Social Construction of Teasing

Pawluk, Cheryl J.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.1989.tb00142.x

Cited by 96 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To test these ideas, we had low-and high-status fraternity members in a first study and romantic partners in a second study [Keltner et al, 1997] tease one another by making up nicknames and stories about one another-common elements of teasing [Leech, 1983;Pawluk, 1989]. Consistent with our first claim, fraternity members and romantic partners teased each other about norm deviations and character flaws, thus pointing out important norms to adhere to but creating momentary social distance [Groos, 1901;Shapiro et al, 1991].…”

Section: Social Processes That Encourage Appeasementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Appeasement in human emotion, social practice, and personality

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we examine the role of appeasement in human emotion, social practice, and personality. We first present an analysis of human appeasement. Appeasement begins when the conditions of social relations lead one individual to anticipate aggression from others, is expressed in submissive, inhibited behavior, which in turn evokes inferences and emotions in others that bring about social reconciliation. Our empirical review focuses on two classes of human appeasement: reactive forms of appeasement, including embarrassment and shame, which placate others after social transgressions; and anticipatory forms of appeasement, including polite modesty and shyness, which reduce the likelihood of social conflict and aggression. Our review of the empirical evidence indicates that embarrassment, shame, modesty, and shyness share the eliciting conditions, submissive behavior, and social consequences of appeasement. We conclude by discussing social processes that allow humans to appease one another, such as teasing, and those that prevent appeasement, such as legal and negotiation practices, to the benefit and detriment of human relations. Aggr. Behav. 23:359-374, 1997.

show abstract

Section: Social Processes That Encourage Appeasementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Appeasement in human emotion, social practice, and personality

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…playful insults, considered a type of teasing, are mostly directed at participants integrated in the group. This is because the appreciation of an aggressive tease relies heavily on the nature of the relationship of the communicators (Pawluk 1989). Intimates, more likely than strangers, can judge whether teases are devoid of truly abusive or downgrading potential, which is socially inappropriate even in close relationships.…”

Section: The Dichotomous Nature Of Teasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intimates, more likely than strangers, can judge whether teases are devoid of truly abusive or downgrading potential, which is socially inappropriate even in close relationships. Teasing hence symbolises and enhances intimacy (Lampert and Ervin-Tripp 2006;Pawluk 1989).…”

Section: The Dichotomous Nature Of Teasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

No Aggression, Only Teasing: The Pragmatics of Teasing and Banter

Dynel

2008

Lodz Papers in Pragmatics

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A bone of contention among researchers is whether the primary function of humour is the expression of aggression against the hearer or the promotion of solidarity between the interlocutors. It is commonly averred that teasing boasts a dichotomous nature, i.e. malignant and benevolent. The former coincides with the potential for criticising, mocking and ostracising the interlocutor, whereas the latter accounts for playfulness and bonding capacity.The overriding goal of the paper is to expound the rapportbuilding function, which is here postulated to be inherent to teasing. First and foremost, I will determine the scope of interest differentiating between putdown humour and teases, which may assume the form of retorts and develop into multi-turn teases, i.e. banter. Subtypes of teasing will be discussed with a view to proving that it is inherently devoid of genuine aggressiveness. The underlying premise is that teases, even if ostensibly aggressive, i.e. face-threatening, are geared towards solidarity, in conformity with the framework of politeness, including mock impoliteness, holding between intimates. Also, teases fulfil a few subordinate functions such as defunctionalisation or mitigation of face-threatening messages they may carry.

show abstract

“…The teaser and the recipient play active roles in the teasing scenario as each participant works to decode the meaning of the tease or response, formulate social goals that are appropriate to the situation, and enact a behavioral response that adequately reflects these (Alberts, Kellar-Guenther, & Corman, 1996;Pawluk, 1989).…”

Section: Formulating Social Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%