NORMS FOR TEASING Norms for Teasing Among College Students Since teases are ambiguous and can cause distress, it is essential when engaging in playful and affectionate teasing to understand the norms for acceptable teasing. The present study surveyed beliefs concerning prescriptive and descriptive norms for teasing among 101 male and 88 female college students. A number of topics were viewed as unacceptable for teasing, with women feeling more strongly than men about their unacceptability. Among topics that college students do tease about frequently, a high percentage were found to be more closely associated with the teasing of one sex than the other. Men were expected to take harsher teasing, to experience being less upset by teasing, and to be more likely to reciprocate the teasing. Keywords: teasing, norms, sex differences 1
NORMS FOR TEASING Norms for Teasing Among College Students Teasing is a pervasive form of social interaction, and becomes particularly important during adolescence. Eder calls playful teasing an essential part of adolescent culture (1991, p. 184). Teasing is a means of establishing solidarity within a group at a time when group membership is of considerable importance. Perhaps even more significant, teasing serves to signal interest in a potential romantic partner without doing so explicitly, which thereby avoids risking face loss if the interest is not welcome (Eder, 1991). The goal of the present study was to explore norms for teasing among a group of late adolescents, college students. Because these individuals have recently entered a new environment and therefore are forging new relationships with members of both sexes, teasing has the potential to serve the same important functions for college students that it does for younger adolescents. Understanding the social norms for teasing is important, because even when teasing is intended by the instigator to be playful and affectionate, it may have precisely the opposite impact. By social norms, we refer to shared proscriptions for behavior that are accepted by a majority of group members and enforced by informal or formal sanctions (Guerra, Huesmann, & Hanish, 1995, p. 142). This study explores both injunctions concerning what is acceptable behavior as well as descriptive norms, or characterizations of what behaviors are typical for the group in question. The possibility of a teasing episode s having unintended consequences is not surprising when one considers the essential nature of a tease. We follow the definition offered by Keltner and his 2
NORMS FOR TEASING colleagues:...we define a tease as an intentional provocation accompanied by playful off-record markers that together comment on something relevant to the target.... a tease involves an act, either verbal or nonverbal, that is intended to have some effect on the target. The off-record component of the tease accounts for the humorous nature of the teasing as well as its ambiguity.... (Keltner, Capps, Kring, Young, & Heerey, 2001, p. 236) Since the provocation that constitutes the core of the tease often seems critical of the target of the tease, the off-record markers (such as a tone of voice, wink, or obvious exaggeration made in the act of provocation) are crucial to understanding the intent. If the target 1 believes that the provocation was meant to be playful rather than hostile, then the impact of the teasing episode may well be positive. However, if the off-record markers do not lead the target to interpret the episode in a nonliteral manner, then the impact can be quite negative. A number of factors can contribute to a less favorable interpretation of a tease than intended. One such factor is the inability to distinguish between the literal and intended meaning of an utterance. Keltner et al. (2001) argue that it may not be until early adolescence that children are capable of understanding multiple, contradictory intentions and therefore able to tease in more playful ways than do younger children. Barnett and colleagues (Barnett, Burns, Sanborn, Bartel, & Wilds, 2004) corroborate this view; they found that in middle school, children become more aware that teasing can be prosocial rather than predominately antisocial. Similarly, Shapiro (1991) reported that children who recognized that teasing could be either good or bad (as compared to the prevailing view of young 3
NORMS FOR TEASING children that teasing is bad) rose markedly from third through eighth grades. Thus, it seems clear that a certain level of sociolinguistic sophistication is necessary to participate effectively in playful teasing. A second cluster of factors that influence the interpretation of a tease is associated with the target of the tease (these attributes might apply as well to observers if it were their view being investigated). Kowalski (2004) presented a useful summary of characteristics of the target that influence the way in which a particular teasing episode is understood. Negative readings are more likely among individuals with strong presentational concerns, those who are sensitive to the possibility of rejection, and individuals with particular configurations of the Big Five personality constructs. In addition to these personality attributes, Kowalski identified additional features associated with the target that impact the interpretation of the tease: the degree to which a target s prior history with teasing has been positive or negative, the mood of the target at the time of the tease, and the nature of the relationship between the instigator and target. Further, Kowalski noted that the context, particularly the presence of an audience, may increase the possibility of a negative reading of the intent of a tease. Beyond factors associated with the particular target of the tease, it seems clear that a set of norms governs the boundaries of acceptable teasing within the group of individuals involved. Although not explicitly articulated, most socially sensitive individuals behave according to a set of implicit guidelines when teasing others. For instance, it may be understood by all members of a group that it is acceptable to tease someone about being tardy to meet the group, but altogether unacceptable to tease someone about having received a failing grade. Understanding the boundaries of acceptable teasing is a significant component of social knowledge within a group. Consequently, a primary purpose of the 4
NORMS FOR TEASING present project was to explore norms and beliefs about teasing among college students. A second goal of this study was to explore the role that sex of the participants plays in the norms for teasing among college students. Two questions were of interest, whether the norms for acceptable teasing are contingent upon the sex of the target, and whether college men and women differ in what they believe constitutes acceptable teasing of any individual, regardless of sex. These questions arose from a limited but growing body of work that suggests that females respond less positively to teasing than do males. There is evidence that girls react more negatively than do boys to hostile or antisocial teasing (Grills & Ollendick, 2002; Simmons, 2002). This is not surprising, since Crick and colleagues argue that girls are generally more vulnerable than boys to relational aggression because of the high value that they place on relationships (Crick & Cassas, 1997). In fact, Kowalski (2004) contends that boys teasing generally involves direct put-downs, and so boys learn not to take teasing seriously until it reaches a particularly disparaging level. Eder (1991) extends the position to claim that not only do boys learn to absorb more teasing than do girls, but that they expect others to share this resiliency, and are therefore less concerned than girls about embarrassing another through teasing. Among adults as well as children, evidence suggests that women respond less favorably to teasing than do men. Hay (2000) argues that humor functions differently in the conversations of men and women, and that jocular insults, a type of tease, are viewed as more appropriate among males than among females, and that there is evidence that boys tone down their humor when interacting with girls. Bollmer, Harris, Milich, and Georgesen (2003) compared reactions of undergraduates who had been 5
NORMS FOR TEASING 6 teased by a confederate with those who had not, and found that women, but not men, reported that the interaction went less well when teasing had occurred. Moreover, women reacted more negatively than did men to induced teasing from their romantic partners (Keltner, Young, Heerey, Oemig, & Monarch, 1998). Consequently, what is considered acceptable teasing among college students may depend on whether the target is a man or a woman. Further, college men and women may differ in their perceptions of what is acceptable, regardless of whether the target is male or female. For instance, Hay (2000) reported that sometimes women disapprove of the manner in which their male partners tease their own male friends, thinking it to be too harsh. Wood (1999) characterized women s speech as a primary way to establish and maintain relationships with others, (p. 124), which may lead them to have more conservative views of what kinds of teasing are acceptable. Consequently, a final purpose of the current project was to explore whether the perceptions of men and women regarding norms of teasing among college men and women differ. The objectives described above led to the following specific research questions: R1: Among college students, are there common topics that are viewed as unacceptable for teasing? R2: Do college men and women differ in their views on the unacceptability of teasing about particular topics? R3: Among college students, are there topics that are more commonly associated with teasing of one sex or the other?
NORMS FOR TEASING 7 R4: Do college men and women differ in their views of how sex-linked particular topics of teasing are? R5: Among college students, do the general beliefs concerning teasing depend on whether the target is a man or a woman? R6: Do male and female college students differ in their general beliefs concerning teasing? Method Participants Students enrolled in beginning level courses in speech communication at a large Midwestern state university were invited to participate midway through the Fall term. One hundred one males and 88 females participated, although numbers vary in particular analyses due to incomplete responses. The group consisted of 78.4% freshmen, 15.8% sophomores, 3.2% juniors, 2.6 % seniors. The mean age was 18.55 years. Questionnaire Only sections of the questionnaire relevant to the research questions outlined above are described. Specific items were derived from open-ended responses obtained in a pretest completed by students from the same group as that used in the main study. Acceptability of topics for teasing. Six topics (see Table 1) that emerged from the pretest as ones commonly mentioned as inappropriate for teasing were presented to participants in the form Is it acceptable to tease about things a person can t control? and Is it acceptable to tease about sexual preference or orientation? Participants then responded on a five-point scale: all the time = 5; frequently
NORMS FOR TEASING 8 = 4; sometimes = 3; rarely = 2; never = 1. Sex-linked topics for teasing. Participants were asked to evaluate whether men or women were more likely to be teased about the twenty-five topics (see Table 2) that were the most frequently mentioned as being involved in teasing episodes among college students. who participated in the pretest. Among the items were which sex, if either, is teased more about having lots of sexual partners, drinking too much, or being dumb. The scale used to rate the topics consisted of five categories: 5 = only guys; 4 = usually guys; 3 = equally likely; 2 = usually girls; and 1 = only girls 2. General beliefs about teasing. A series of questions which reflected common themes emerging from the pretest was designed to probe general beliefs about frequency of practices of teasing and reactions to it. The scale used for this task was 5 = all the time; 4 = frequently; 3 = sometimes; 2 = rarely; 1 = never. Frequency was assessed for items such as Are you teased? Do guys show that they re upset about being teased? and Do girls tease back? All items appear in either Table 3 or 4. Procedure Questionnaires were administered during regularly scheduled classes. Following explanation of the project, consent forms were distributed and collected. Participants then completed the questionnaire at their own pace, but in no case did this exceed 25 minutes. Results Acceptability of topics for teasing. A 2 (sex of the participant) x 6 (topics) analysis of variance was conducted, with topics being a repeated measure variable. A significant main effect for topic emerged: F (5, 930) = 17.69, p <.00, partial eta squared =.09. A significant main effect for sex
NORMS FOR TEASING 9 was found as well: F (1, 186) = 14.22, p <.00, partial eta squared =.07. In addition, a significant interaction occurred between topic and sex: F (5, 930) = 2.80, p <.02, partial eta squared =.02 As is evident from the means (See Table 1), all six topics were considered generally unacceptable for teasing. The least acceptable topics were things the individual can t control, race, and religion. Thus, the first research question was answered affirmatively: clearly there are issues that college students find unacceptable as topics for teasing. Further, women found all of the topics less acceptable for teasing than did men, with the difference between the sexes being significant for five of the six topics and approaching significance for the sixth (religion). For women, there was no significant difference among the topics in terms of their acceptability for teasing, whereas men saw somewhat greater distinctions among the acceptability of the topics. Hence, the second research question was also answered affirmatively: women view some issues as even less acceptable topics for teasing than do men. Sex-linked topics for teasing. To determine whether college students believe that one sex is more likely than the other to be teased about particular topics, the overall means for all topics were tested for being significantly different from the mean on the scale (the mean indicated that the two sexes were equally likely to be teased about the topic). Results appear in Table 2. Fourteen of the 25 topics were viewed as ones that males were more likely to be teased about than females. These included being a wimp, having a big ego, being lazy, and being too short. Five of the topics were seen as ones that were more commonly linked to teasing of females. These included being high maintenance, having lots of sexual partners, and being too tall. Only six of the 25 topics were not viewed as associated with
NORMS FOR TEASING 10 the teasing of one sex more than the other. Consequently, the third research question was answered affirmatively: the majority of topics that college students mention as common objects for teasing tend to be associated more strongly with one sex than the other. To ascertain whether men and women have different views concerning the sex-linked nature of the 25 topics presented, a multivariate analysis of variance was conducted with sex of the participant as an independent variable. The analysis revealed a significant main effect for sex: Pillais Trace F (25, 152) = 4.32, p <.05, partial eta squared =.42. Table 2 presents the differences in views of male and female participants. Six of the 14 topics that were more closely associated with the teasing of men yielded a significant difference in the perceptions by men and women. In five of these cases (being lazy, being girly, being a slob, bodily functions, and getting bad grades), men saw the link to their sex as stronger than women did. Only for being teased about being too short did women see the link with the male sex as stronger than did the men themselves. For two of the five topics that were associated with greater teasing of women than men (not being stylish and being too tall), women viewed the link as significantly stronger than did men. Thus, the fourth research question is answered affirmatively; men and women do differ in their views of whether specific topics are linked more to the teasing of one sex than the other. In general, members of the sex that is generally believed to be more likely to be teased about a topic see the association with their sex to be stronger than do members of the other sex. General beliefs about teasing of college men and women. Table 3 displays the overall means for the first set of questions pertaining to general beliefs and expectations regarding teasing of college men and women. Among the group as a whole, there was no clear belief that one sex is teased
NORMS FOR TEASING 11 more than the other. However, there was consensus that guys are expected to take harsher teasing than girls. The remaining questions that compared general beliefs about teasing for men and women were addressed in a multiple analysis of variance. Participant sex was treated as an independent groups variable and referent sex (i.e., whether the question referred to men or women) and questions as repeated measures variables. Pillais Trace revealed significant effects for question [F (3, 177) = 88.38, p <.00, partial eta squared =.60], the interaction of referent sex and question [F (3, 177) = 213.00, p <.00, partial eta squared =.78], and the interaction of participant sex and question [F (3, 177) = 4.55, p <.00, partial eta squared =.07]. Univariate analyses of variance conducted separately for each of the four questions revealed that for every question, there was a significant main effect for the referent sex; i.e., participants in general had different views about men and women. Means appear in Table 4. For the question concerning whether the target of teasing showed that they were upset, the main effect for sex of the referent was highly significant: F (1, 182) = 327.37, p <.00, partial eta squared =.64. For the question regarding whether the target of teasing actually feels upset when teased, the main effect for sex of the referent was again highly significant: F (1, 183) = 175.35, p <.00, partial eta squared =.49. The participants believed that women actually experience as well as display being more upset than do men as a result of being teased. The question regarding the likelihood of a target of teasing to tease in return again yielded a significant main effect for referent sex: F (1, 184) = 145.51, p <.00, partial eta squared =.44. The participants indicated that it is considerably more likely that men will
NORMS FOR TEASING 12 reciprocate a tease than will women. Finally, the question asking about the use of crude or sexually explicit language when teasing yielded a main effect for referent sex: F (1, 184) = 387.36, p <.00, partial eta squared =.68. The prevailing view was that men are substantially more likely than women to use crude and sexually explicit language when teasing. Taken together, the questions used to address the fifth research question yield strong evidence that college students in this study viewed men and women as acting and reacting differently in teasing episodes. Compared to women, men were expected to take harsher teasing, to both experience and display being upset less, to be more likely to reciprocate the tease, and to be more likely to use crude and sexually explicit language. The final research question asked whether college men and women differ in the general beliefs just described. To this end, the first three general questions (see Table 3) were subjected to a multiple analysis of variance with sex of the participant as an independent variable. Pillais Trace revealed a significant effect for sex: F (3, 185) = 5.63, p <.000, partial eta squared =.08. Results of univariate analyses of variance as well as means appear in Table 3. Male and female participants did not differ in their views regarding whether college students like to be teased, but male participants agreed more strongly more than did female participants that guys get more teasing and are expected to take harsher teasing than are girls. Among the responses to the four questions that appear in Table 4, only one produced a significant difference in the views of men and women. For the question regarding the use of crude or sexually explicit language, there was a significant interaction between the sex of the referent and the sex
NORMS FOR TEASING 13 of the participant: F (1, 184) = 3.82, p <.05, partial eta squared =.02. Men believed more strongly than did women that men are more likely to use crude and sexually explicit language. To summarize results relevant to the final research question, the view that men are expected to take harsher teasing and that they use crude and sexually explicit language, are held more strongly by men than by women. Moreover, even though there was no generally held belief that men get teased more than do women, men felt that this is true. Discussion Two considerations are relevant to interpreting results from the present study. First, the participants were homogenous; they were largely first-year students at a large Midwestern state university. The social norms that exist within this group are not necessarily shared by all college students. For instance, students at colleges with religious affiliations, where there may be an emphasis on avoiding hurting the feelings of others and on abstaining from use of crude language, might tease less and be more constrained in the manner in which they tease. However, our view of social norms is that norms are unique to particular groups. Consequently, while there may be some norms that are widely shared across groups, others may be idiosyncratic to particular groups. A second consideration is that the domains in which norms were explored were limited primarily to topics and to global beliefs about teasing. A more extensive probing of college students beliefs might well reveal a wider range of norms, such as beliefs concerning the nature of the relationships in which teasing is appropriate and kinds of individuals (e.g., those with low self esteem or disabilities) who should be off-limits to teasing.
NORMS FOR TEASING 14 Nevertheless, a number of useful conclusions can be drawn from the current study. The college students involved in this study held clear prescriptive norms regarding topics that are unacceptable for teasing. Topics considered generally unacceptable for teasing included appearance, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, and race, with things that a person cannot control being viewed as most unacceptable for teasing. The topics that were considered off-limits (except in rare cases) were attributes of the individual which could not be controlled or that were central to the very being of the individual. Further, within the group of students involved in the present study, a number of sex-related descriptive norms emerged, all of which reflected general stereotypes of each sex. Of the 25 topics that pretesting revealed as common topics for teasing among college students, over half were associated more closely with the teasing of males than of females. The stereotype of masculinity or manliness encompassed a number of these male-linked topics: men were seen as more likely than women to be teased about being a wimp, being too short, the ability to get a date, being girly, having poor athletic ability, not drinking enough, and holding liquor poorly. Other male-linked topics suggested that men were to avoid extremes in their pursuit of success; they were subject to teasing about both being a nerd and getting bad grades. In general, men were seen as likely to be teased about a wider range of topics than were women. Although this does not necessarily indicate that men are teased more frequently, it does suggest that compared to women, men appeared to be open to teasing about a wider range of attributes and behaviors. The topics associated with teasing of females reflected attributes commonly associated with a female stereotype of physical attractiveness: being fat, not being stylish, and being too tall. The other
NORMS FOR TEASING 15 topics that were female-linked having lots of sexual partners and being high maintenance seem consistent with expectations for women generally. Interestingly, the belief that particular topics were associated with one sex more than the other was frequently held more strongly by members of the sex with which the topic was connected. Teasing about these sex-linked topics may occur more frequently by a member of the same sex than the other sex, which would lead members of the other sex to be less aware of the extent of a specific type of teasing. If so, it may be that members of each sex bear more responsibility than the other sex for perpetuating the stereotypes of their own sex. Further, it may be that the norms for teasing members of one s own sex differ than those for teasing members of the other sex, a distinction that could be important to observe. One can imagine that a male college student might be more offended if a young woman teased him about his poor athletic ability or about being girly than if a male peer instigated such teasing. Even more striking sex-related descriptive norms were apparent in the general beliefs. College students in the present study felt that, compared to women, men were substantially less likely to show that they were upset and to actually experience being upset, but more likely to reciprocate teasing and to use crude and sexually explicit language. These views buttress earlier findings based on specific instances of teasing that men are less negatively impacted by teasing than are women (Bollmer, et al., 2003; Keltner, et al., 1998). Open-ended comments from both men and women from the pretest reflect these differences just described. In referring to differences between men and women when teased, one male participant
NORMS FOR TEASING 16 wrote, Men take it as a joke and in good, clean fun women take it very seriously and take offense. A woman characterized the difference this way: Women get upset men usually shrug things off or take action. Results of the present study also suggest that women may view teasing less favorably than do men even when they are not the target. For instance, of the six topics that college students found generally unacceptable for teasing, on all but one of these, women saw the topics as significantly more unacceptable than did men. In the pretest one woman wrote, No one should be teased. Think about how you would feel yourself. If, as it appears, women react more negatively than do men when they are the target of a tease, women may assume that others respond in a similar manner and want to avoid hurting another individual or damaging relationships. This view is consistent with the anecdotal evidence offered by Hay (2000) that women sometimes feel that their male partners are too harsh in the manner in which they tease other men. Much of the research on the impact of teasing has centered on the effects on the target and the instigator, but it may be that the impact on bystanders is important to consider as well. Perhaps the most significant implication of the present study is that it underscores the importance of understanding norms for teasing. Effective communication of any sort requires knowledge of the relevant norms, even for something as simple as knowing that one is expected to respond to a greeting from another member of the community. One key question, then, is how individuals acquire the relevant norms, particularly when they enter new social contexts. For instance, the present study suggests that 18-year-old college men have learned that it may be prudent to be more constrained in teasing their
NORMS FOR TEASING 17 female than their male peers. As one male participant involved in the pretest put it when asked if there are topics to avoid in teasing, Weight would be a topic to avoid, especially with girls. Come to think of it, pretty much all topics should be avoided when teasing girls. This young man has learned to be cautious in teasing women, but has not yet learned what kinds of playful teasing are acceptable with women, which is important to know, since playful teasing plays an important role in building intimacy in romantic couples (Baxter, 1992). Younger adolescent males, who have spent most of their childhood interacting far more with male than female peers, may be even less aware of differences in the reactions of the sexes to teasing. More generally, any individual may risk offense in teasing a member of a group whose norms are not well understood. The power of teasing is enormous. Georgesen and colleagues state that teasing can scar individuals, causing anguish that can persist into adulthood (Georgesen, Harris, Milich, & Young, 1999, 1254). Consequently, understanding the boundaries of acceptable teasing is crucial social knowledge.
NORMS FOR TEASING 18 Notes 1 Although much of the argument presented in this paper is relevant to both observers and targets, the focus will be on interpretation of teasing by the target of the tease. 2 The terms guys and girls were used because these are the terms that were used with greatest frequency in response to open-ended questions in the pretest.
NORMS FOR TEASING 19 References Barnett, M. A., Burns, S. R., Sanborn, F. W., Bartel, J. S., & Wilds, S. J. (2004). Antisocial and prosocial teasing among children: Perceptions and individual differences, Social Development, 13, 292-310. Baxter, L. A. (1992). Forms and functions of intimate play in personal relationships, Human Communication Research, 18, 336-363. Bollmer, J. M., Harris, M. J., Milich, R., & Georgesen, J. (.2003). Taking offense: Effects of Personality and teasing history on behavioral and emotional reactions to teasing, Journal of Personality, 71, 557-603. Crick, N. R., & Casas, J. F. (1997). Relational and overt aggression in preschool, Developmental Psychology, 33, 579-588. Eder, D. (1991). The role of teasing in adolescent peer group culture. In S. E. Cahill, P. A. Adler, & P. Adler (Eds.) Sociological studies of child development (pp. 181-197). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Georgesen, J. C., Harris, M. J., Milich, R., & Young, J. (1999). Just teasing... Personality effects on perceptions and life narratives of childhood teasing, Personality and Social Psychology
NORMS FOR TEASING 20 Bulletin, 25, 1254-1267. Grills, A. E., & Ollendick, T. H (2002). Peer victimization, global self-worth, and anxiety in middleschool children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 59-68. Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., & Hanish, L. (1995). The role of normative beliefs in children s social behavior. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.) Social Development (pp. 140-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press. Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women, Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 709-742. Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychology Bulletin, 127, 229-248. Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., & Monarch, N. D. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1231-1247. Kowalski, R. M. (2004). Proneness to, perceptions of, and responses to testing: The influence of both intrapersonal and interpersonal factors European Journal of Personality, 18, 331-349. Shapiro, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Kessler, J. W. (1991). A three-component model of children s teasing: Aggressions, humor, and ambiguity, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 459-472. Simmons, R. (2002). Odd girl out: The hidden culture of aggression in girls. New York: Harcourt. Wood, J. T. (1999). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture (3 rd ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
NORMS FOR TEASING 21 Table 1 Acceptability of Topics for Teasing Topic Overall Means Views of Male and Female Participants Males Females p partial eta 2 Appearance 2.06 a 2.27 1.85.00.05 Sexual orient. 1.98 ab 2.28 1.69.00.09 Ethnicity 1.81 abc 2.04 1.59.00.06 Religion 1.74 bc 1.84 1.63.07.02 Race 1.73 bc 1.95 1.52.00.06 Can t control 1.65 c 1.81 1.48.01.04 Note. Scores ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (all the time). Subscripts of overall means that differ from each other indicate significant differences between the means. The remaining columns refer to the difference in views of male and female participants.
NORMS FOR TEASING 22 Table 2 Comparison of Which Sex is More Likely to be Teased about a Variety of Topics Topic Overall Mean Comparison of Views of Male and Female Participants Being a wimp 4.10 M 4.15 4.01.11.02 Having a big ego 3.71 M 3.67 3.75.48.00 Being lazy 3.66 M 3.79 3.54.00.04 Being too short 3.63 M 3.48 3.76.01.04 Ability to get date 3.56 M 3.59 3.51.40.00 Being girly 3.55 M 3.83 3.22.00.08 Poor athletic ability 3.48 M 3.55 3.39.26.00 Being a slob 3.36 M 3.48 3.23.02.03 Being a nerd 3.33 M 3.36 3.29.41.00 Not drink enough 3.32 M 3.34 3.25.46.00
NORMS FOR TEASING 23 Being sensitive 3.19 M 3.26 3.11.36.00 Bodily functions 3.18 M 3.34 3.06.04.02 Holds liquor poorly 3.16 M 3.24 3.04.06.02 Getting bad grades 3.14 M 3.23 3.05.01.04 Not go out enough 3.03 3.12 2.93.00.05 Getting good grades 3.01 2.92 3.11.02.03 Drinking too much 2.99 3.09 2.87.02.03 Studying too much 2.95 2.98 2.92.39.00 Being dumb 2.94 3.07 2.81.01.04 Going out too much 2.93 3.06 2.77.00.06 Being fat 2.69 F 2.72 2.69.60.00 Not being stylish 2.60 F 2.78 2.41.00.07 Being too tall 2.43 F 2.61 2.23.00.07 Lots sexual partners 2.20 F 2.22 2.18.70.00 High maintenance 2.06 F 1.98 2.14.16.01 Note. Scores range from 1-5 with 5 reflecting that only guys get teased and 1 indicating that only girls get teased. For overall means, a subscript of M denotes that the scores indicate that men are significantly more likely than women to be teased about the topic, whereas a subscript of F indicates that women are significantly more likely than men to be teased about the topic.
NORMS FOR TEASING 24 Table 3 General Beliefs About Teasing Belief Overall Mean Comparison of Male and Female Participants Male Female p partial eta 2 College students like to be teased 2.26 2.27 2.26.96.00 Guys get teased more 3.04 3.24 2.81.00.07 Guys are expected to take harsher 3.90 4.03 3.75.00.04 Note. Scores ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
NORMS FOR TEASING 25 Table 4 Male and Female Participants Views of Each Sex s Feelings and Behaviors about Teasing Beliefs Views About Men Views About Women Male Part. Female Part. Overall Male Part. Female Part. Overall Show upset 2.37 2.31 2.34 3.67 3.42 3.55 Feel upset 2.89 3.08 2.99 3.78 3.74 3.76 Tease back 3.96 4.02 3.99 3.09 3.29 3.19 Crude language 3.77 3.60 3.69 2.53 2.57 2.55 Note. Scores ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (all the time).
NORMS FOR TEASING 26 Table 1 Acceptability of Topics for Teasing Topic Overall Means Views of Male and Female Participants Males Females p partial eta 2 Appearance 2.06 a 2.27 1.85.00.05 Sexual orient. 1.98 ab 2.28 1.69.00.09 Ethnicity 1.81 abc 2.04 1.59.00.06 Religion 1.74 bc 1.84 1.63.07.02 Race 1.73 bc 1.95 1.52.00.06 Can t control 1.65 c 1.81 1.48.01.04
NORMS FOR TEASING 27 Note. Scores ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (all the time). Subscripts of overall means that differ from each other indicate significant differences between the means. The remaining columns refer to the difference in views of male and female participants. Table 2 Comparison of Which Sex is More Likely to be Teased about a Variety of Topics Topic Overall Mean Comparison of Views of Male and Female Participants male Being a wimp 4.10 M 4.15 4.01.11.02 Having a big ego 3.71 M 3.67 3.75.48.00 Being lazy 3.66 M 3.79 3.54.00.04 Being too short 3.63 M 3.48 3.76.01.04
NORMS FOR TEASING 28 Ability to get date 3.56 M 3.59 3.51.40.00 Being girly 3.55 M 3.83 3.22.00.08 Poor athletic ability 3.48 M 3.55 3.39.26.00 Being a slob 3.36 M 3.48 3.23.02.03 Being a nerd 3.33 M 3.36 3.29.41.00 Not drink enough 3.32 M 3.34 3.25.46.00 Being sensitive 3.19 M 3.26 3.11.36.00 Bodily functions 3.18 M 3.34 3.06.04.02 Holds liquor poorly 3.16 M 3.24 3.04.06.02 Getting bad grades 3.14 M 3.23 3.05.01.04 Not go out enough 3.03 3.12 2.93.00.05 Getting good grades 3.01 2.92 3.11.02.03 Drinking too much 2.99 3.09 2.87.02.03 Studying too much 2.95 2.98 2.92.39.00 Being dumb 2.94 3.07 2.81.01.04 Going out too much 2.93 3.06 2.77.00.06 Being fat 2.69 F 2.72 2.69.60.00 Not being stylish 2.60 F 2.78 2.41.00.07 Being too tall 2.43 F 2.61 2.23.00.07 Lots sexual partners 2.20 F 2.22 2.18.70.00
NORMS FOR TEASING 29 High maintenance 2.06 F 1.98 2.14.16.01 Note. Scores range from 1-5 with 5 reflecting that only guys get teased and 1 indicating that only girls get teased. For overall means, a subscript of M denotes that the scores indicate that men are significantly more likely than women to be teased about the topic, whereas a subscript of F indicates that women are significantly more likely than men to be teased about the topic. Table 3 General Beliefs About Teasing Belief Overall Mean Comparison of Male and Female Participants Male Female p partial eta 2 College students like to be teased 2.26 2.27 2.26.96.00 Guys get teased more 3.04 3.24 2.81.00.07
NORMS FOR TEASING 30 Guys are expected to take harsher 3.90 4.03 3.75.00.04 Note. Scores ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Table 4 Male and Female Participants Views of Each Sex s Feelings and Behaviors about Teasing Beliefs Views About Men Views About Women Male Part. Female Part. Overall Male Part. Female Part. Overall
NORMS FOR TEASING 31 Show upset 2.37 2.31 2.34 3.67 3.42 3.55 Feel upset 2.89 3.08 2.99 3.78 3.74 3.76 Tease back 3.96 4.02 3.99 3.09 3.29 3.19 Crude language 3.77 3.60 3.69 2.53 2.57 2.55 Note. Scores ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (all the time).