestimated. The findings of the current study are limited by the small sample size. However, the three family cases of the current study provided a window of understanding, and the findings can be used to inform future research of sibling teasing. Individual readers are invited to seek out patterns and similarities to explain their own experiences with the phenomenon of teasing and apply these insights to other cases or situations and future research.

Teasing is a complex relational phenomenon, much more than a “rite of passage” or something that has to be endured in childhood. As Keltner et al. (1998) emphasized, “Teasing lies on a perilous boundary between aggression and play and can increase intimacy and integrate members into groups or through subtle changes of form become a vehicle of victimization and ostracism” (p. 1244). Parents can foster their children's abilities and awareness of the nuanced subtleties that differentiate teasing from more aggressive and cruel forms of teasing. As the current study indicated, nonverbal indicators or off-record markers provided contextual cues that can be used in the framing of teasing as hurtful or playful. The mothers and children made references to several of these indicators (e.g., sing-song chant, laughter, silly faces) as clear markers of teasing. Additionally, positive interactions and continued play between the siblings did occur after some teasing incidences dependent on the specifics of those markers (e.g., laughter) and the recipient's response strategy (e.g., humorous responses). Thus, it is imperative that parents avoid the “pedantic rhetoric about the harms of teasing” (Katz, Selman, & Mason, 2008, p. 478) and instead embrace a broader view of teasing and the potential contribution to children's social skill development.

Teasing involves skills of social understanding, understanding of intention, pretense, nonliteral communication, and emotion regulation. Parents need to provide a license of empowerment—that is, they should equip their children with a variety of response strategies, as well as the ability to distinguish between hurtful teasing and playful teasing. If need be, they can intervene and halt the intergenerational cycles of use and acceptance of teasing as a rite of passage of childhood. Then, children will be well-equipped to cope with teasing scenarios, within the family unit and in their ever-burgeoning social network.

Appendix A

Vignette 2

Date: Observation Day Jan. 23, 2006

Time: 12:55 p.m.—2:10 p.m. Visit = 1 hr 15 min.

Setting: Home of Family A—main living room/dining room area.

Codes: Family A: mom, J1 (3 year old), J2 (4 year old), D-researcher

J1 & J2 converse on the play phone-tape time 8M30S

J1—“Hi J2.” J2—“I need some help; will you come help me, please?” J1—“Can I tell you a joke?” J2 continues to hold the phone to his ear and roots through the train box, he mumbles something. J1—“Why did the cracker go across the road?” J2—“Didn't you hear me say no?” J1 louder and a silly high-pitched voice—“Why did the cracker go across the road?” J2—“Mmhm I don't know.” J1 slams down the phone laughing. J2 hangs up his phone and shrugs, turns back to building the train track. J1 says to me—“He doesn't want to listen.” I point to J2 and his track building and explain to J1 that J2 is busy building track. J2 asks me again, quietly, “Please, can you help.” J1 makes a loud ringing noise again “RING RING SAYS D'S PHONE.” I answer my phone again with a “Hello.” J1—“Hi D.” D—“Oh hello, J1, are you coming over to build track?” J1—“Good bye” and hangs up phone. J1 moves off to the trains with J2 after hanging up the phone, offering J2 a piece of track to use. I join them and help to assemble the track. The three of us converse about how to assemble the track. J2 says, “J1 this is supposed to be yours” and tries to hand J1 a curved piece of track. J2 tries to pull the piece of track J1 is holding from his hand. J1 squeals in angry protest. J2 screams with a rigid body and pulls hard “GIVE ME THAT PIECE!” J1 pulls hard in the other direction and screams loudly. Both scream and tug the piece in opposite directions. Mom is building the foam puzzle beside us, and says quietly, “Boys, calm down.” J2 cries in frustration, “I need that straight piece.” Mom says, “How about you ask J1 nicely, you say J1 could you please put this piece here so we can finish the track?” J2 crumbles onto himself and whimpers out a cry. Mom—“It works a lot better than yelling or hitting, sweetie.” J2 cries in distress. Mom—“ya you know he likes to take the pieces to bug you.” J2 cries very distraughtly. J1 says “It won't work.” I add, “Ya, it's not working there but you know what if you ask J2 he can probably help you and tell you which direction … it could go here.” J1 places the track as J2 has moved off beside mom and cries intensely. Mom offers, “You wanna help me with the roof or are you going back to the trains?” [refers to the foam puzzle she is building]. J1 and I are building the track and conversing about where to lay specific pieces. [Dog barks angrily.] J1 asks me “Move your knee” and pushes on my leg as he quickly assembles track underneath my body. I laughingly retort, “How fast do you think I can move my knee?” He pushes on my knee again, saying, “That fast.” We both laugh.

Researcher's Comments

J2 seems more easily agitated today than usual. Typically, he demonstrates a “go with the flow” kind of personality. He seeks more comfort from mom today than what I have previously observed. Increasingly in the past couple of home visits, I have noted slight changes in his demeanor (less talkative, more aggressive toward J1, and today less tolerant and more easily upset). I am curious about what is precipitating this change. Is it an anomaly and next week he'll be back to his old self, is it indicative of the developmental changes, or have I exhausted my welcome and the excitement of my visits have waned?

Appendix B

Interview Guide for Use With Parents

A. Questions

Grand Tour

Tell me about your experience of family life with two young children under the age of 6.

General Attitude on Their Children's Relationship

How would you describe your children's relationship with each other?

Can you provide an example or short story that would provide a “picture” of this relationship?

What do you see as the most beneficial aspect of their relationship?

What concerns you most about this relationship?

Transition Message

From what I've just heard you say … this is how you would describe your children's relationships. …

General Attitude on Nature & Form of Teasing

How would you define teasing?

What has been your personal experience with teasing (from childhood)?

How do you use teasing in your relationship with your child? Partner? Other relationships?

How do you tell the difference between playful teasing and hurtful teasing?

Responses to Teasing

What do you think is the best way for your child to respond to teasing?

If you were going to give advice to another parent, what would you say was the best way to handle teasing?

Transition Message

I'm summarizing what you've just described as what you mean by teasing as. …

Perceptions on the Functions (i.e., intent) of Teasing

What do you think was going on when your child was observed____(cite specific example of teasing from observations)?

What do you think your children learn through teasing?

How would you describe the impact of teasing on your children's social learning? Emotional learning?

Transition Message

This is my interpretation of what I just heard you say the functions of teasing are. …

Probes

Can you tell me more about that? (specific to what was just said) and/or What did you mean by…?

Close

Do you have anything more to add?

B. Family Variables—Adult to Identify (√)

Education Level:

Degree/diploma or higher ____

Professional/trade certification ____

High school ____

No qualifications ____

Occupational Class:

Professional (e.g., doctor) ____

Managerial/technical (e.g., teacher, computer tech) ____

Skilled/nonmanual (e.g., secretary, clerk) ____

Skilled/manual (e.g., hairdresser, carpenter) ___

Semiskilled (e.g., gardener, security guard) ___

Unskilled (e.g., cleaner, laborer) ___

Other (please identify)_____________________