Abstract

This study examines factors that influence recipients' responses to being teased. We analyzed the effect of tease topics, recipients' perceptions of the teaser's intent, and cues used by the recipients to determine intent. Participants reported they were the recipients of six types of teases: (1) things said, (2) appearance, (3) romance/sex, (4) abilities, (5) teasing, and (6) identity. Respondents indicated that they relied upon four different cues to determine the teaser's intent: (1) background knowledge, (2) context, (3) paralinguistics, and (4) self. Global analysis revealed a three-way interaction between cue, perception, and response. Local significance tests suggested that background cues contributed the most to this interaction and that negative and neutral responses had the largest effects. Specifically, respondents were more likely to perceive humorous intent overall, and they were more likely to respond positively when they ascribed humorous intent. However, when participants perceived serious intent, they were more likely to respond negatively. Of the four cues, self appeared to be the strongest mediator between respondents' perceptions of intent and their responses.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)337-357
Number of pages21
JournalWestern Journal of Communication
Volume60
Issue number4
StatePublished - Sep 1996

Fingerprint

recipient
significance test
interaction
Teasing
Recipient
ability
Interaction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Communication

Cite this

That's not funny : Understanding recipients' responses to teasing. / Alberts, Janet; Corman, Steven; Corman, Steven R.

In: Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 60, No. 4, 09.1996, p. 337-357.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{013c076c3d0b488fb9231d3f446315e2,
title = "That's not funny: Understanding recipients' responses to teasing",
abstract = "This study examines factors that influence recipients' responses to being teased. We analyzed the effect of tease topics, recipients' perceptions of the teaser's intent, and cues used by the recipients to determine intent. Participants reported they were the recipients of six types of teases: (1) things said, (2) appearance, (3) romance/sex, (4) abilities, (5) teasing, and (6) identity. Respondents indicated that they relied upon four different cues to determine the teaser's intent: (1) background knowledge, (2) context, (3) paralinguistics, and (4) self. Global analysis revealed a three-way interaction between cue, perception, and response. Local significance tests suggested that background cues contributed the most to this interaction and that negative and neutral responses had the largest effects. Specifically, respondents were more likely to perceive humorous intent overall, and they were more likely to respond positively when they ascribed humorous intent. However, when participants perceived serious intent, they were more likely to respond negatively. Of the four cues, self appeared to be the strongest mediator between respondents' perceptions of intent and their responses.",
author = "Janet Alberts and Steven Corman and Corman, {Steven R.}",
year = "1996",
month = "9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "60",
pages = "337--357",
journal = "Western Journal of Communication",
issn = "1057-0314",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - That's not funny

T2 - Understanding recipients' responses to teasing

AU - Alberts, Janet

AU - Corman, Steven

AU - Corman, Steven R.

PY - 1996/9

Y1 - 1996/9

N2 - This study examines factors that influence recipients' responses to being teased. We analyzed the effect of tease topics, recipients' perceptions of the teaser's intent, and cues used by the recipients to determine intent. Participants reported they were the recipients of six types of teases: (1) things said, (2) appearance, (3) romance/sex, (4) abilities, (5) teasing, and (6) identity. Respondents indicated that they relied upon four different cues to determine the teaser's intent: (1) background knowledge, (2) context, (3) paralinguistics, and (4) self. Global analysis revealed a three-way interaction between cue, perception, and response. Local significance tests suggested that background cues contributed the most to this interaction and that negative and neutral responses had the largest effects. Specifically, respondents were more likely to perceive humorous intent overall, and they were more likely to respond positively when they ascribed humorous intent. However, when participants perceived serious intent, they were more likely to respond negatively. Of the four cues, self appeared to be the strongest mediator between respondents' perceptions of intent and their responses.

AB - This study examines factors that influence recipients' responses to being teased. We analyzed the effect of tease topics, recipients' perceptions of the teaser's intent, and cues used by the recipients to determine intent. Participants reported they were the recipients of six types of teases: (1) things said, (2) appearance, (3) romance/sex, (4) abilities, (5) teasing, and (6) identity. Respondents indicated that they relied upon four different cues to determine the teaser's intent: (1) background knowledge, (2) context, (3) paralinguistics, and (4) self. Global analysis revealed a three-way interaction between cue, perception, and response. Local significance tests suggested that background cues contributed the most to this interaction and that negative and neutral responses had the largest effects. Specifically, respondents were more likely to perceive humorous intent overall, and they were more likely to respond positively when they ascribed humorous intent. However, when participants perceived serious intent, they were more likely to respond negatively. Of the four cues, self appeared to be the strongest mediator between respondents' perceptions of intent and their responses.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030350494&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030350494&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0030350494

VL - 60

SP - 337

EP - 357

JO - Western Journal of Communication

JF - Western Journal of Communication

SN - 1057-0314

IS - 4

ER -