| From nicknames and banter to physical pestering and making faces, teasing communicates feelings of affection, acceptance, hostility, and criticism. Not surprisingly, teasing is a double-edged sword: it has the ability to bring people closer or create rifts in relationships. Unfortunately, the cues that distinguish the two consequences are ambiguous and difficult to decipher.;Despite the pervasiveness of teasing in human interactions and its potential for impacting social relations, there are many unknowns regarding the nature of everyday teasing. Using the daily-diary method, this dissertation provides a descriptive analysis of everyday teasing.;Two hundred thirty-two participants reported on their behavior on three specific days and recorded all social interactions that involved teasing. For each tease, participants provided a narrative description and completed a questionnaire addressing four tease components: (1) the context in which the tease took place; (2) the teasers' actions and the targets' responses; (3) tease motives; and (4) tease consequences.;This study expanded on previous research by testing hypotheses about the ways that role (teaser versus target), sex, ethnicity, and personality influence the perception of a tease. With regard to these independent variables, I found that the perceived meaning of a tease (e.g., whether it was hostile or friendly) was more a matter of interpretation than the objective content of the tease. Across role, sex, ethnicity, and personality, objective qualities of teasing, including behavior, did not differ. Individuals' interpretations of the meaning and impact of teasing, however, showed considerable variation across each of the independent variables.;As expected from relevant theory concerning social identity and interdependence, teasers (rather than targets), females (rather than males), and Asians (rather than Caucasians) responded to teasing most positively---they were more likely to describe teases with affiliation motives and prosocial consequences. Contradicting findings in the literature on children, personality analyses indicated that frequent targets tended to be Agreeable. Further, people high on Agreeableness but low on Neuroticism were more likely to report prosocial teasing experiences. Discussion focuses on the role of attribution and self-construal in determining perceptions of teasing. |
