Taking Offense: Effects of Personality and Teasing History On Behavioral and Emotional Reactions To Teasing

Taking Offense: Effects of Personality and
Teasing History on Behavioral and Emotional

Reactions to Teasing
Julie M. Bollmer
Monica J. Harris
Richard Milich
John C. Georgesen
University of Kentucky
ABSTRACT This study investigated how global personality traits and
teasing history are related to participants emotional and behavioral
reactions to an actual teasing event. College undergraduates (N 5 108)
worked on a task with a same-sex confederate. While interacting, the
confederate either teased participants about how slowly they were working
on the task or made a benign comment about the nature of the task.
Analyses revealed that even mild teasing can generate negativity towards
the teaser and interaction. More interestingly, however, personality
moderated reactions to teasing, as teasing condition interacted with each
of the Big Five personality domains in theoretically meaningful ways.
Childhood teasing history also moderated reactions to teasing, as
frequent victims and frequent teasers responded in different ways.
Consider the following question that was submitted to an internet

advice column (Advice with Dr. Dave and Dr. Dee, 2000):
Julie M. Bollmer, Monica J. Harris, Richard Milich, and John C. Georgesen,
Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky.
We thank Donald R. Lynam and Margo J. Monteith for their helpful advice on
statistical strategies.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Monica J. Harris,
Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, 405060044. Electronic mail may be sent to harris@uky.edu.
Journal of Personality 71:4, August 2003.

Blackwell Publishing 2003
558
Bollmer et al.
Dear Dr. Dee,

A coworker always teases me or makes fun of me, then follows it with only
kidding. If I dont laugh at her joking around, then she says, You dont
have any sense of humor. So when she teases me, to not seem like a spoil
sport, I smile or force a giggle. Im always nice to her and never tease her. Do
you think that this is just her type of humor, and Im being too thin skinned?
It really bothers me, and I wish she would stop.
Signed,
Had It
Clearly, teasing can be perceived in contrasting ways. Some people

view teasing as humorous or as a way of joking with those around
them. Others, however, see teasing as something that is annoying or
bothersome, and under some circumstances, even hurtful. In
addition, there are various ways to respond to teasing. For instance,
Had It responds to her co-workers teasing by smiling or giggling,
even though she is clearly bothered by it. Dr. Dee, in her subsequent
answer, however, suggests that Had It respond by telling the
teaser that her form of humor is not funny and then resume her
work. What causes people to perceive the same teasing comment in
such dissimilar manners and consequently respond in different ways?
In the current study, we sought to answer this question and expand
the existing literature on teasing through a person-by-situation analysis
that will allow us to understand better what causes people to perceive
and respond to teasing in various ways. To accomplish this goal, we
explore how personality traits and prior life experiences, such as history
of being a teaser and history of being a victim of teasing, interact with
the teasing situation and relate to behavioral and emotional reactions.
We also advance the current research on teasing by looking at peoples
behavioral reactions to an actual teasing event. Most of the past
research on teasing has relied on people remembering teasing incidents
from their pasts and reporting on them, a methodology that is
susceptible to many response biases. The current study, however,
advances this literature by examining reactions to an actual teasing event
instead of memories of an event obtained months or even years later.
Teasing Research
Teasing is often dened as having various components, and these

components may vary in strength or degree, depending on how the
teasing is being used. For example, one denition of teasing is an
intentional provocation accompanied by playful off-record markers that together comment on something relevant to the target
Personality and Reactions to Teasing
559
(Keltner, Capps, Kring, Young, & Heerey, 2001, p. 234). Teasing

has also been dened as a personal communication, directed by an
agent toward a target, that includes three components: aggression,
humor, and ambiguity (Shapiro, Baumeister, & Kessler, 1991, p.
460). The aggression or provocation component is evident in teasing
comments that are used to embarrass others intentionally (Sharkey,
1997), nd fault with them, or point out a weakness or social
deviance (Keltner, Young, Heerey, Oemig, & Monarch, 1998;
Pawluk, 1989). Although childhood teasing is often unambiguously
hostile, in adulthood teasing, which is the focus of the current study,
these negative comments are often framed with verbal and
nonverbal cues or playful markers, such as laughter or smiling, that
allow the teasing comment not to be taken seriously (Bollmer &
Harris, 2002). It is these cues that make up the humor or play
component of teasing (Pawluk, 1989).
Ambiguity, the nal component in Shapiro et al.s (1991)
denition of teasing, exists because of the divergent natures of the
other two components (Alberts, Kellar-Guenther, & Corman, 1996).
On the one hand, there is a negative, possibly embarrassing,
statement that is directed at the target. On the other, this negative
statement is sometimes framed with humor or cues that indicate that
it is not to be taken seriously. Thus, it is the dual nature of teasing in
adulthood, the aggression and humor, that creates ambiguity and
leaves room for interpretation. Furthermore, this same ambiguity
leaves room for personality to inuence the response of the target, as
Caspi and Moftt (1993) argue that individual differences, such as
personality, should have the greatest impact in situations that are
ambiguous, novel, or uncertain.
Very few studies have approached understanding teasing by using
experimental methodologies. One study that did use an experimental
approach explored teasing in both hierarchical and intimate
relationships (Keltner et al., 1998). In this study, participants were
given letter pairs and were asked to come up with teasing nicknames
for either their fraternity brothers (the hierarchical relationship) or
their romantic partners (the intimate relationship). The different
ways in which the perpetrators teased and the targets responded
were examined, and it was found that teasers and targets differ in
their perceptions of the teasing incident. For example, targets
reported enjoying the teasing less and experiencing more negative
emotion than did teasers. The Keltner et al. (1998) study, therefore,
560
Bollmer et al.
represents a promising beginning to studying behavioral reactions to

teasing. However, the constrained nature of the teasing manipulation may not be representative of how teasing is used in the context
of everyday social interactions. One goal of the current study,
therefore, is to expand upon the prior teasing literature by taking an
experimental approach to teasing that is more naturalistic than past
methodologies and to investigate affective and behavioral responses
to an actual teasing comment embedded in the context of a social
interaction.
Personality Traits and Teasing
What is it about people that causes them to perceive and respond to

teasing in contrasting ways? In addition to the context of the teasing
event, we believe this question may be answered in part by looking
at personality. To understand better how personality is theoretically
related to how people behaviorally and emotionally respond to
teasing, we utilize the Five-Factor Theory of personality (McCrae &
Costa, 1999).
McCrae and Costa (1999) describe their Five-Factor Theory as a
system of personality. They assert that everyone has basic tendencies
that are characterized in the broadest sense by the Big Five
personality traits and thought to be inuenced by biological bases,
including temperament. These traits, in turn, are manifested via
patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are consistent with
the personality traits and include the individuals attitudes,
attributional style, roles, and self-concept. It is theorized that this
pattern of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors is inuenced both by the
dispositional traits and also by external factors, such as the
situation.
In the current study, we are interested in how an individuals
personality traits interact with the situation to inuence emotional
and behavioral responses to teasing. The behavioral concordance
model, proposed by Moskowitz and Cote (1995), is one theory that
examines the relations among personality characteristics, behavior,
and emotional responses. This theory posits that individuals differ in
the affect associated with a given dimension of behavior, such that
individuals scoring high on a trait will experience more positive
affect when they engage in a behavior congruent with that trait than
will individuals scoring low on that trait. Furthermore, individuals
561
scoring high on a trait will experience more negative affect when

they engage in a behavior discordant with that trait than will
individuals scoring low on the trait. The theory, in particular, has
focused on the personality traits of Agreeableness and Neuroticism,
two traits that have strong connections with affect, and this theory
has been applied to situations involving interpersonal behaviors
(Cote & Moskowitz, 1998; Moskowitz & Cote, 1995).
For example, Moskowitz and her colleagues found that those
high in Agreeableness experienced more positive affect when
engaging in agreeable behavior, but more negative affect when
engaging in quarrelsome behavior, compared to those low in
Agreeableness (Cote & Moskowitz, 1998; Moskowitz & Cote,
1995). Applying this nding to teasing interactions, we believe that
individuals high in Agreeableness will nd teasing to be a more
quarrelsome than agreeable behavior, as Agreeableness is characterized by such behavioral facets as trust, straightforwardness,
compliance, and modesty. Therefore, when Agreeable individuals
are teased, they should nd this to be a discordant situation and
react negatively to it and to the interaction with their partner.
Cote and Moskowitz (1998) also found a relation between
Neuroticism and interpersonal behavior. They found weak relations
between behavior and affect for those high in Neuroticism, as there
was little change in affect related to behavior for these individuals,
even for quarrelsome behavior. Those low in Neuroticism, however,
felt more negatively when engaging in quarrelsome behaviors than
those high in Neuroticism. Based on this reasoning, those low in
Neuroticism should react more negatively to being teased than those
high in Neuroticism.
A recent study investigating the effects of personality on
perceptions and life narratives of childhood teasing (Georgesen,
Harris, Milich, & Bosko-Young, 1999) provides empirical support
for the notion that personality inuences how individuals perceive
and interpret teasing. In this study, participants were asked to
complete the NEO-PI-R, a measure of the Five-Factor Model of
personality, and then watch videotaped teasing interactions that
varied in the responses made by the target to the teasing. Georgesen
et al. (1999) found that those high in Agreeableness endorsed all
types of responses, except for the hostile response. This nding is
consistent with the theoretical predictions of the behavioral
concordance model, as those high in Agreeableness disliked
562
Bollmer et al.
the hostility and conict associated with a quarrelsome teasing

interaction.
Additionally, the Georgesen et al. study (1999) found a relation
between Neuroticism and responses to teasing. Those high in
Neuroticism reported that they would be angrier if teased in a way
similar to the target than those low in Neuroticism. Participants high
in Neuroticism also rated a hostile response to teasing as being more
effective than the other responses. These ndings are somewhat
contrary to those of Cote and Moskowitz (1998) and the behavioral
concordance model, as they found that those low in Neuroticism
experienced more negative affect when engaging in quarrelsome
behavior than those high on Neuroticism. Given the contradiction
of these ndings, one objective of the current research, therefore, is
to clarify the relation between Neuroticism and perceptions and
reactions to teasing.
Overall, personality theory suggests emotional and behavioral
responses to teasing should be related to personality traits. Therefore, one of the major goals of the current study is to explore how
personality traits moderate reactions to an actual teasing event and
investigate how different personalities lead to different interpretations and perceptions of the teasing comment.
Teasing History and Teasing
In addition to exploring the role of personality traits, another goal

of the current study is to investigate how the background of the
individual may interact with the situation by looking at the
individuals prior life experiences. We believe that how people have
experienced teasing in the past, both as a perpetrator and a target of
teasing, should also be related to how a teasing comment is
perceived and responded to in the present.
The literature on peer victimization, which includes, but is not
limited to, hostile teasing, demonstrates that being victimized in
childhood can have long-lasting and adverse effects on the
individual (Olweus, 1978, 1993; Perry, Hodges, & Egan, 2001).
Although these researchers looked at the effects of chronic and
severe victimization, it is our belief that even the milder forms of
childhood teasing can be problematic, as childrens teasing is
inherently mean-spirited and hurtful. These prior experiences with
teasing are likely to be inuential in affecting how teasing is
563
perceived and responded to in the present, and past research

supports this notion. For example, two studies similar in methodology to Georgesen et al. (1999) found that childrens evaluations of
responses to teasing were moderated by teasing history (Lightner,
Bollmer, Harris, Milich, & Scambler, 2000; Scambler, Harris, &
Milich, 1998). In the Scambler et al. study (1998), children who were
infrequent teasers evaluated the target as being equally as friendly
when he or she responded either by ignoring the teasing or making a
humorous remark. Children who were frequent teasers, however,
derogated the target when he or she ignored the teasing.
Teasing history also interacted with type of response in the
Lightner et al. study (2000). For example, children who were
infrequent victims of teasing liked an empathy response (where the
target attempts to induce empathy by saying, I bet you wouldnt
say that if you knew how bad it made me feel) as much as or better
than other responses. Those children who were frequent victims of
teasing, however, did not like an empathy response as much as other
nonhostile responses. Once again, teasing history moderated
perceptions of teasing, as perhaps the frequent victims knew from
past experience that expressing hurt feelings may only lead to further
victimization (Perry, Williard, & Perry, 1990). Infrequent victims,
however, do not have this knowledge; therefore, either they do not
have any misgivings about the empathy response or else this
response works for them.
In addition to these studies looking at childrens evaluations of
responses to teasing, teasing history has also been found to have
moderating effects on adults perceptions of teasing, as revealed in
narratives written about past teasing experiences (Georgesen et al.,
1999). Teasing history was found to be associated with victim
forgiveness and self-blame. For example, the more experience people
had with being a victim, the less they reported forgiving the teaser.
However, the more victims blamed themselves for the teasing, the
more likely they were to forgive others who teased them. In
addition, the more experience people had with teasing others, the
more likely they were to forgive others teasing.
In sum, past research on teasing clearly indicates that perceptions
of teasing are moderated by prior experiences with teasing. A second
major goal of this paper, therefore, is to expand these ndings by
looking at teasing history as a potential moderator of behavioral
and affective reactions to an actual teasing event.
564
Bollmer et al.
Personality, Teasing History, and Teasing
Given that past research has found that both personality and prior
experiences with teasing inuence how teasing is perceived, we also
believe that these factors are likely to interact and together inuence
behavioral and emotional reactions to teasing. Caspi and Roberts
(1999) discuss the notion of personenvironment transactions,
theorizing that personality and the environment interact and
inuence one another in consistent ways. Applied to personality
and teasing history, for example, when a child scoring higher on
Neuroticism reacts to a taunt in an extremely emotional way, this
reaction may serve to reinforce the perpetrator and increase the
likelihood that the child will be singled out for later victimization.
Indeed, in the peer victimization literature, individual differences
both predict and are shaped by victimization experiences (e.g.,
Hodges & Perry, 1999). For example, children scoring high on
internalizing behavior were more likely to be victimized, and at the
same time, being victimized was associated with increases in
internalizing behavior. Furthermore, research on the topic of peer
rejection (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990) suggests that
personality inuences how past rejection experiences relate to
childrens current rejection experiences. Therefore, instead of just
looking at personality and teasing history and their separate effects
on reactions to teasing, we also explore how they may jointly
inuence how people respond to being teased.
Overview of the Current Study
Much of the prior research on teasing has relied upon various selfreport methodologies in order to understand how individuals respond
to teasing. The current study advances the existing literature on
teasing by investigating affective and behavioral responses to an
actual teasing event. In the current study, participants worked on a
problem-solving task with a same-sex partner, who was actually a
confederate. During the interaction, the confederate either teased
the participant about how slowly he or she was working or else made
a benign comment about the nature of the task.
Based on previous research, we offer several predictions regarding
how individuals will vary in their reactions to being teased. Looking
solely at the effects of teasing condition, we predict that individuals
who are teased will be more adversely affected than those who are
565
not teased. This effect should be revealed through their behavior,

written narratives, and self-report measures.
However, of greater theoretical interest is how responses to
teasing are moderated by personality traits and teasing history, and
we offer predictions based on theory and previous research. First,
consistent with the behavioral concordance model (Cote &
Moskowitz, 1998; Mokowitz & Cote, 1995) and past research
(Georgesen et al., 1999), we predict that individuals high in
Agreeableness will react negatively to a teasing comment. A teasing
interaction is discordant with the trait of Agreeableness, and,
therefore, should elicit a negative response from those high in
Agreeableness with regard to how targets feel about the interaction
and their partners.
Second, with regard to Neuroticism, theory and research lead to
two contrasting hypotheses. Findings from the behavioral concordance model suggest that those low in Neuroticism will react
more negatively to the experience of being teased than those high in
Neuroticism, as Cote & Moskowitz (1998) found that when those
low in Neuroticism engaged in quarrelsome behaviors, they felt
more negatively than did those high in Neuroticism. Findings from
the Georgesen et al. study (1999), however, suggest that those high
in Neuroticism will react more negatively to the experience of being
teased, as those higher in Neuroticism were more likely to endorse a
hostile response and see themselves as reacting more angrily to be
teased than those lower in Neuroticism. Given that the prediction
stemming from the behavioral concordance model is derived from
both theory and empirical ndings, we are inclined to believe it is the
stronger prediction. However, we are hoping that the current study
will better clarify the relation that exists between Neuroticism and
reactions to teasing.
In addition to the above predictions, we also offer a couple of
tentative predictions regarding the traits of Extraversion and
Openness. Given that Extraverts tend to tease others with greater
frequency than do those low in Extraversion (Georgesen et al.,
1999), we predict that individuals high in Extraversion also will react
more positively to being teased by others, as they may view teasing
as a normal part of social interactions.
Although no strong relation between teasing and Openness to
Experience has previously been found, we offer a tentative
prediction that Openness will interact with the teasing condition.
566
Bollmer et al.
Individuals who are low in Openness typically do not like novelty

and instead prefer what is familiar. Therefore, we predict that those
low in Openness would react more adversely to a teasing comment
than they would a benign comment, as the teasing comment could
be perceived to be something that is not considered a normal part of
a social interaction with a stranger. Those high in Openness,
however, should react positively to the comment, as perhaps the
tease will be perceived as something out of the ordinary that
deserves attention.
Finally, previous research has not found a relation between
Conscientiousness and teasing, and thus we do not offer a specic
hypothesis for this personality trait. We will, however, examine
Conscientiousness and reactions to teasing in an exploratory
fashion.
In addition to these predictions, we also offer predictions on how
teasing history should interact with the teasing situation. Looking
rst at teaser history, we predict that individuals who were frequent
childhood teasers should react positively to the teasing comment,
but that those who were infrequent childhood teasers should react
negatively. In addition, victim history should also interact with the
situation. In particular, we predicted that frequent victims should be
adversely affected by the teasing. Given that they were often the
targets of teasing as children, frequent victims should be more
sensitive to teasing comments and react in a negative way relative to
individuals without a history of being a frequent victim of teasing.
Finally as a research question, we explore the three-way
interactions among personality, teasing history, and teasing condition. Given that person-environment transactions theory (Caspi &
Roberts, 1999) and empirical research (Hodges & Perry, 1999) both
suggest that these factors may jointly inuence how individuals
interpret and respond to teasing, we feel that it is valuable to explore
these relations further in the context of a teasing interaction.
METHOD
Participants and Confederates
Participants were 108 undergraduates (48 men and 60 women)

recruited from introductory psychology courses at the University of
567
Kentucky. Participants were mainly traditional college students

(ages 1824) and were compensated with partial credit toward
fullling a class requirement. Seven additional students participated
in the experiment but were not included in the analyses: One person
did not complete the personality measure, three did not follow
instructions, and three were suspicious about the true nature of the
experiment.
The confederates used in this study were one male and two female
undergraduate research assistants. All of the confederates underwent extensive training sessions to ensure that their performances
would be believable. The training sessions required the memorization of a script, practice delivering the teasing comment in a realistic
but standardized manner, and numerous rehearsals of the interaction. The study was then piloted, using each of the three research
assistants as the confederate, before any actual data were collected.
Procedure
Participants were ostensibly recruited for a study designed to look at

the effects of personality on individual and team performances.
Upon arrival at the laboratory, participants were introduced to a
same-sex confederate, whom they were led to believe was another
participant who was already present and waiting for the study to
begin.
After being introduced, the participant and the confederate were
told that they would be working together on a problem-solving task,
but that they rst needed to ll out some information, including a
personality questionnaire. The participant and the confederate were
then led to separate rooms for completion of these measures.
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Once the participant and

confederate were separated, the participant was asked to ll out the
NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO-FFI is a shortened
version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. It contains ve
12-item scales; each scale contains statements that are rated by the
respondent on a 5-point scale (Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral,
Agree, or Strongly Agree). The NEO-FFI is a ve-factor model of
personality that yields scores on Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness.
568
Bollmer et al.
The Neuroticism scale measures an individuals inclination to

experience negative affects such as fear, sadness, anger, and
embarrassment. Sample items include, I often get angry at the
way people treat me and I often feel tense or jittery. The
Extraversion scale evaluates the degree to which people are sociable,
high spirited, assertive, active, and talkative. I like to have a lot of
people around me and My life is fast-paced are two examples
from this scale. The Openness scale captures the individuals
openness to experiences and willingness to entertain new ideas, as
measured by such statements as I have a lot of intellectual
curiosity and I often try new and exciting foods. The
Agreeableness scale measures a persons degree of altruism,
sympathy for others, helpfulness, and compliance with others. Items
from this scale include I try to be courteous to everyone I meet
and I generally try to be thoughtful and considerate. The
Conscientiousness scale is an evaluation of an individuals selfcontrol, as dened by the planning, organizing, and carrying out of
tasks. Sample items include I strive for excellence in everything I
do and I work hard to accomplish my goals.
The NEO-FFI has been used extensively in personality research
and has been shown to be a reliable measure, with coefcient alpha
reliabilities of .86, .77, .73, .68, and .81, for the Neuroticism,
Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness
scales, respectively (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Problem-Solving Task and Teasing Manipulation. Upon completion

of the NEO-FFI, the participant and the confederate were brought
back together and told that they were going to be working on a
problem-solving task, individually and then as a team, in order to
arrive at an answer with which they both agreed. The task that was
used in this study was the NASA Moon Landing Survival Task,
which has been used frequently in research on group performance
and in past research from this laboratory (Harris & Perkins, 1995;
McAninch, Milich, & Harris, 1996). The task requires that
participants imagine that they have crash-landed on the moon and
must make their way to a rendezvous point with the mother ship.
Participants are given a list of 15 items (e.g., oxygen, food, radio,
matches), and their task is to rank order the 15 items in terms of
their usefulness in reaching the rendezvous point. Experts from
569
NASA have ranked the items previously, and this expert ranking is
used as a criterion for accuracy.
The teasing incident took place as the participants were working
on the NASA task individually. Confederates had memorized a
predetermined ranking of the items and were trained to complete the
task very quickly, though in a realistic manner. A clock was located
on the wall facing the confederate, and the confederate was trained
to complete the task in 60 seconds, an interval that was determined
through pilot testing to be shorter than the minimum time required
to complete the task. Once the confederate completed his or her
individual ranking of the items, he or she would sit back in the chair
and gaze directly at the participant, who was still working on his or
her rankings. After a few seconds, the confederate would tap his or
her ngers on the table, and then deliver one of two comments. In
the teasing condition, the confederate said, Boy, you sure are slow
at this, arent you? After a brief pause, the confederate smiled and
added, Just kidding. In the control condition, the confederate said
instead, Boy, this is a really weird problem, isnt it?
The confederate was instructed to make no further remarks to the
participant during the remainder of the time it took the participant
to nish the task individually. When the participant was nished
with the task, the confederate and the participant worked together
to develop a team ranking of the items. In order to make this part of
the interaction as standardized as possible, the confederate had been
trained to disagree with the participants ranking of 3 of the 15
items. Arguments had been prepared and rehearsed in advance to
advocate either lowering or raising the ranking of the specied item,
depending on what ranking the participant had chosen to give the
item relative to the confederate. For the remaining items, the
confederate was instructed to defer to the participants ranking.
Self-Rating Scale. Upon completing the team ranking of the NASA
task items, the participant and the confederate were again separated.
The participant was then asked to complete a series of measures.
The rst of these measures was a self-rating scale. This scale consists
of 18 adjectives (e.g., friendly, annoyed, competent) and asks
participants to use a 9-point scale to rate how they have been feeling
during the past few moments. This self-rating scale has been used
successfully in past expectancy research that has used the NASA
task (Harris & Perkins, 1995). Based on factor analyses conducted in
570
Bollmer et al.
the Harris and Perkin (1995) study, the individual adjectives were
combined to create three composite variables: (1) Smart-Dominant,
consisting of self-ratings of smart, capable, self-condent, competent, analytical, assertive, insightful, reasonable, and dominant; (2)
Friendly, consisting of self-ratings of likable, outgoing, friendly,
talkative, and cheerful; and (3) Negative, consisting of self-ratings of
shy, nervous, annoyed, and sad. Coefcient alphas were computed
for the three composite variables and were found to be .81, .85, and
.57, respectively. Because the coefcient alpha for the Negative
rating scale was not reliable, we did not include it but, instead,
analyzed only the single annoyed item, as we deemed it to be most
theoretically relevant to a teasing situation.
Written Narrative. After completing the self-rating scale, participants were asked to write a narrative about their teamwork
experience. The instructions for writing the narrative read: Please
write a story about your impressions of your partner and what you
thought of him/her during this experiment. We are especially
interested in learning more about how people work together when
completing tasks, so be sure to describe how you and your partner
behaved when working both separately and together. Your story
should have a beginning and an end; it should describe all of the
events that took place during your individual and group completion
of the moon landing task. The instructions went on to inform the
participant that the narrative should be at least a page in length, but
no more than a page and a half, and that the narrative would remain
condential. Participants were given seven minutes to complete the
narrative.
Five independent raters, who were blind to the purposes of the
experiment, coded the narratives that participants wrote. First,
raters coded whether or not the participants mentioned the comment
that had been made by the confederate. The narratives were also
coded on whether or not the difference in task-completion time was
mentioned, that is, if any reference was made to the confederate
nishing the task before the participant. Other variables that were
coded included the amount of anger expressed in the narrative,
amount of nervousness or anxiety felt by the participant, overall
liking for the confederate, how dominant the participant seemed in
the narrative, how self-focused the narrative was, and the general
positivity expressed by the participant in the narrative. The latter six
571
items were coded using 7-point scales. The effective reliability of the
ratings made for the narrative variables, computed using the
Spearman-Brown prophecy procedure described by Rosenthal and
Rosnow (1991), ranged from .78 to 1.00, with a mean reliability of .89.
Post-Interaction Questionnaire. After completing the narrative, the
participant was asked to ll out a post-interaction questionnaire.
This questionnaire consisted of 13 items, 12 of which were rated on
8-point scales, asking participants about their partner and the
quality of the interaction with their partner. The nal question of the
post-interaction questionnaire asked participants to assign a
percentage to both their partner and themselves regarding the
proportion of the NASA task team rankings contributed by each.
This item was analyzed separately. A principal components analysis
using a Varimax rotation was performed on the 12 Likert-type
items. This analysis yielded a two factor solution that accounted for
64% of the total variance (eigenvalues 5 5.70 and 2.01, respectively),
and loadings for the items ranged from .62 to .82.
Based on the factor loadings, two composite variables were
created. Composites were created by taking the mean of the items
that loaded onto each factor, reverse-scoring when necessary. The
rst composite, which we named How Well the Interaction Went,
was comprised of 8 items that asked participants to rate: (1) the
smoothness of the interaction; (2) how much they liked their partner;
(3) how much they talked during the interaction; (4) how well they
worked with their partner; (5) how condent they felt; (6) the quality
of their own ideas; (7) the degree to which they and their partner
agreed on the rankings; and (8) how friendly their partner was. This
composite had a coefcient alpha of .89.
The second composite, which we named Social Skills of the
Partner, consisted of the remaining 4 items and asked participants to
rate: (1) how socially skilled their partner was; (2) how outgoing
their partner was; (3) the quality of the ideas contributed by their
partner during the interaction; and (4) how nervous they thought
their partner was (reverse scored). This composite had a coefcient
alpha of .81.
Teasing History Questionnaire. Finally, participants were asked to
ll out a teasing history questionnaire. This questionnaire asked
participants two questions about their childhood experiences with
572
Bollmer et al.
teasing: (1) how often they teased other children as a child; and (2)
how often they were teased by others as a child. These questions
were rated on 8-point scales with anchors asking them to rate their
teasing history in comparison to other children. Although these are
single-item questions, they have been used successfully in past
research from our laboratory (Bollmer, Harris, & Milich, 2002;
Georgesen et al., 1999; Lightner et al., 2000; Scambler et al., 1998),
and previous research has demonstrated convergent validity between
these single-item measures and standardized measures of childhood
victimization and bullying (Bollmer et al., 2002); for example, the
victim history item correlated .62 with the Perception of Peer
Support Scale (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1997), a standardized and
widely used measure of peer victimization, and the teaser history
item correlated .40 with the proactive scale of the Reactive-Proactive
Aggression Questionnaire (Raine et al., 2001), a standardized
measure of aggressive behavior.
The teasing history measure was administered at the end of the
experiment because we did not want to arouse suspicion by asking
the teasing history questions before the teasing comment was
delivered by the confederate in the teasing condition. We feared that
if we administered the teasing history items at the beginning of the
experiment, when the confederate made the teasing comment, the
participants would immediately suspect that the comment was
scripted and therefore react in an articial manner. We wanted,
instead, to create a situation where participants responses and
reactions to teasing would be natural and not inuenced by demand
characteristics (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1969). A potential danger of
administering the teasing history questions at the end of the
experiment, however, is that the teasing manipulation may have
affected participants responses to the teasing history questions.
Analyses testing this possibility, however, revealed no differences
between the teasing condition and the control group on either the
teaser (Ms 5 3.19 vs. 3.19) or victim items (Ms 5 4.46 vs. 4.00) from
the teasing history questionnaire, tso1.29, ns. Thus, we feel
reassured that placing these items at the end of the session did not
threaten their validity.
Upon completion of the teasing history questionnaire, participants were questioned by the experimenter to determine if they were
at all suspicious of the true nature of the study. Participants were
then fully debriefed. If the participant had been the target of the
573
teasing comment, the confederate was brought back into the room
briey for a friendly reconciliation with the participant before the
participant was thanked and dismissed.
Coding of the Videotapes. The entire interaction, including the
teasing incident and the participants response, was videotaped with
the awareness and consent of the participant. Between two and ve
independent raters coded the videotaped interactions between the
confederate and the participant. The interactions rst were coded to
determine how long participants took to nish the NASA task once
the comment had been made by the confederate. The interactions
were then coded for the overall positivity of the response that the
participant made to the confederate immediately following the
comment. This item was coded using a 7-point scale, with anchors of
very negative and very positive. Next, the nature of the
response to the comment was coded. After an initial viewing of the
videotapes, mutually exclusive categories were developed that would
capture the vast majority of participant responses: laughing,
agreeing with the comment, ambiguously acknowledging the
comment (e.g., muttering or mumbling something), making another
type of verbal response (e.g., Youre nished?), or looking up or
gazing at the confederate without saying anything. Additional raters
coded the overall friendliness and the overall dominance of the
participant during the interaction using 7-point scales. For this part
of the coding, the raters were blind to the experimental condition, as
the ratings were made with the sound turned off. The effective
reliabilities of the ratings made for the video variables, again using
procedures described by Rosenthal and Rosnow (1991), ranged from
.75 to .99, with a mean reliability of .83.
RESULTS
Analytic Strategy
A series of preliminary Teasing Condition Confederate ANOVAs

was conducted to test for any differential effects of confederate. The
analyses revealed that, although there were several signicant main
effects of confederate, there were no signicant Confederate
Teasing Condition interactions for any of the dependent measures,
574
Bollmer et al.
all Fsr2.87, ps4.06. Therefore, we collapsed across confederate for

the main analyses of the study.
A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses was then
conducted to test for the main and interactive effects of personality,
teasing history, and teasing condition. Before the analyses were
performed, all continuous predictor variables were centered (Aiken
& West, 1991). The predictors and their interaction terms were
entered into the regression equation, with the lowest order effects
entered in the rst step, followed by the higher-order effects in the
subsequent steps (Aiken & West, 1991). Also, it should be noted
that, as a means of normalizing the data, a log transformation of the
time to complete the task was used as the dependent measure in the
relevant analyses. Main effects of teasing condition are reported
rst, then the main effects of personality and interactions with
teasing condition, then the main effects of teasing history and
interactions with teasing condition, followed by the interactive
effects of personality, teasing history, and teasing condition. Finally,
the moderating effects of gender on reactions to teasing were
explored by a series of 2 (Gender) 2 (Teasing Condition)
ANOVAs, and these ndings are reported last.
For analyses involving personality and teasing history and the
analyses involving gender, the dependent variables consisted of the
self-rating variables, the self-report variables, the variables coded
from the narratives, and the variables coded from the videotaped
interactions.
Behavioral and Affective Consequences of Being Teased
First, we wanted to know how a seemingly mild teasing comment

would affect the reactions of the targets and their impressions of the
interaction. As predicted, being the recipient of a teasing comment
strongly affected participants views of the interaction and their
behavior, as seen by several signicant main effects of teasing
condition. Looking rst at the dependent variables coded from the
narratives, there were main effects for whether the time differential
was mentioned, 5 .36, sr 5 .35, t(100) 5 3.73, po.001, whether the
comment was mentioned, 5 .53, sr 5 .54, t(100) 5 6.34, po.001,
and the amount of anger expressed, 5 .30, sr 5 .30, t(100) 5 3.09,
p 5 .003. Participants who were teased were more likely to mention
that the confederate nished the NASA task before they did and
575
were more likely to mention the comment that the confederate made
to them. Consistent with our hypothesis that targets of a teasing
comment would react more negatively than targets of a benign
comment, participants who were teased were more likely to express
anger in their narratives than did participants who were not teased,
revealing that even mild teasing can easily evoke emotion in the
target of the teasing and cause negative affect toward the teaser.
There were also two signicant main effects of the teasing
condition on the dependent variables coded from the videotaped
interactions. First, there was a main effect of the positivity of the
response made to the confederate, 5 .28, sr 5 .28,
t(99) 5 2.94, p 5 .004, such that participants who were teased
responded less positively to the comment made by the confederate
than those in the control condition, once again showing support for
our hypothesis that participants being teased would react more
negatively than participants not being teased. There was also a
signicant main effect on time to complete the NASA task,
5 .29, sr 5 .30, t(97) 5 3.09, p 5 .003, as those participants
who were teased took substantially less time to complete the NASA
task after the comment was made by the confederate (M 5 78.3
seconds) than those participants in the control condition (M 5 114.5
seconds), representing a 32% decrease in the time to complete the
task.
Personality Moderators of Reactions to Teasing
Looking next at the ve personality variables, analyses yielded

several signicant main effects of personality. First, participants
high in Agreeableness expressed more nervousness in their
narratives, 5 .22, sr 5 .20, t(100) 5 2.04, p 5 .044, and wrote
narratives that were more self-focused, 5 .21, sr 5 .20,
t(100) 5 2.01, p 5 .048, than those low in Agreeableness. Those high
in Neuroticism were rated as being less friendly than those low in
Neuroticism, 5 .25, sr 5 .23, t(98) 5 2.30, p 5 .024. Those
high in Conscientiousness wrote narratives that were more positive
than those low in Conscientiousness, 5 .24, sr 5 .20, t(100) 5 2.05,
po.043. Finally, those high in Extraversion felt more friendly,
5 .41, sr 5 .38, t(100) 5 4.16, po.001, felt more smart-dominant,
5 .21, sr 5 .19, t(100) 5 1.98, p 5 .050, thought the interaction
went better, 5 .22, sr 5 .20, t(100) 5 2.06, p 5 .042, and were rated
576
Bollmer et al.
Table 1
Regression Analyses for Significant Interactions Involving Personality
Variables
Personality Measures and Dependent Variables
Agreeableness Teasing Condition
How well interaction went
Positive affect of narrative
Expressed liking for partner
Neuroticism Teasing Condition
Friendly self-rating
Smart-dominant self-rating
Openness Teasing Condition
Extraversion Teasing Condition
Narrative Nervousness
Conscientiousness Teasing Condition
% of nal rankings contributed by partner
sr
.43
.38
.50
.25
.22
.29
2.40
2.08
2.81
.018
.040
.006
.44
.48
.28
.29
2.80
2.84
.006
.006
.34
.28
.25
.19
2.39
1.91
.019
.059
.33
.21
2.02
.046
.41
.20
2.01
.048
Note. Ns for the analyses ranged from 104 to 108.
as more friendly, 5 .26, sr 5 .25, t(98) 5 2.54, p 5 .014, than those

low in Extraversion.
More interesting from a theoretical point of view, the ve
personality variables also interacted with teasing condition for many
of the dependent variables. All betas, semi-partial rs, signicance
tests, and p-values for signicant interactions are reported in Table
1. All interactions were interpreted using predicted values 1 SD
below and above the means of the personality variables and were
probed using simple slope analyses following procedures recommended by Aiken and West (1991).
Agreeableness. As individuals high in Agreeableness typically like to
cooperate, believe that others are well-intentioned, and like for
interactions to go smoothly, we predicted that those high in
Agreeableness should react more negatively to a teasing comment,
as this is a behavior that is discordant with the trait of
Agreeableness. Analyses indicated that Agreeableness interacted
with teasing condition for several of the dependent variables as

5.6
Overall Liking for Partner
5.4
577
Low Agreeableness
High Agreeableness
5.2
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
3.8
3.6
No Tease
Tease
Experimental Condition
Figure 1
Interactive effects of Agreeableness and teasing condition on overall

liking for partner.
predicted. First, a signicant interaction was found for the overall

liking for their partner. As shown in Figure 1, individuals low in
Agreeableness expressed the same amount of liking for their
partners regardless of whether they were teased. However,
individuals high in Agreeableness expressed signicantly more liking
for their partners in the control condition relative to those low in
Agreeableness, but when teased, they expressed signicantly less
liking for their partners than in the control condition and also those
low in Agreeableness.1 In other words, high agreeable people reacted
negatively to the teasing comment and liked their partners less
because of it. Low agreeable people, however, seemed to be
unaffected by the teasing comment and did not let it affect their
liking for their partners.
Signicant Agreeableness Teasing Condition interactions were
also obtained for the dependent variables of how well the interaction
1
Signicance was determined using simple slope analyses. From this point
forward, readers can assume that when we assert something to be signicant, the
simple slope analyses yielded ts41.99 and pso.05.
578
Bollmer et al.
went and the degree of positive affect expressed in the narratives.

The pattern of these interactions was similar to the one obtained for
the partner liking variable. Once again, individuals low in
Agreeableness reported the interaction went similarly well and had
just as positive narratives whether they were teased or not. As
compared to individuals low in Agreeableness, however, individuals
high in Agreeableness reported the interaction went similarly well
and had similarly positive narratives in the control condition. When
teased, however, individuals high in Agreeableness reported the
interaction went signicantly less well and had signicantly less
positive narratives. In sum, these ndings show additional support
for the idea that individuals high in Agreeableness react negatively
to teasing, particularly with regard to their partner and the
interaction. A teasing comment by a stranger does not impart
cooperation or friendly intent, and those high in Agreeableness are
reacting negatively to this behavior, which is discordant with this
personality trait. Individuals low in Agreeableness, however, are not
bothered by this disruption and lack of cooperation.
Neuroticism. Neuroticism interacted with teasing condition in a
manner consistent with the behavioral concordance model for two
of the dependent variables. Looking at the self-rating measure, there
were consistent interactions for both the friendly and the smartdominant variables. Individuals high in Neuroticism rated themselves as feeling just as friendly, whether or not they were teased.
Individuals low in Neuroticism, however, rated themselves as feeling
signicantly less friendly when teased than in the control condition
(see Figure 2). In other words, being teased resulted in individuals
low in Neuroticism rating themselves as less friendly than those in
the control condition, whereas individuals high in Neuroticism did
not have their self-ratings affected by the teasing comment. Lowneurotic individuals dislike the conict associated with the teasing
because this behavior is discordant with their personality; therefore,
they respond adversely to the provocation. Neurotic individuals,
who are more irritable and anxious by nature, are not inuenced by
the negativity expressed by their partner.
Results for smart-dominant self-ratings also t this pattern.
Individuals high in Neuroticism rated themselves just as smartdominant whether they were teased or not. However, individuals
low in Neuroticism rated themselves as signicantly more smart-
579

7.8
Friendly Self-rating
7.6
Low Neuroticism
High Neuroticism
7.4
7.2
7
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.2
No Tease
Tease
Figure 2
Interactive effects of Neuroticism and teasing condition on the

friendly self-rating.
dominant in the control condition than individuals high in

neuroticism, but this difference disappeared when they were teased.
Instead, individuals low in Neuroticism rated themselves signicantly less smart-dominant when teased than in the control
condition. In other words, high-neurotic individuals do not feel
very capable during the interaction regardless of whether they are
verbally provoked, whereas the low-neurotic individuals feel fairly
condent about the interaction when there is no conict but feel
signicantly less so when their speed at the task is criticized.
Openness to Experience. Because individuals who are low in
Openness tend to dislike new and novel situations, we predicted
that they would react more negatively to a teasing comment than a
benign comment. Those high in Openness, however, should not
respond negatively to the comment, as they tend to enjoy novel
situations and experiences. As shown in Table 1, this prediction was
supported by interactions for two of the dependent variables. As
with Neuroticism, there was a signicant interaction for the friendly
self-rating variable. Individuals high in Openness rated themselves
just as friendly regardless of whether they were teased. Individuals
580
Bollmer et al.
low in Openness rated themselves as more friendly than individuals

high in Openness in the control condition, but this difference
disappeared when they were teased, as individuals low in Openness
rated themselves as signicantly less friendly when teased than in the
control condition.
There was also a marginally signicant interaction (p 5 .059) for
the variable regarding the positive affect expressed in the narrative.
Once again, individuals high in Openness wrote narratives that were
similarly positive whether they were teased or not. Individuals low in
Openness wrote narratives that were just as positive as those high in
Openness in the control condition, but when teased, they wrote
narratives that were less positive than those written in the control
condition and also less than those written by individuals high in
Openness, a difference that was statistically signicant in simple
slope analyses. Perhaps individuals low in Openness felt they were
participating in just an ordinary interaction when they were not
teased, and, therefore, they were happy with the status quo. The
teasing comment, however, created a more novel situation that they
shied away from and that caused their self-ratings and the
interaction to be interpreted more negatively. Individuals high in
Openness, however, were not affected by the teasing comment, as
even being teased apparently did not faze them.
Extraversion. Extraversion did not interact with teasing condition in
the predicted manner. Only one dependent variable, the amount of
nervousness expressed in the narrative, yielded a signicant
interaction between Extraversion and teasing condition. In the
control condition, individuals low in Extraversion expressed
signicantly more nervousness in their narratives than individuals
high in Extraversion. When teased, however, this difference
disappeared.
Conscientiousness. There was one signicant Conscientiousness Teasing Condition interaction. Looking at participants
perceptions of their partners contributions to nal rankings,
individuals low in Conscientiousness reported that their partners
contributed a higher percentage of nal rankings when teased than
in the control condition. However, for individuals high in
Conscientiousness, teasing condition did not inuence the percentage of nal rankings attributed to their partners. In other words,
581
participants low in Conscientiousness evidently became disengaged

from the task upon being teased and let their partner determine
more of the nal ratings, whereas the high Conscientiousness
participants did not let the teasing affect their contribution to the
task.
In sum, the personality ndings are generally consistent with what
is known about the different personality domains, and they provide
support for the notion that personality moderates individuals
reactions to teasing. Moreover, these interactions were largely
consistent with the behavioral concordance theory. The effects of
personality are even more striking considering the mildness and
brevity of the teasing comment. Clearly, personality moderates
behavioral and emotional reaction to teasing, even when the
provocation is not especially aggressive and is accompanied by
playful markers (e.g., just kidding).
Teasing History Variables
Several main effects of teasing history were obtained, and teasing

history also interacted with teasing condition for several of the
dependent variables. Descriptive statistics, before centering, indicated sufcient variability for both the childhood teaser (M 5 3.19,
SD 5 1.68) and childhood victim (M 5 4.23, SD 5 1.88) variables.
The two teasing history variables were essentially unrelated,
r(106) 5 .02, p 5 .82. All betas, semi-partial rs, signicance tests,
and p-values for these ndings are reported in Table 2. Once again,
all interactions were interpreted using predicted values calculated at
1 SD above and below the mean and were probed using simple slope
analyses (Aiken & West, 1991).
History of Teasing Others. Do adults who were frequent childhood
teasers view interactions differently from those who were infrequent
childhood teasers, regardless of whether there is a teasing comment
involved? The answer appears to be yes, as there were several
signicant main effects for history of being a teaser. As shown in
Table 2, individuals with histories of being frequent teasers in their
childhood rated the social skills of their partner as being lower, felt
that they contributed a higher percentage of the nal rankings and
their partners a lower percentage, and they expressed more
dominance in their narratives than did individuals with histories of
582
Bollmer et al.
Table 2
Regression Analyses for Significant Main Effects and Interactions
Involving Teasing History
Teasing History Measures and Dependent Variables
Teaser Status
Social skill of partner
% of nal rankings by partner
Dominance expressed
Teaser Status Teasing Condition
Comment mentioned
Expressed liking of partner
Expressed narrative anger
Victim Status
Overall friendliness
Victim Status Teasing Condition
Time differential mentioned
Self-focus of narrative
sr
.23
.27
.27
.23
.23
.27
.27
.22
2.43
2.77
2.77
2.24
.017
.007
.007
.027
.26
.41
.31
.24
.22
.31
.24
.20
2.17
3.32
2.46
2.01
.033
.001
.016
.047
.19
.19 1.99 .050
.34
.33
.26 2.59 .011

.24 2.37 .020
Note. Ns for the analyses ranged from 104 to 108.
being infrequent teasers. In sum, frequent childhood teasers tended

to evaluate their partners and the interaction in a more condescending, egocentric manner, and they felt, perhaps undeservedly, that
they were better than their partners on several dimensions.
We were also interested in knowing what would happen when
undergraduates who were frequent childhood teasers had the tables
turned on them and they actually became the targets of teasing
themselves. As shown in Table 2, history of being a teaser interacted
with teasing condition for several of the dependent variables. First,
there was a signicant interaction for the dependent variable of
whether the comment was mentioned. Not surprisingly, both the
infrequent teasers and the frequent teasers tended not to mention the
comment in the control condition, as the comment was not worthy
of mention. When teased, however, frequent teasers mentioned the
comment signicantly less often than did the infrequent teasers.
Perhaps the infrequent teasers are mentioning the comment because
they either are not used to teasing being used in social interactions or
do not approve of it, making the comment particularly salient to
583

5.4
Overall Liking for Partner
5.2
Low Teaser
High Teaser
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
3.8
3.6
No Tease
Tease
Figure 3
Interactive effects of teaser history and teasing condition on overall

liking for partner.
them. The frequent teasers, however, may not take as much notice of
the teasing, perhaps because they are used to making such comments
themselves and therefore do not look upon teasing comments as
something out of the ordinary and worth mentioning.
Similar patterns were found for the dependent variables of overall
partner liking and positive affect of the narrative. As shown in
Figure 3, frequent teasers liked their partners just as much whether
they were teased or not. Infrequent teasers, however, liked their
partners as much as the frequent teasers in the control condition, but
liked their partners signicantly less when teased. This pattern was
also found for the positive affect variable. Once again, frequent
teasers expressed the same amount of positive affect in their
narratives whether they were teased or not. Infrequent teasers,
however, expressed signicantly less positive affect in their
narratives when teased than in the control condition. Both of these
ndings lend support to the notion that the frequent teasers are
unaffected by teasing they encounter in others. Perhaps because they
are more used to teasing others, they interpret the teasing as just a
normal part of the interaction. Infrequent teasers, however, react
negatively to the teasing comment; maybe because they use teasing
584
Bollmer et al.
less often in their lives, they do not like it being used when they are
interacting with others.
Additional support for this interpretation is seen in the signicant
interaction found for the amount of anger expressed in the narrative.
Frequent teasers expressed a similar amount of anger in their
narratives whether they were teased or not. Infrequent teasers,
however, expressed more anger in their narratives when they were
teased than in the control condition. It would seem, then, that
frequent teasers do not get angry when they themselves are teased.
Infrequent teasers, however, appear to be more sensitive to the
teasing comment and react to it in a more hostile manner.
History of Being Teased. One signicant main effect was obtained
for history of being a victim of teasing. Coding of the videotapes
revealed that individuals who were frequent victims of teasing were
rated as behaving less friendly overall during the interaction with the
confederate (regardless of tease condition) than were individuals
who were infrequent victims of teasing. Perhaps their histories of
being frequent victims of childhood teasing have made these
individuals more guarded, and consequently less friendly, when
interacting with a stranger, or maybe these individuals in general
have worse social skills than those who were not frequently teased,
which may have contributed to their victim status.
We were also interested in how frequent victims of childhood
teasing would react to being teased now that they were adults. To
answer this question, we looked at how history of being teased
interacted with teasing condition and found two signicant
interactions, described in Table 2. Looking rst at whether the time
differential in completing the NASA task was mentioned, infrequent
victims mentioned the time differential just as much whether they
were teased or not. Frequent victims, however, were just as likely as
the infrequent victims to mention the time differential in the control
condition, but were signicantly more likely to mention the time
differential when they were teased. In addition to this nding, there
was also an interaction for the dependent variable regarding the
overall self-focus of the narrative. As shown in Figure 4, infrequent
victims wrote narratives that were similarly self-focused, regardless
of being teased. Relative to the infrequent victims, frequent victims
wrote narratives that were similarly self-focused in the control
condition, but when teased, they wrote narratives that were
585

5
4.8
Low Victim
High Victim
Self-Focus of Narrative
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
No Tease
Tease
Figure 4
Interactive effects of victim history and teasing condition on the selffocus of narrative.
signicantly more self-focused than in the control condition and

than those written by infrequent victims. Apparently, the infrequent
victims of childhood teasing are indifferent to being the target of a
teasing comment, whereas frequent victims of childhood teasing
become extremely self-conscious when teased.
Personality, Teasing History, and Being Teased
Previous analyses revealed that behavioral and emotional reactions

to teasing are strongly inuenced by both personality traits and
teasing history. We were also curious to see how these two factors
would interact to inuence peoples responses to teasing. We therefore looked at the three-way interactions among personality, teasing
history, and tease condition. Together, these predictors do a good
job of predicting behavioral and emotional reactions to teasing, as
the total amount of variance accounted for across the dependent
variables ranged from 14% to 48%, with a median R2 of .29.
Personality and History of Teasing Others. Looking at the
interactive effects involving a history of teasing others, we found
signicant Agreeableness Teaser History Tease Condition inter-
586
Bollmer et al.
actions for the dependent variables of how annoyed the participant

was after the interaction with their partner and whether they
mentioned the time differential in completing the NASA task,
5 .45, sr 5 .28, t 5 2.70, p 5 .008 and 5 .39, sr 5 .26,
t 5 2.44, p 5 .017, respectively. The pattern of these interactions was
the same for both variables; for purposes of illustration we present
the results for the annoyed self-rating variable in Figure 5. In the notease condition, there were no differences in how annoyed
participants were or whether the time differential was mentioned.
In the tease condition, however, participants who were high teasers
and high in Agreeableness were signicantly less likely to get
annoyed and to mention the time differential than those who were
high teasers and low in Agreeableness. Perhaps, teasers who are high
in Agreeableness see the positive aspects of teasing interactions and
are not bothered by them, but teasers who are low in Agreeableness
see the negative aspects of teasing and are agitated when they are
teased by someone else.
Further, we found signicant Extraversion Teaser History
Tease Condition interactions for several of the dependent
variables. First, Extraversion and teaser history interacted with
teasing condition to inuence how participants viewed the interaction with their partners, as there were signicant interactions for
how well they thought the interaction went and how socially skilled
they thought their partner was, 5 .37, sr 5 .26, t 5 2.36, p 5 .02
and 5 .37, sr 5 .25, t 5 2.49, p 5 .015, respectively. Again, the
pattern was consistent across these dependent variables. As shown in
Figure 6, in the no-tease condition, there were no differences in how
well participants thought the interaction went or in how socially
skilled their partners were. In the tease condition, however, high
teasers who were low in Extraversion thought the interaction went
more poorly and that their partners were less socially skilled than
high teasers who were high in Extraversion. We also found
signicant interactions for how friendly participants felt and the
positive affect expressed in their narratives, 5 .31, sr 5 .24,
t 5 2.23, p 5 .029 and 5 .35, sr 5 .23, t 5 2.13, p 5 .036, indicating
that Extraversion and teaser history also interacted with teasing
condition to inuence how participants felt about themselves. In the
no-tease condition, there were no differences in how friendly
participants felt or how much positive affect was expressed in their
narratives. In the tease condition, however, high teasers who were
587
No Tease
3
Low Agreeableness
Annoyed Self-Rating
2.5
High Agreeableness
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Low
High
Teaser History
Tease
3
Annoyed Self-Rating
2.5
Low Agreeableness
High Agreeableness
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Low
High
Teaser History
Figure 5
Interactive effects of Agreeableness, teaser history, and teasing

condition on whether the time differential in completing the NASA
task is mentioned.
low in Extraversion felt less friendly and expressed less positive

affect in their narratives than high teasers who were high in
Extraversion. Therefore, it appears that being teased causes those
who are high teasers, but low in Extraversion, to feel negatively
about the social interaction and about themselves.
588
Bollmer et al.
No Tease
How Interaction Went
8
7.5
Low Extraversion
High Extraversion
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
Low
High
Teaser History
Tease
How Interaction Went
8
7.5
Low Extraversion
High Extraversion
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
Low
High
Teaser History
Figure 6
Interactive effects of Extraversion, teaser history, and teasing condition on perceptions of how well the interaction went.
Personality and History of Being a Victim. Analogous analyses were

conducted to examine the relations among personality, victim
history, and teasing condition. Unlike the previous analyses, which
yielded a consistent pattern of ndings, the analyses for victim
history produced fewer ndings, and these tended to be scattered
across personality trait and dependent variable. For example, there
589
was a signicant Neuroticism Victim History Tease Condition

interaction, 5 .30, sr 5 .22, t 5 2.09, p 5 .039, but this was the only
interaction for both the trait of Neuroticism and the narrative selffocus dependent variable. None of the other signicant three-way
interactions involving victim history revealed a consistent pattern
across trait or dependent variable either. These ndings, therefore,
will not be discussed further.2
Effects of Gender
In order to see if men and women differed in their reactions to being

teased, the moderating effects of gender were explored in a set of
Gender Teasing Condition ANOVAs. Several signicant main
effects of gender were found; the means, Fs, and effect sizes for these
variables are reported in Table 3.
Looking rst at the self-rating scale, there was a main effect for
the friendly variable, such that women reported feeling friendlier
than did men. For the self-report variables, there were several
signicant main effects for the ratings of the partners social skills,
the contribution of the participant to the nal rankings, and the
contribution of the partner to the nal rankings, all Fs49.01,
pso.006, rs4.27. For these dependent variables, women, as
compared to men, were more self-deprecating, as they rated the
social skills of their partners higher, believed that they contributed a
lower percentage of nal rankings, and believed that their partners
contributed a higher percentage of nal rankings.
Looking at the narrative variables, there were signicant main
effects for overall liking of the partner, positive affect, dominance,
and mention of the time differential, all Fs44.87, pso.03, rs4.20.
In their narratives, women expressed more liking for their partners,
more positive affect, less dominance, and mentioned the time
differential more often than did men.
Finally, for the variables coded from the videotapes, there were
signicant main effects for the time to complete the task, response to
the remark, and dominance displayed, all Fs47.14, pso.01, rs4.24.
2
Given that there were few three-way interactions involving victim history and
that the pattern of the ndings lacked consistency, the remaining interactions will
not be discussed in detail in the interest of space considerations. However, for
those who are interested in these results, the ndings can be obtained from the
second author.
590
Bollmer et al.
Table 3
Means, F-values, and Effect Sizes for the Significant Main Effects of
Gender
Dependent Variables
Self-Report Variables
Self-Report Questionnaire
Social skills of partner
% of nal rankings by self
Narrative Variables
Overall liking for partner
Narrative positive affect
Narrative dominance
Mention of time differential
Videotape Variables
Time to complete task
Positivity of response to remark
Dominance displayed
Men
(n 5 48)
Women
(n 5 60)
6.60
7.08
4.35
.20
6.63
56.15
43.85
7.03
48.25
51.58
9.02
13.92
13.64
.28
.34
.34
4.42
4.47
4.07
0.63
4.80
4.86
3.46
0.42
4.97
4.88
10.91
5.65
.21
.21
.31
.23
123.11
3.93
4.77
73.47
4.31
4.13
20.42
7.15
14.09
.41
.25
.35
Note. All pso.05.
Compared to men, women took less time to complete the task after
the comment was made, responded more positively to the remark,
and displayed less dominance.
Gender interacted signicantly with teasing condition only for the
composite variable of how well the interaction went, F(1,
104) 5 5.33, p 5 .023, r 5 .22. Men rated how well the interaction
went similarly regardless of whether they were teased (M 5 6.63) or
not teased (M 5 6.59), but women rated the interaction as going less
well when they were teased (M 5 6.21) than when they were not
teased (M 5 6.91), contrast t(104) 5 4.29, po.05, r 5 .39. Mens
perceptions of the interaction were virtually unaffected by the
teasing comment, but womens perceptions were altered such that
women saw the interaction in a more negative light when they were
teased by the confederate.
Given that we found effects of both personality and gender, it
may be useful to compare the variance accounted for by these
different predictors. As noted earlier, our individual difference
591
variables of personality and teasing history did a good job

accounting for the variance of the dependent variables (median
R2 5 .29). The gender of the participant did not have nearly as much
explanatory value, as the amount of variance accounted for by the
main effects of gender ranged from 0.1% to 12%, with a median R2
of .04. Thus, these ndings indicate that the individual difference
variables of personality and teasing history are much stronger
predictors than gender of how people emotionally and behaviorally
respond to being teased.
DISCUSSION
Consider the comments made by two different participants in the

current study as they describe their reactions to being teased by their
partners during the problem-solving task. The rst person writes,
She (the experimenter) gave the paper and I began to work. My
partner nished and made a joke, youre not done yet or something
like that. All I thought was Excuse me jerk, just reading carefully.
Clearly this person was adversely affected by the teasing comment,
as he resorts to mentally derogating his partner. A second person,
who was teased in the exact same manner, however, reacts much
more positively to the teasing. This person wrote, She nished
before me, so she made a joke about it taking me so long and we
both laughed. This did not make me uneasy in any way. It was just a
way of making the experiment a better experience.
Clearly, people react to teasing in very different ways. What is it,
though, that makes people respond to teasing comments in such
contrasting manners? Why would some people take offense to the
comment, while others view it as a positive addition to an
interaction? Obviously, it is not just the content of the teasing
comment, or even the way it is said, as the two individuals quoted
above were targets of a teasing comment that was standardized for
experimental purposes. Therefore, the answers to these questions
must lie somewhere within the individual and how that person
interacts with the situation.
Reactions to Being Teased
One of the more striking implications of the current study is that

even though the teasing comment uttered by the confederate was
592
Bollmer et al.
extremely mild and brief, participants still strongly reacted to being

teased. The teasing was clearly salient to the participants, as those
who were teased were more likely to mention that the confederate
nished the task before them and that the confederate made a
comment to them; in addition, they took substantially less time to
nish the NASA task after the confederate made the comment than
did those in the control condition. Teasing is often used to point out
social deviance (Keltner et al., 1998; Pawluk, 1989), and in the
current study, it appears that being teased, even by a stranger, can
make one aware of social deviance and want to correct that deviant
behavior. As one participant wrote, He got his done really fast and
said, Going kind of slow? Then he laughed it off. This pressured me
into nishing my individual task quickly before I got a chance to
think about it. In this case, the teasing comment caused the target
to work more quickly and nish the NASA task as soon as possible,
perhaps to avoid more ridicule. Furthermore, not only was the
teasing salient to participants, but they also reacted negatively to
being teased. Participants who were teased were more likely to write
narratives that expressed more anger, and they were more likely to
respond to the confederates comment in a less positive manner than
did participants in the control group.
In sum, a mild and brief teasing comment, Boy, you sure are
slow at this, arent you . . . just kidding, uttered by one stranger to
another elicited a host of affective and behavioral responses by the
target. Given the mildness of this tease, the negative affective and
behavioral responses of the target are particularly striking.
Personality Traits and Reactions to Teasing
A major goal of the current study was to investigate how behavioral

and emotional reactions to teasing may be moderated by personality
traits. We believed that certain personalities would focus on
different aspects of the teasing comment and consequently respond
in dissimilar ways.
Consistent with our predictions from the behavioral concordance
model (Cote & Mokowitz, 1998; Mokowitz & Cote, 1995), those
high in Agreeableness reacted adversely to the teasing comment, and
their evaluations of the task and of their partner were affected in a
negative manner. Highly agreeable people, who are characterized by
the desire for interactions to go well and the belief that others are
593
good-intentioned, apparently viewed the teasing comment about

them completing the task slowly as more quarrelsome than
agreeable. Thus, consistent with the behavioral concordance model
predicting that those high in a trait will experience negative affect
when they are engaged in discordant interactions, individuals high in
Agreeableness liked their partners less, thought the interaction with
their partner went less well, and that they wrote less positive
narratives when they were teased. For these individuals, the teasing
comment disrupted the smoothness of the interaction and violated
the norms for being a friendly partner, causing them to like their
partners less and feel more negatively toward the interaction than
they would have otherwise. Individuals low in Agreeableness,
however, were relatively unaffected by teasing, which is also
consistent with the behavioral concordance model. These individuals
showed the same amount of liking for the confederate, reported that
the interaction went similarly well, and wrote equally positive
narratives whether they were teased or not.
One exception to this line of reasoning appears to be the
particular subgroup of individuals who are both high on Agreeableness and frequent teasers. When teased, this group of individuals
was actually less annoyed and was less likely to mention the time
differential than those high teasers who were low on Agreeableness.
As the trait of Agreeableness is characterized by the behavioral
facets of straightforwardness, compliance, altruism, and trust, we
believe that most people who are high on Agreeableness are
probably not likely also to be frequent teasers, and, indeed, we
found a negative relation between teaser history and Agreeableness,
r(106) 5 .19, p 5 .052. For this unique subgroup who are high on
both, the experience of teasing others may make them inclined to see
the more positive aspects of teasing and react less negatively. The
same argument applies to the ndings where Extraversion and teaser
history interacted with being teased, such that those individuals who
are low on Extraversion (thus, introverts) and high teasers were
more likely to react negatively to the teasing than extraverts who
were high teasers. Given that introverts are characterized by a lack
of gregariousness and assertiveness, it seems almost contradictory to
have introverts who frequently use teasing, and consistent with this
reasoning, we found a positive relation between teaser history and
Extraversion, r(106) 5 .18, p 5 .06. It could be that these individuals
are a subgroup of individuals who, although they often use teasing,
594
Bollmer et al.
use it in aversive ways and nd the experience of being teased just as

aversive, as reected through negative feelings towards themselves
and the interaction.
Looking at Neuroticism, previous research and theory led to two
contrasting hypotheses regarding how this personality trait would
interact with teasing condition. Previous empirical research pointed
to a hypothesis predicting that those high in Neuroticism would
react negatively to the experience of being teased, as these
individuals endorsed more hostile responses to teasing and reported
that they would be angrier if they were teased in a manner similar to
a target who was teased (Georgesen et al., 1999). Theoretically,
however, the behavioral concordance model (Cote & Moskowitz,
1998) predicted that it should be those low in Neuroticism who react
negatively to the teasing, as teasing, a more quarrelsome behavior, is
discordant with low Neuroticism. Consistent with the hypothesis
stemming from the behavioral concordance model, we found that
low-neurotic individuals reacted negatively to the experience of
being teased. Those low in Neuroticism had their friendly selfratings decrease and rated themselves as less smart-dominant as a
result of being teased. These ndings are probably due to these
individuals disliking the conict and provocation associated with the
quarrelsome behavior of teasing. Highly neurotic individuals,
however, did not react negatively to being teased, as they rated
themselves as feeling just as friendly and smart-dominant whether
they were teased or were engaged in a benign interaction with their
partner. Overall, they just do not feel very friendly or capable,
regardless of the situations in which they nd themselves.
Consistent with our predictions about Openness to Experience,
individuals low in Openness responded negatively to being teased.
Individuals low in Openness felt signicantly less friendly and wrote
less positive narratives when they were teased, and this nding can
be attributed to the fact that less open individuals feel less
comfortable with things that are out of the ordinary. Teasing
violates the norms of a typical interaction between strangers, and as
a result, individuals low in Openness rated themselves and viewed
the interaction more negatively. This interpretation is consistent
with McCraes (1996) conceptualization of Openness to Experience,
as he describes individuals who are low in Openness as inexible,
unable to adapt to others perspectives, and disliking acts of
disobedience such as breaking rules or violating norms. We had also
595
predicted that those high in Openness would react more positively to

the teasing, but contrary to predictions, they were unaffected by the
teasing comment. It is possible that they viewed the interaction with
a partner as just another typical social interaction, and even the
teasing comment from their partner did not make the situation any
more novel or exciting to them.
While we had no predictions for how Conscientiousness would
interact with teasing condition, we found a signicant interaction for
participants perceptions of how much their partners contributed to
the nal NASA task rankings. For conscientious individuals, teasing
did not affect their contribution to completing the task, which is
consistent with the characterization of conscientious people being
determined and strong-willed, with nothing, including teasing,
allowed to get in their way of getting the job done. Lowconscientious people, however, who are less motivated to begin with,
disengaged from the task even further when they became the victim
of teasing, essentially letting their partners do more of the work.
Taken as a whole, these ndings indicate that when attempting to
gure out how someone will react to being teased, it is simply not
enough to think only about the teasing comment that is being made.
Individuals may interpret the teasing comments differently, with
some people being bothered by and reacting negatively to the
teasing. One factor that clearly moderates peoples reactions to
teasing is personality. In particular, targets who are agreeable, low in
neuroticism, or less open to experience tend to react more negatively
to even mild teasing than do people with other personality traits.
Clearly, one would be wise to take into account the personality of
the target when judging whether it is safe to tease someone.
Prior Life Experiences and Reactions to Teasing
A second goal of the current study was to investigate how prior

experiences with teasing would affect behavioral and emotional
reactions to being teased. First, however, it is interesting to note that
teasing history was related to perceptions of the interaction,
regardless of whether there was teasing involved.
Looking rst at childhood history of being a teaser, frequent
teasers tended to derogate their partners more than did infrequent
teasers. For example, frequent teasers said that their partners
contributed less to the nal rankings while they contributed more,
596
Bollmer et al.
rated the social skill of their partners as lower, and tended to be

more dominant in their narratives. As one frequent teaser wrote,
She was very concerned about what I had (written). If there were
any differences she would give in to my answer. Sometimes I feel
that people who do this dont stand up for themselves and give in
easy to pressure. They tend to conform to the others expectations or
needs. The description of the frequent teasers in the current study is
consistent with characterizations of childhood bullies, who are
described as being aggressive, impulsive, and characterized by strong
needs to dominate others (Olweus, 1992, 1993). Perhaps, frequent
childhood teasers still relate to others as they did in the past, but
now derogate their targets as opposed to bullying them.
There was also evidence to suggest that frequent and infrequent
victims interact differently. The nonverbal behavior of frequent
victims was rated as less friendly than that of infrequent victims
during the joint completion of the problem-solving task. Frequent
victims may have worse social skills than those individuals who were
not frequently teased, as, perhaps, these individuals did not have the
same opportunities for social interactions as did frequent teasers. Of
course, the direction of causality could go in the opposite direction:
These individuals with poorer social skills in childhood may have
been targeted for teasing by peers (Perry et al., 2001). Another
possibility is that being frequently teased as children made these
individuals more guarded when entering into social interactions with
strangers, a cautiousness that persisted to adulthood and could
easily be interpreted by strangers as unfriendliness.
In addition to these ndings, teasing history was also found to
moderate reactions to being teased. Overall, contrary to our
predictions that frequent childhood teasers would react positively
to the teasing, they tended, instead, to be relatively unaffected by the
comment. Regardless of being teased, they tended not to mention
the comment, liked their partners equally as well, and expressed the
same amount of positive affect and anger in their narratives.
Perhaps these individuals are so accustomed to using teasing in their
own lives that they do not think twice about a mild tease occurring
during a social interaction. To them, teasing is just a normal way of
interacting with other people. The infrequent teasers, on the other
hand, took offense to being teased. When they were teased, they
mentioned the comment more often, they liked their partners less,
and their narratives were less positive and more angry. As one
597
infrequent teaser wrote, Before the experiment began and I met

with my partner, I thought it was going to go well. But as soon as
she made the comment Boy youre slow at this I got annoyed.
Clearly, infrequent teasers are reacting negatively to the comment,
as perhaps they are uncomfortable with teasing being used in social
interactions because they do not use teasing much themselves.
Because they do not have as much experience as the frequent teasers
do with teasing, they may be unsure how to handle the teasing
except to become upset, or they may see it as a gross violation of
polite social norms.
A different pattern of ndings was revealed for the frequent
victims of childhood teasing. Consistent with predictions, frequent
victims reacted negatively to the teasing comment. Instead of
becoming outwardly hostile, however, frequent victims became more
self-conscious of their behavior. For example, when teased, frequent
victims were signicantly more likely to mention that the
confederate nished the NASA task before they did. They were
also more likely to write narratives that were more self-focused, a
nding that is consistent with a study by Kowalski (2000), who also
found that victims tend to be more self-focused when relating
teasing incidents. This raises the question of why teasing victims
become more self-focused. One reason may be that frequent victims
focus inward and on their own behavior in order to gure out what
could have caused them to be the target of yet another teasing
comment (cf. Lightner, 1998), consistent with past ndings
indicating that victims may often blame themselves for the teasing
(Georgesen et al., 1999). Another explanation is that victims were
trying to rationalize and explain their own behavior, perhaps in
order to feel better about themselves. As one frequent victim wrote,
As I take my time to read through instructions and answer rst by
thinking carefully about it, I took a longer time to complete my
individual task. My partner remarked that I was a bit slow on it
she was just kiddingbut that made me a bit nervous. Targets,
while acknowledging comments as being teases, also tend to try to
put the record straight or explain their behavior (Drew, 1987).
Interestingly, unlike history of being a teaser, personality did not
reliably moderate the relation between history of being a victim and
teasing condition. One possible explanation for the lack of ndings
for victim history may be the manner in which the teasing history
variables were being construed by participants. Given the pattern of
598
Bollmer et al.
ndings for teaser history, it appears that this item was ambiguous
enough that it could be construed by teasers to refer to either lighthearted or negative teasing, and thus allowed personality to
moderate the relation between teaser history and teasing condition
(cf. Caspi & Moftt, 1993). For example, frequent teasers who were
high in Agreeableness tended to see teasing more positively, but
frequent teasers who were low in Extraversion tended to see teasing
more negatively. However, it appears that the victim history item
was interpreted more narrowly and that victims tended not to focus
on the positive aspects of teasing. Perhaps the more hurtful instances
of childhood teasing are the ones that are most accessible in memory
and cause victims to construe teasing in a negative manner. As such,
there was little opportunity for personality to reliably moderate the
relation between victim history and teasing condition.
In sum, prior life experiences related to how teasing was perceived
and reacted to. For those with a history of being a teaser, infrequent
teasers reacted negatively to the teasing comment, whereas frequent
teasers were indifferent to being teased. For those with a history of
being a victim, it was the frequent victims who reacted to the teasing
by becoming more self-focused. Infrequent victims were relatively
unaffected by the teasing. Once again, there is support for the
assertion that teasing a stranger, or even an acquaintance, may be
risky. Unless you know a person fairly well, and on several different
levels, it is difcult to predict how he or she may react to a teasing
comment. Teasing that is well-intentioned, therefore, may be most
appropriate in relationships that are more developed, and even then,
there is still room for misinterpretation.
Limitations and Future Directions
One of the strengths of the current study is that it advances the

previous literature on teasing by using a multimethod assessment of
the affective and behavioral responses to an experimentally
manipulated teasing comment. By using a live teasing enactment,
we were able to minimize some of the social desirability problems
that stem from asking people to report on the feelings and reactions
associated with negative behaviors. Even though asking people
how they think they would respond or how they did respond
to a particular teasing event can be informative under certain
circumstances, we believe obtaining actual behavioral and emotional
599
responses to a live teasing event reveals a more complete picture of

how people perceive and interpret teasing incidents.
However, some limitations do remain in terms of the generalizability of our ndings. As the current study focuses on how
individuals respond to a specic teasing comment, we tried to choose
a tease that included hostility, playfulness, and ambiguity, because
these are the three components described by the current denitions
of teasing (Keltner et al., 1998; Shapiro et al., 1991). Therefore, the
tease that was used in this study was fairly mild and was said with
several verbal and nonverbal cues (e.g., just kidding and a smile)
to make the remark seem less hostile. As teases may range from
those that are very playful to those that are extremely hostile
(Keltner et al., 1998; Shapiro et al., 1991), the comment used in the
current study may have evoked different responses from the target
than would have one that was either more playful or more aggressive
in nature. In order to understand reactions to teasing more fully,
future research should investigate responses to other types of
teasing, including varying the topic of the tease.
Another factor that may limit the generalizability of the current
study is that the staged teasing event took place between two people
who had only just met each other. People use certain cues when
trying to interpret teasing comments, and one cue that is used is the
nature of the relationship (Alberts et al., 1996). People probably
respond to teasing differently, depending on who is doing the teasing.
A teasing comment from a stranger may be met with more hostility
than the same comment coming from a friend (Alberts et al., 1996)
who has built up more idiosyncrasy credit (Hollander, 1958) with
the target. Alternately, perhaps a teasing comment from those close to
us may hurt us more than from strangers (Miller, 1997). Some teasing
comments may touch on sensitive or personal areas. We may feel
that someone close to us should know better, and, thus, we may
believe that they are intentionally trying to hurt us (Leary, Springer,
Negel, Ansell, & Evans, 1998). Therefore, how teasing is used and
responded to in different relationships (e.g., friends vs. acquaintances vs. strangers) should also be addressed by future research.
Future research should also investigate how certain personality
proles, as opposed to single traits, may predict peoples responses
to teasing. For example, a personality prole consisting of low
Agreeableness, low Conscientiousness, and high Neuroticism (a
prole referred to as undercontrollers) has consistently been
600
Bollmer et al.
associated with such characteristics as rebelliousness, hostility, lack

of warmth and sympathy, and being impulsive, manipulative, and
confrontational ( John & Srivastava, 1999; Robins, John, Caspi,
Moftt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1996). Furthermore, this combination of traits has also been linked to peer victimization, as the
personality traits of childhood bullies were consistent with the
undercontroller typology, with bullies being more likely to be low on
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and high on Neuroticism
(Bollmer et al., 2002). Although the current study did not have
sufcient power to examine personality typologies and how they
relate to teasing, certain personality composites may be more closely
associated with teaser or victim histories than others and, consequently, be more successful in predicting how people may respond to
teasing. Future research should address this possibility.
Finally, our ndings related to the interactive effects of
personality and teasing history led to logical questions regarding
the causal nature of the relations among these variables. In other
words, does personality lead to teasing history, which then affects
how the individuals react to a teasing situation, or does being teased
shape ones personality and consequently affect how one responds
to future teasing? Because we obtained the personality and teasing
history variables at the same time and therefore do not have
longitudinal data, we are unable to conduct the appropriate causal
modeling analyses that would provide a more denitive test of this
question. Future research may wish to investigate the causal
pathways by which these factors inuence behavioral and emotional
responses to teasing.
People commonly use teasing to interact with others, but teasing
is not without risk. The manner in which the comment is meant and
the manner in which it is interpreted may be very different due to the
ambiguous nature of teasing. The current study demonstrates that
our perceptions of teasing are also related to our personalities. Who
we are, both in terms of our personality traits and our past
experiences with teasing, inuences how we interpret and respond to
teasing comments. Therefore, it is not enough to decide only how to
phrase the teasing comment, but one must also take into account
who the target is, what that person is like, and what his/her history is
when deciding whether to tease someone. Even then, there is still
room for teases to be perceived in a manner different from what they
were meant. As the 19th century historian and political philosopher,
601
Thomas Carlyle, noted, No man lives without jostling and being

jostled; in all ways he has to elbow himself through the world, giving
and receiving offense. (1838, p. 293). As we proceed through our
daily social interactions, we may encounter situations that could be
perceived as offensive, yet how the situation will be handled and
who will take offense will depend upon the individuals personality
and life experiences.
REFERENCES
Advice with Dr. Dave and Dr. Dee. (2000). Insulting teasing not humorous.
Retrieved August 9, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://drdaveanddee.
com/teasing.html
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Alberts, J. K., Kellar-Guenther, Y., & Corman, S. R. (1996). Thats not funny:
Understanding recipients responses to teasing. Western Journal of Communication, 60, 337357.
Bollmer, J. M., & Harris, M. J. (2002). Teasing the boss: Effects of relative status,
redressive actions, and gender on perceptions of teasing. Manuscript in
preparation.
Bollmer, J. M., Harris, M. J., & Milich, R. (2002). A multilevel analysis of bullying
and peer victimization: Personality, narratives, and physiological arousal.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Carlyle, T. (1938, November 12). Sir Walter Scott. London and Westminster
Review, 28, 293.
Caspi, A., & Moftt, T. E. (1993). When do individual differences matter? A
paradoxical theory of personality coherence. Psychological Bulletin, 4, 247271.
Caspi, A., & Roberts, B. W. (1999). Personality and continuity and change across
the life course. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
Theory and research (pp. 300326). New York: The Guilford Press.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990). Peer group behavior and
social status. In S. R. Asher, & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood
(pp. 1759). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cote, S., & Moskowitz, D. S. (1998). On the dynamic covariation between interpersonal behavior and affect: Predictors from Neuroticism, Extraversion, and
Agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 10321046.
Drew, P. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25, 219253.
Georgesen, J. C., Harris, M. J., Milich, R., & Bosko-Young, J. (1999). Just
teasingy: Personality effects on perceptions and life narratives of childhood
teasing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 12541267.
602
Bollmer et al.
Harris, M. J., & Perkins, R. (1995). Effects of distraction on interpersonal

expectancy effects: A social interaction test of the cognitive busyness
hypothesis. Social Cognition, 13, 163182.
Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents
and consequences of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 677685.
Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65, 117127.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History,
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John
(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102138). New
York: Guilford.
Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just
teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin,
127, 229248.
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, 12311247.
Kochenderfer B., J., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). Victimized childrens responses to
peers aggression: Behaviors associated with reduced versus continued
victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 5973.
Kowalski, R. M. (2000). I was only kidding!: Victims and perpetrators
perceptions of teasing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26,
231241.
Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998). The causes,
phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 12251237.
Lightner, R. M. (1998). The effects of attributional focus, teaser reputation and age
on childrens perceptions of teasing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Lightner, R. M., Bollmer, J. M., Harris, M. J., Milich, R., & Scambler, D. (2000).
What do you say to teasers? Parent and child evaluations of responses to
teasing. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 403427.
McAninch, C. B., Milich, R., & Harris, M. J. (1996). Effects of an academic
expectancy and gender on students interactions. Journal of Educational
Research, 89, 146153.
McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323337.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A ve-factor theory of personality. In L. A.
Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
(pp. 139153). New York: The Guilford Press.
Miller, R. (1997). We always hurt the ones we love: Aversive interactions in close
relationships. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors
(pp. 1129). New York: Plenum Press.
Moskowitz, D. S., & Cote, S. (1995). Do interpersonal traits predict affect? A
comparison of three models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,
915924.
603
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. New
York: Wiley & Sons.
Olweus, D. (1992). Bullying among schoolchildren: Intervention and prevention.
In R. Peters, R. J. Mahon, & V. L. Quinsey (Eds.), Aggression and violence
throughout the lifespan (pp. 100125). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes.
In K. H. Rubin, & J. B. Asendorf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and
shyness in childhood (pp. 315341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pawluk, C. J. (1989). Social construction of teasing. Journal for the Theory of
Social Behaviour, 19, 145167.
Perry, D. G., Hodges, E. V. E., & Egan, S. K. (2001). Determinants of chronic
victimization by peers: A review and new model of family inuence. In J.
Juvonen, & S. H. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment: The plight of the vulnerable
and victimized (pp. 73104). New York: Guilford Press.
Perry, D. G., Williard, J. C., & Perry, L. C. (1990). Peers perceptions of the
consequences that victimized children provide aggressors. Child Development,
61, 13101325.
Raine, A., Dodge, K., Loeber, R., Kopp, L., Lynam, D., Reynolds, C., &
Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2001). Proactive and reactive aggression in adolescents. Manuscript under review.
Robins, R. W., John, O. P., Caspi, A., Moftt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M.
(1996). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled boys: Three replicable
personality types. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 157171.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1969). Artifact in behavioral research. New
York: Academic Press.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research:
Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Scambler, D. J., Harris, M. J., & Milich, R. (1998). Sticks and stones: Evaluations
of responses to childhood teasing. Social Development, 7, 234249.
Shapiro, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Kessler, J. W. (1991). A three-component
model of childrens teasing: Aggression, humor, and ambiguity. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 459472.
Sharkey, W. F. (1997). Why would anyone want to intentionally embarrass me?
In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 5790). New
York: Plenum Press.
604

Taking Offense: Effects of Personality and Teasing History On Behavioral and Emotional Reactions To Teasing

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Taking Offense: Effects of Personality and Teasing History On Behavioral and Emotional Reactions To Teasing

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Taking Offense: Effects of Personality and

Teasing History on Behavioral and Emotional

Consider the following question that was submitted to an internet

Journal of Personality 71:4, August 2003.

Dear Dr. Dee,

Clearly, teasing can be perceived in contrasting ways. Some people

Teasing is often dened as having various components, and these

Personality and Reactions to Teasing

(Keltner, Capps, Kring, Young, & Heerey, 2001, p. 234). Teasing

represents a promising beginning to studying behavioral reactions to

What is it about people that causes them to perceive and respond to

Personality and Reactions to Teasing

scoring high on a trait will experience more negative affect when

the hostility and conict associated with a quarrelsome teasing

In addition to exploring the role of personality traits, another goal

Personality and Reactions to Teasing

perceived and responded to in the present, and past research

Personality, Teasing History, and Teasing

Personality and Reactions to Teasing

not teased. This effect should be revealed through their behavior,

Individuals who are low in Openness typically do not like novelty

Participants were 108 undergraduates (48 men and 60 women)

Personality and Reactions to Teasing

Kentucky. Participants were mainly traditional college students

Participants were ostensibly recruited for a study designed to look at

NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Once the participant and

The Neuroticism scale measures an individuals inclination to

Problem-Solving Task and Teasing Manipulation. Upon completion

Personality and Reactions to Teasing

Personality and Reactions to Teasing

Personality and Reactions to Teasing

A series of preliminary Teasing Condition Confederate ANOVAs

all Fsr2.87, ps4.06. Therefore, we collapsed across confederate for

First, we wanted to know how a seemingly mild teasing comment

Personality and Reactions to Teasing

Looking next at the ve personality variables, analyses yielded

Note. Ns for the analyses ranged from 104 to 108.

as more friendly,  5 .26, sr 5 .25, t(98) 5 2.54, p 5 .014, than those

Personality and Reactions to Teasing

Overall Liking for Partner

Interactive effects of Agreeableness and teasing condition on overall

predicted. First, a signicant interaction was found for the overall

went and the degree of positive affect expressed in the narratives.

Personality and Reactions to Teasing

Interactive effects of Neuroticism and teasing condition on the

dominant in the control condition than individuals high in

low in Openness rated themselves as more friendly than individuals

Personality and Reactions to Teasing

participants low in Conscientiousness evidently became disengaged

Several main effects of teasing history were obtained, and teasing

.19 1.99 .050

.26 2.59 .011

Note. Ns for the analyses ranged from 104 to 108.

being infrequent teasers. In sum, frequent childhood teasers tended

Personality and Reactions to Teasing

Overall Liking for Partner

Interactive effects of teaser history and teasing condition on overall

Personality and Reactions to Teasing

signicantly more self-focused than in the control condition and

Previous analyses revealed that behavioral and emotional reactions

actions for the dependent variables of how annoyed the participant

Personality and Reactions to Teasing

Interactive effects of Agreeableness, teaser history, and teasing

as more friendly, 5 .26, sr 5 .25, t(98) 5 2.54, p 5 .014, than those