“I Laughed Along for Years But Hated It Inside:” Understanding Nuance in Peer Teasing Experiences Using a Thematic Analysis

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Peer teasing is ubiquitous, yet ambiguous in nature. Despite recent attempts to delineate and clarify differences in teasing experienced as playful versus harmful, there remains overlap and complexity in these interactions. In the current study, we present a conceptual model of teasing, which includes many nested features that dynamically interact within a teasing episode. Using this conceptual model to guide our work, the goal of the current study was to use qualitative inquiry to bring further conceptual clarity to the overlap between teasing that is experienced as playful versus harmful.

Method

Using semi‐structured interviews, we asked university students (N = 27; 63% female, 18–25 years old) in Ontario, Canada, to describe a teasing interaction from their adolescence that they experienced as 1) harmful and 2) playful, with prompts to fully explore the specifics and context of the interaction.

Results

Using thematic analysis, six primary themes were identified: reciprocity versus repetition, the role of power, factors that amplify harm, the interaction between targets' and perpetrators' responses, the need for social skills, and the lasting impacts of teasing.

Conclusions

These themes demonstrate the various mechanistic patterns that are involved in complex teasing interactions and play an important role in the experience of teasing as either harmful or playful. Implications for teachers, parents, and youth themselves in managing social relationships are discussed.

Peer teasing is a very common experience, particularly in the lives of children and youth (Keltner et al. 2001; Nowakowski and Antony 2013). Despite its prevalence, there is no simple definition of teasing, and in fact both researchers and youth themselves conceptualize teasing in different, and sometimes contradictory ways (e.g., Haugh 2017; Mills and Carwile 2009). For instance, some researchers conceptualize teasing as fun and playful, used to motivate others and improve social bonds (Gorman and Jordan 2015). Others conceptualize teasing as harmful and hurtful, involving negative emotions and potentially leading to relationship breakdown (Kowalski 2004). This dichotomy is similarly seen in children, youth, and young adults' own descriptions and understanding of teasing (Bosacki et al. 2012; Mills 2018). Thus, though teasing is an important social interaction, it is ambiguous both in its nature and in way(s) in which it impacts those involved. Those involved in teasing interactions—particularly children and youth—may need support to interpret and cope with these often‐ambiguous social interactions. Parents, teachers, and others who work with youth may also need support to recognize what makes a teasing interaction playful and another (seemingly similar interaction) harmful. The current study moves toward continued clarification in the field of teasing, to address some of the ambiguity and complexity present in teasing interactions that are playful and harmful.

1. Features of a Teasing Interaction

Peer teasing has many functions, ranging from prosocial to antisocial (Bosacki et al. 2012; Keltner et al. 1998; Mills and Babrow 2003). Because of this range in experiences, there is confusion in the field regarding what teasing is, and whether or when it is experienced as positive or negative. For instance, teasing can increase closeness, intimacy, and group cohesion (Gorman and Jordan 2015; Shapiro et al. 1991; Tragesser and Lippman 2005). Teasing can be used to strengthen social bonds, to communicate the closeness of individuals, and to signal social standards and motivate change (Keltner et al. 1998; Lytra 2007; Mills and Babrow 2003). Yet, teasing is not always experienced as a prosocial interaction. For instance, rather than being used to communicate social standards as a means of helping the target of teasing, teasing can also be used to communicate the undesirability of certain traits or behaviors, as a means of belittling and shaming those who deviate from social norms (Mills and Babrow 2003; Shapiro et al. 1991). Some researchers use ‘teasing’ as an indicator of bullying¹, which carries with it severe negative consequences for the target of such behavior. Even when no harm is intended, teasing can be interpreted and experienced as harmful by the target (Crozier and Dimmock 1999; Kruger et al. 2006).

There are a number of nested features that dynamically interact within a teasing interaction, all of which may play a role in whether the tease is experienced as playful or harmful. These features include 1) features of the participants in the teasing interaction (teasing perpetrator, teasing target, relationship between them); 2) features of the teasing episode (perpetrator motives, perceived intent) and the tease itself (verbal content of the tease, nonverbal cues); 3) process of the teasing episode (target's response to the tease, perpetrator's response to the target); and 4) outcomes (impact on the perpetrator, impact on the target, impact on the relationship). Further, the teasing episode takes place within the 5) local context (physical context [in person, online], social context [audience present], audience involvement/intervention), and all features are subsumed within the 6) broader context (developmental context, peer group/classroom/school context, societal context).

We illustrate these features and the links between them in a conceptual model, developed through an iterative process and considering relevant theoretical and empirical research (see Figure 1). The model was built from an initial literature review of theoretical and empirical literature (used also to develop the interview protocol used in the current study), a systematic review and meta‐synthesis of qualitative research on peer teasing (see Dawes and Andrews 2025), and interviews in which postsecondary students were asked to reflect on teasing experiences within their childhood and adolescence (see Andrews and Dawes 2024). Starting with a broader framework and refining to the current model, across this study we have found support for the relevance of each of these features in the teasing interaction.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of peer teasing.

2. Differentiation Versus Overlap in Harmful and Playful Teasing

Each of the features shown in the conceptual model may play a role in an individual's understanding and interpretation of their teasing experience as either harmful or playful. For some features, this distinction between playful and harmful teasing is more pronounced. For instance, harmful teasing is often based on content personal to the target, such as appearance and identity (Dawes and Andrews 2025; Grothaus 2023; Stafford et al. 2015; Yoo and Johnson 2007). Harmful teasing is perpetrated by both friends and non‐friends (Andrews and Dawes 2024; Mills and Babrow 2003), is based on perpetrator motives such as trying to impress others or reactionary behavior (Dawes and Andrews 2025; Li and Rukavina 2012), and often results in relationship damage (Dawes and Andrews 2025; Yoo and Johnson 2007) and the use of maladaptive coping strategies (e.g., Lopez 2019). In contrast, playful teasing only appears to involve friends or romantic interests (Andrews and Dawes 2024; Steer et al. 2020; Yoo and Johnson 2007). Playful teasing is perceived to be based on positive motivations (e.g., for encouragement, to communicate a social norm to the target; Andrews and Dawes 2024; Mills and Babrow 2003), and can result in relationship benefits (e.g., strengthening the relationship; Mills and Carwile 2009).

Yet, there are also areas of overlap and continued complexity, which may interfere with youth's ability to manage these complex interactions, as well as adults' ability to respond appropriately. For instance, many instances of playful teasing seem to contain elements of harm. Like harmful teasing, some playful teasing results in negative emotions including anger, sadness, and embarrassment. Teasing could be experienced negatively despite a lack of negative intent (Andrews and Dawes 2024; Dawes and Andrews 2025; Mills and Babrow 2003), and teasing even from the same person (e.g., a friend) or about the same content (e.g., ethnic‐based teasing) could be perceived as either positive or negative (Douglass et al. 2016; Harwood and Copfer 2015; Mills and Babrow 2003). Similar motives were reported for both playful and harmful teasing, including retaliation and jealousy (Dawes and Andrews 2025; Mooney et al. 1991; Taylor et al. 2006), and mixed emotional responses (e.g., laughter, followed by retaliation) may result from both playful and harmful teasing (Haugh 2017).

It is additionally important to be able to differentiate between playful and harmful teasing because teasing interactions that contain some of these features (e.g., teasing between friends, teasing involving a mix of prosocial and antisocial motivations) may be particularly difficult to manage. These interactions are likely particularly ambiguous, both to those directly (i.e., the perpetrator and target) and indirectly involved (e.g., bystanders, adults whose role is to support young people). Providing insight into the distinguishing features of playful and harmful teasing can point to areas of intervention and help support adolescents' mental health and social development.

Disentangling playful from harmful teasing may be particularly important during early adolescence and adolescence. Adolescence is a time of increased social pressures, when peers become increasingly important (Corsaro & Eder 1990) and where youth seek to gain acceptance and belonging—and avoid rejection—from their peers (Branje 2022; Ragelienė 2016; Tomova et al. 2021). However, along with this increased need for social belonging and validation, youth are also at risk for victimization (Pepler et al. 2008). Thus, this can be a particularly challenging time to manage social relationships and failure to do so can compromise youth's adjustment into adulthood (World Health Organization 2019). A key experience that youth need to navigate within their peer relationships is teasing. Children's conceptualization of teasing increases with age (e.g., Booth et al. 2023; Heyes 2020; Steer et al. 2020), wherein by Grade 6, youth were able to recognize the potential for playful teasing among friends, recognize that certain boundaries should not be crossed to avoid harm, but simultaneously recognizing that harmful teasing still occurs (Mills 2018). Further still, early adolescence is accompanied by developing romantic relationships. Teasing can be used to indicate romantic interest (i.e., flirting; Andrews et al. 2024; Beck et al. 2007), or as a means of intrasexual competition (e.g., targeting a sexual rival; Vaillancourt and Krems 2018). As such, when considering both types of teasing, adolescence may be a critical period within which a better understanding of teasing experiences is needed.

3. Disentangling the Overlap in Teasing Experiences

To provide additional clarity and further understand patterns in these complex interactions, we focused on a few distinct mechanistic patterns. First, there may be combinations of features that together help to explain distinctions between playful and harmful teasing (e.g., Jones et al. 2005). For example, evidence suggests that teasing content alone is not sufficient to determine whether the tease will be received as playful or harmful (Dawes and Andrews 2025). Indeed, teasing based on ethnicity and race can be considered either harmful or playful, likely depending on who the perpetrator is (Douglass et al. 2016) and depending on broader contextual factors (e.g., considering the ethic/racial diversity of the classroom or school; Dawes and Andrews 2025). Similarly, just because teasing occurs between friends does not necessitate it being playful (Dawes and Andrews 2025; Grothaus 2023; Mills and Babrow 2003). Thus, we considered what combination of features might help differentiate the overlap previously seen between harmful and playful teasing.

Second, we considered whether some features act either as amplifiers to intensify harm or as buffers to dampen harm (see Noah 2015). Considering possible amplifiers, some features may be seen in situations of both playful and harmful teasing (and thus, represent overlap; e.g., there may be an audience present in both harmful and playful teasing situations; Andrews and Dawes 2024), but can enhance the feelings of harm when present in harmful interactions. For instance, emerging adult participants in focus groups noted the potential for public banter to go awry: “Public displays of banter could turn sour with third parties making active attempts to join in and victimise the target” (Buglass et al. 2021, p. 295). Conversely, other features may have a buffering effect, such that they can ameliorate the negative impact of harmful teasing.

Finally, interaction sequences (Quera 2018) between those involved may establish distinct interaction patterns that develop over time, which influence whether a teasing exchange is experienced as harmful or playful. That is, a certain type of tease may elicit a certain type of response from the target, which is then met with a reaction from the perpetrator, in such a manner that the situation either escalates or de‐escalates. Accordingly, understanding the interdependence between actors involved in teasing and their past interaction patterns may be useful information for one's interpretation of teasing.

4. Current Study

The goal of the current study was to bring further conceptual clarity to the overlap between and complexity of playful and harmful teasing. Using a thematic analysis of in‐depth retrospective interviews with postsecondary students (e.g., Buglass et al. 2021), we explored several types of mechanistic patterns: (1) combinations of teasing features; (2) amplification or buffering effects of features; and (3) interaction sequences (see Noah 2015; Quera 2018) that might help explain and resolve some of the existing conceptual and empirical overlap between playful and harmful teasing. Rooted in this framework, we used an inductive approach to allow participants' voice to guide our continued understanding of the nuance that exists in these complex peer experiences.

5. Method

5.1. Procedure

Participants were a subset of a broader study that focused on the teasing experiences of postsecondary students. As part of the broader study, students (17–25 years old) in a university in southern Ontario, Canada were recruited via social media posts and information flyers and invited to complete an online survey (see Andrews et al. 2024 for more details regarding this portion of the study). At the end of the survey, participants were invited to indicate if they would like to be involved in further research; specifically an online interview. A total of 27 students participated in an interview (see Andrews et al. 2024 for more details regarding interview participant selection). The online interview was conducted by a trained researcher and took approximately 45 min. Participants all completed a consent form which included a separate consent for the interview to be audio recorded. For the seven participants who did not consent to audio recording, the researcher took detailed notes during the interview. All participants were provided a gift card following the interview. All procedures were approved by the university ethics review board.

5.2. Participants

This study uses the same sample reported in Andrews and Dawes (2024) and additional details can be found there. Participants (N = 27) were 18–25 years old (M = 19.96 years, SD = 2.16; eight 18‐year‐olds, seven 19‐year‐olds, four 20‐year‐olds, three 21‐year‐olds, one 22‐year‐old, one 23‐year‐old, one 24‐year‐old, and two 25‐year‐olds). Participants self‐reported as 63% female, 30% male, and 4% nonbinary), and 78% White, 11% South Asian, 7% Indigenous, 7% Middle Eastern, and 4% Black (participants could select as many options as applicable). In terms of their level of postsecondary education, 37% of participants reported they were in first year, 22% in second year, 19% in third year, 15% in fourth year, and 7% at the graduate level. The majority of participants (82%) were born in Canada, and 89% reported speaking English at home. Seventeen percent identified as a person with a disability. Participants reported that, compared to the average Canadian, their family was a lot less rich (8%), less rich (28%), about the same (32%), or more rich (32%).

5.3. Interviews

In semi‐structured interviews, participants were first asked how they defined teasing. Following their response, the interviewer described that some people consider teasing to be playful and fun, whereas others see teasing as harmful and hurtful. Participants were then asked to describe both a playful and a harmful teasing experience they had had with a peer, at any point from Kindergarten to Grade 12 (see Andrews and Dawes 2024 for more details regarding the interview development and protocol; see Appendix A1 for Interview Guide). They were told they could start with either the playful or harmful experience. For each experience reported, participants were probed for additional details regarding specific components of the experience (e.g., teasing content, characteristics of those involved, motivation and intent, process of the interaction). Following the detailed account of the two teasing experiences, participants were asked to expand upon what the differences were between the two situations. Participants were also asked to discuss more broadly what crosses the line from playful to harmful teasing, and how they would determine whether and when teasing crosses the line. Note these final questions were not included as part of the analysis of Andrews and Dawes (2024).

5.4. Analytic Plan

This study employed inductive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006; Nowell et al. 2017) to delve into young people's experiences of peer teasing. Our analysis involved several steps. First, the lead author (Author 1, A1) immersed herself in the qualitative data by reading through the transcripts several times. This included training and involvement in content coding using Dedoose Qualitative Coding Software; the results of which were used in a prior article (Andrews and Dawes 2024). No specific data software were used in the current study. A1 took general notes about overall impressions and engaged in active interpretation of key ideas in each transcript, while reflecting on how potential biases based on the authors' own personal experiences and perspectives shaped the interpretation of the data. During this process, A1 paid particular attention to what constitutes playful versus harmful teasing, and what is the difference/what crosses the line. Following this, notes were systematically organized into playful teasing, harmful teasing, and what crosses the line, and initial codes were generated, identifying patterns and themes that the research extracted from the data. These codes were then reorganized into an overarching thematic structure. The second author (A2) then reviewed the notes, initial codes, and initial thematic structure. To ensure reliability and consistency, authors engaged in ongoing reflexivity through open discussion between one another to address any potential biases and consider whether alternative interpretations were appropriate. Any discrepancies were resolved through collaborative discussion, and the thematic structure was refined through a process of conversation between A1 and A2. As a final step and to support trustworthiness and validity, A1 returned to the original transcripts to further refine the thematic structure (minimal changes were made at this point) as well as to identify key quotes to provide participant voice and support the themes presented.

6. Results

A thematic analysis revealed 6 primary themes that help us understand the nature of harmful versus playful teasing interactions, as follows: Reciprocity versus repetition, the role of power, factors that amplify harm, interaction between targets' and perpetrators' responses, need for social skills, and lasting impacts. See Table 1 for the full thematic structure with description.

Table 1.

Thematic structure.

Theme	Subtheme	Description	Links to conceptual model
Reciprocity versus repetition	Playful teasing is reciprocal	Having the comfort to engage in back‐and‐forth reciprocal teasing with a friend is fun and playful	Features of the participants (relationship, teasing perpetrator, teasing target)
	Playful teasing occurs over time	Playful, reciprocal teasing often occurs over time as part of a common interaction pattern	Features of the participants (relationship)
	Harmful teasing can be repetitive	Harmful teasing can involve repetition within the interaction, with the perpetrator not stopping and a lack of reciprocity	Features of the participants (relationship); process of the teasing episode (perpetrator's response)
The role of power	Power balance versus imbalance	A balance of power allows for the reciprocity that is involved in playful teasing, whereas an imbalance of power is often involved in harmful teasing and prevents reciprocity	Features of the participants (relationship)
	Power as a motivator	Group dynamics of power are important, and gaining social power was perceived as a motivator to perpetrate harmful teasing	Features of the teasing episode (perpetrator motives); broader context (peer group/classroom context); outcomes (impact on perpetrator)
	Complexity in types of power	Perpetrator(s) can lack social power but have a power advantage in number, age, physical strength, or gender	Features of the participants (relationship, teasing perpetrator, teasing target)
Factors that amplify harm	Intent	Harmful intent not necessary for harm, but exacerbates feelings of harm	Features of the teasing episode (perceived intent), outcomes (impact on target)
	Relationship	When harmful teasing was perpetrated by a friend, feelings of harm were stronger	Features of the participants (relationship), features of the teasing episode (perceived intent, verbal content), outcomes (impact on target)
	Audience	Presence of an audience not necessary for harm, but exacerbates feelings of harm	Local context (social context), outcomes (impact on target)
	Being singled out/lack of defenders	Perceptions of being specifically targeted or singled out over others was harmful, particularly when no none came to their defense.	Local context (social context, audience involvement), outcomes (impact on target, relationship outcomes)
Interaction between targets’ and perpetrators’ responses	Target lack of response	Targets would show no reaction to avoid further harm	Process of the teasing episode (target's response), outcome (impact on target)
	Target assertive response ineffective	‘Standing up for oneself' being largely ineffective against harmful teasing, which made the situation worse	Process of the teasing episode (target's response, perpetrator's response)
	Escalation	Assertive target response matched by assertive or aggressive perpetrator response leads to escalation of the conflict	Process of the teasing episode (target's response, perpetrator's response), outcomes (impact on perpetrator, impact on target, relationship outcomes)
	Playful teasing will stop if requested	Assumption is that playful teasing (from a friend) would stop if the target asked for it to stop, though relationship repair may still be required	Features of the teasing episode (perceived intent), process of the teasing episode (target's response, perpetrator's response), outcomes (relationship outcomes)
Need for social skills	To determine if a target is hurt	Sophisticated social skills needed to gauge target's reaction and determine harm	Features of the participants (teasing perpetrator), features of the teasing episode (verbal content, nonverbal cues), outcomes (impact on target)
	To avoid crossing the line	Sophisticated social skills needed from perpetrator to avoid harm	Features of the participants (teasing perpetrator), features of the teasing episode (verbal content, nonverbal cues, perpetrator motives), outcomes (impact on target, relationship outcomes)
Lasting impacts	Lasting negative impacts	Harmful teasing ‘stays with you’ and is easily remembered	Features of the teasing episode (perpetrator motives), outcomes (impact on target)
	Continued ambiguity of “playful” teasing	Some playful incidents contained elements of harm. Some playful incidents were revealed as harmful through ongoing reflection	Outcomes (impact on target, relationship outcomes), broader context (developmental context)

6.1. Reciprocity Versus Repetition

A very common theme among episodes of playful teasing was that the playful teasing was reciprocal. Participants described patterns of back‐and‐forth teasing that was enjoyed by both parties: “Teasing was super common between us, I would tease her too. But we were both comfortable with it. We thought it was hilarious. We were always laughing so hard. I don't think we ever crossed any lines, so it was all playful and fun.” Another participant said: “Banter like this was so common, I would tease him about stuff, too. So this was just‐ we were very comfortable with each other. And nobody would get hurt.” Several participants discussed this reciprocal teasing as a means of social bonding, with one noting how being “in on the joke” made her feel accepted: “I think it was kind of pretty common in our friend group. That we would like tease each other, yes…I think it was just a way to bond, and kind of like relate to each other…I felt accepted because everyone did it.” For some participants (specifically male participants), this pattern of reciprocal teasing was sometimes described in a more competitive manner, wherein friends would try to “one up” each other. Even in these circumstances, however, the teasing was considered playful by all: “We'd all do it to each other… It kind of just made me feel like, you know, we're all like one big kind of family together. When we all kind of established that brotherhood amongst each other.”

Participants would respond playfully in the moment, and also described this playful teasing as happening often: “It became an inside joke…We kept adding on to the joke.” For many, this common interaction pattern extended to form the social dynamics of their friend group. As one participant describes: “In my friend group my friends were notorious for kind of picking on‐‐ not picking on people, but like teasing, playful teasing, like roasting and stuff.” Another participant explained that he knew teasing was playful because he had seen the perpetrator teasing other friends, and “other friends have also done it to him, it had been kind of like a group dynamic.” This theme of playful teasing occurring over time can be contrasted with harmful teasing instances, wherein participants often (though not always) described a more isolated incident. However, despite harmful teasing being described as a discrete incident, the teasing was often repeated within the interaction itself. That is, some participants described a perpetrator who would continue to harass the target despite attempts to ignore or ask for the teasing to stop (see also Theme 4), or that teasing crossed the line to become harmful because “it just wouldn't stop.”

6.2. The Role of Power

One aspect that appeared to contribute to participants' ability and comfort to reciprocate the teasing was a relative balance of power between individuals involved in the interaction. Participants noted: “I don't think there was a power difference. We all were the same level on most things;” “Because we were all friends, it was an equal power balance.” In contrast, a common component of harmful teasing was a power imbalance between those involved. Participants often described perpetrators of harmful teasing as having a power advantage over them, including in terms of social power and popularity, physical strength, attractiveness, and age. As some participants described: “She definitely had more power than me in terms of prettiness and she was popular and had lots of boys interested in her;” “I think I was probably an easy target. They definitely had more friends, people knew them more than me…” “And he was also taller and more muscular than me. So I definitely think he had the social power advantage over me;” “They were definitely stronger than me and they definitely had a position of power where they're older than me.” This imbalance of power likely contributed to the teasing being one‐sided and hurtful, as compared to the playful, reciprocal teasing discussed above. One participant noted that the reason he did not retaliate to the harmful teasing he experienced is because he knew he would lose. Another noted that the way she can tell when teasing crosses the line is by understanding inequities in those involved: “Like if someone's kind of viewed as fragile, or at risk.” Others described popular perpetrators as “invincible,” again suggesting that the target would not be able to effectively stand up for themselves or retaliate due to the power imbalance.

For harmful teasing, some participants described power in terms of group dynamics (i.e., a group of perpetrators teasing a single target), including identifying gaining or maintaining power as a motivator for the teasing: “It was mainly to impress their friends, I think. They were acting like they were invincible and that they can say sh** to anyone. Because when they were alone and not with the group, they were much nicer;” “And for the other girl who was that sort of that ‘queen bee’ figure, she wanted to hold that figure…It was a way that they could secure the power that they have.” One participant described how, in addition to the power and particularly social status of the perpetrator matters, the status of the audience also plays a role in the associated harm: “If someone with a lot of social status had teased me in front of other people with a lot social status, that would upset me far greater than if it's someone at equal levels with me.”

Interestingly, there were a few instances of harmful teasing wherein the balance of power differed based on the type of power identified. In all of these instances, participants described the perpetrator(s) as not holding a power advantage in terms of social power/popularity, but holding a power advantage in age, physical strength, or because there were several perpetrators acting as a group (e.g., a show of explicit social power). Further, it was noted that perhaps the motivation for teasing was born from some insecurity or as an attempt to gain power. For instance, “he was not like one of those top kids [referring to social status]. So, in this position older than us, he kind of took advantage of his power to feel like he was cool.” Though this was only explicitly mentioned by one participant, there was also a power imbalance in terms of gender in all of these examples, with a male perpetrator(s) and a female target: “Gender wise, there was power dynamic because they were males and I was female…. They would tease other kids in the class, usually girls as well.”

6.3. Factors That Amplify Harm

There were factors that were not necessary for the interaction to feel harmful, but that amplified or exacerbated the feelings of harm. These factors included harmful intent, the relationship between perpetrator and target, the presence of an audience, and the perception of being singled out or targeted. There were harmful teasing interactions where the participant explicitly noted that there was no malintent. However, perceiving that the perpetrator did have malintent made the experience feel worse: “I think it definitely was his motivation that made this teasing f***ed up.” Though being teased by a friend was more common in playful than harmful teasing, having the perpetrator of harmful teasing be a friend made the experience feel worse. As one participant describes: “She was considered a friend. It hurt a little bit more than if a stranger were to say it.” Another noted that she felt the content of the harmful tease (being teased about her appearance) would have been harmful regardless of her relationship with the perpetrator, but “I'd probably be more upset it if was someone that I trusted a lot and had had a very positive relationship with in the past.” Some participants described how a combination of relationship and intent can be used to understand their teasing experiences. Participants described that friends, compared to acquaintances, know better where to draw the line and know how to avoid crossing the line into harmful teasing. However, because one assumes no ill intent from a friend, when teasing from a friend does cross the line, it is particularly harmful. As one participant describes: “I used to think that things didn't cross the line between friends because they are your friends, and they don't mean to hurt you. But after talking about my experience [a harmful teasing experience perpetrated by friends], I think that all teasing is hurtful…Why would your own friends laugh at your suffering.”

In many instances, participants described how, though an audience was not necessary to feel harm, the presence of other peers made their harmful experiences feel worse. This “public display teasing” made participants feel more embarrassed and uncomfortable. Some described that they feared that having peers see them getting teased would make them a target from others; that if one perpetrator could tease them, other people would feel comfortable doing so as well. In addition to the mere presence of an audience making the teasing feel worse, several participants described how feeling singled out or targeted among others made the situation feel much worse: “You don't want to be the person that's ostracized, right?” Participants described being upset that they were selected as a target over others, or “out of the blue” and wondered why they were being singled out. “I think because I felt targeted more so than anything…. I felt like I was singled out from among [my friends]. And I don't know what the exact reason was.” Others noted that it was particularly painful when they were not defended by friends or others. They felt hurt that close friends were around and also laughing at their expense, or that no one stepped in to support them. In instances where a target was defended, this reduced the feelings of harm. “She stood up for me…She said ‘stop it’…And then when I cried and walked away, she comforted me. So, it was really nice to have her there.” In the one instance where a participant found that having an audience present made a harmful teasing situation better, he described how he teased the perpetrator back to: “[get] him to feel like the same way that he was trying to make me feel” and that having his friends as part of their social audience “made me feel more stronger in replying to them.”

6.4. Interaction Between Targets' and Perpetrators' Responses

Within this theme, participants discussed ways in which their responses, along with the perpetrators' reactions to those responses, made a difference in whether the teasing was perceived as harmful or playful. This included targets giving a nonresponse to avoid further harm, an assertive response ignored by the perpetrator feeling particularly harmful, a pattern of escalation, and the assumption that a friend will stop teasing if asked. In several instances, participants talked about avoiding showing a reaction even though they were hurt, as they did not want to “give [the perpetrator] more material.” As one participant describes: “I didn't cry in front of them, no, I‐‐ and I didn't really give them the satisfaction that I was angry either…And then as I was walking home, I got angrier and angrier to the point it turned to tears. But nobody saw it…. Because I knew that if I gave them that reaction, that they would continue to pick on me for the next couple of weeks, right.” Others noted that, even in playful interactions (though ones that contained ambiguous hurt feelings), they avoided reacting for fear of being accused of overreacting. In describing a playful experience with friends that turned harmful, one participant notes: “No, no they just thought it was funny. And I think if I ever I told them that I was annoyed, I think they would have saw that as over‐reacting, honestly.” Another participant describes apologizing for overreacting after getting upset at a friend who was playfully teasing: “I'm sorry for getting so upset over it, I know you didn't actually mean it.” This theme of avoiding showing emotional responses in both harmful and playful circumstances was much more common among women than men.

In contrast, men employed more direct responses. These direct and assertive responses to stop harmful teasing, however, were largely ineffective. Several participants described telling the perpetrator to stop and trying to stand up for themselves, only for the harmful teasing to continue, which perpetuated the harm experienced. “I told him to stop a few times. And that didn't really work…I didn't know what to do. I was pretty young. And I just wanted it to end and didn't want them to keep making fun of me.” In playful interactions, male participants again described more assertive responses (including escalation; see below). One participant described that it was easier to stand up for himself when he knew the teasing was playful (in contrast to harmful teasing, where he would ‘just sit back and take it’). He further described how the perpetrators' expected response if told to stop was what differentiated playful from harmful teasing. That is, if the perpetrator would downplay the harm (‘like “why are you being so upset…it's just a joke”’), then he would feel negatively about the interaction but likely not respond. Conversely, “If I think about standing up for myself and saying something, and if there's a chance that someone might be like, ‘Oh, I'm sorry,’ then it's probably something worth fighting for or standing up for myself.”

Again, particularly for male participants, assertive responses sometimes led to an escalation. This was sometimes playful, described as trying to ‘one up’ each other, or as a means to keep some control of the situation when an initial bid for the teasing to stop did not work: “I told him to stop it at first and then started making fun of his shirt.” In other, more harmful instances, participants' assertive response was met with an assertive or aggressive response from the perpetrator, leading to an escalation of the conflict. One participant describes being teased by a peer on the bus and the escalation breaking out to involve other onlooking peers: “The whole bus was in argument. That's just kind of how the whole argument broke out.” Another describes an escalation of harmful teasing that he viewed as a competition, with supporters on both sides: “It would be like a debate. You know, my friends are on my side. His friends are on his side. And when each one says something, everyone was crazy. And, like, yeah, when it ends, either ends in shouting or someone comes [out] superior.”

One final notable pattern of interaction was seen predominately in playful teasing, wherein participants noted that the teasing would have stopped if they had asked for it to stop. That is, there was an underlying assumption that a friend would not want to cause harm, and so if asked to stop teasing, the teasing would stop. As one participant describes: “There have been times where I'm just in a bad mood and I just literally tell him I'm in a bad mood and not [to tease me] right now.” Another participant describes how her friend would know not to tease her in certain circumstances without even having to explicitly say so: “If I'm ever having a bad day then she would know, and teasing wouldn't happen.” Another described how, to keep playful teasing fun, she would check in on her friend and make sure the teasing was ok to continue: “We make fun of our one friend … but we check in with him too. We're not just relentlessly picking on him and stuff. We're like, ‘this is okay, right?’ and he'll be like, ‘yeah’.” There was also some recognition that, even if a friend stopped teasing when asked, relationship repair may still be required, including apologizing and assuring the target that there was no harmful intent.

6.5. Need for Social Skills

When asked about how to tell when teasing crosses the line from playful to harmful, many participants spoke about needing sophisticated social skills. Participants highlighted the importance of “reading the room,” paying attention to body language or facial expressions. The ability to accurately read social cues was highlighted, both by overt reactions, but also by a lack of a response: “Sometimes a person could be talking a lot, and then they get teased. And if it does cross a line, they'll just stop talking all in general, the person's really hurt.” Some noted how complex this could be and that at times an overt reaction is not shown, but “a vibe changes, the room changes.” And further still, “some people can put up a front,” so trying to determine what might be upsetting someone can be very difficult.

In addition to needed advanced social skills to see if a peer has been harmed, participants also talked about the need for social skills as a perpetrator of teasing, to ensure that the tease does not cross the line in the first place. As one participant describes: “I think there's certain people that are good at conveying humor, and there's others who are not. So, I do believe that the people that were teasing me were showing the right expressions while you are doing it. You are smiling, you're clearly showing that you are not trying to hurt their feelings.” Others similarly discussed how awareness of the social situation, context, and appropriate timing was needed to decide when to tease and how much.

6.6. Lasting Impacts

The final theme related to the lasting impacts of teasing, both in terms of lasting negative impacts, as well as continued ambiguity of “playful” teasing. When participants were asked to recall a harmful and playful teasing incident, they were told they could start with either option first; 63% of participants chose to discuss a harmful teasing incident first. Some participants explicitly noted that playful teasing incidents were difficult to remember, perhaps because there were fewer negative emotions associated with them, whereas harmful experiences “stay with you”; “I guess I should start with harmful teasing…I still remember it because it was really hurtful for me.” That is, these hurtful experiences left lasting, negative impressions even years later. As one participant says: “I hated it. I remember I was upset for a very long time.” Another participant, when asked at the end of the interview if there was anything else they would like to share, said: “I guess like to really emphasize the way I was feeling, I think is really important. In that, when you're being teased, you think it's the end of the world…And that's where all that emotional build up comes from, and where the trauma really sets in.”

Even for young adults reflecting back on experiences from years past, there was continued ambiguity present in many examples of playful teasing experiences. That is, we explicitly asked participants to talk about a playful, fun interaction, yet several of these examples included elements of harm (participants reported feeling embarrassed, humiliated, annoyed, ‘I hated it a lot’). Most participants did not explicitly identify these interactions as ambiguous from the outset, but as the interview progressed, revealed aspects of the interaction that were not congruent with a playful experience. For some participants, this ambiguity was related to the teasing continuing past a point they were comfortable with: “part of me was laughing because it was, I guess funny, but the other part of me was like okay, please let this go…it got to a point after a lot of teasing.” Another participant noted that she thought her friends were trying to embarrass her, and then stopped teasing when she showed that she was not embarrassed: “Once they realized that it was something that wasn't hurting me…the playful teasing about me having a crush on this boy also went away at the same time.”

In one particularly notable example, a participant describes a playful teasing incident that, upon continued reflection, made her realize the true harmful nature of the interaction: “I suppose that was a playful teasing. Though now I'm realizing that it was kind of messed up and I hated it during. This is making me reflect back on my experiences more. I laughed along for years but hated it inside.” As the interview progressed, she continued to speak about both playful and harmful elements of the experience: “Now I'm realizing that it was straight up bullying. It's very weird though that I enjoyed when people would use it in a funny way, they would initiate conversations with me…I had some guys approach me—popular guys—and asked me out. So, I liked the attention, but not where it was coming from. But because I was affiliated with those girls and they were including me by teasing me, it boosted my status in a way. Like ‘wow she is laughing along with the popular girls.’ Even though they didn't know my laugh was just to fit in.” By the end of the interview, the participant seems to have engaged in some further reflection to realize new aspects of an experience that she had previously thought of as playful: “Well, it was a very depressing year, and I faked a lot of interactions. But somehow, I was kind of popular. So, I didn't see myself as a victim, but now I'm seeing that they were making me uncomfortable and they would keep going even though I think they could tell I didn't like it. That's kind of messed up, now that I think about it. It definitely made us drift apart. Like I have so much resentment towards these people now. So it wasn't that playful in retrospect.”

7. Discussion

Despite considerable progress made in previous studies to disentangle the profile of harmful and playful teasing (see Andrews and Dawes 2024; Dawes and Andrews 2025; Haugh 2017; Mills and Carwile 2009), further clarification is needed given the overlap of certain features present in both types of interactions. Accordingly, this study sought to better understand the complexity of teasing by thematically analyzing in‐depth interviews with postsecondary students. We paid particular attention to these specific mechanistic patterns: (1) how combinations of features may yield differing interpretations of play or harm; (2) which features amplify or buffer harm; and (3) how the interaction sequences between perpetrators and targets of teasing inform one's perceptions of teasing. An additional theme on the lasting impacts of teasing was also seen from participants' responses.

7.1. Combination of Features

Based on prior research, we anticipated that the interpretation of teasing as playful or harmful could be influenced by a combination of features (e.g., Jones et al. 2005). For instance, evidence suggests that targets consider teasing content and perpetrator identity when determining the playful or harmful nature of the tease (Douglass et al. 2016). Our analysis revealed a combination important to one's interpretation of teasing: the combination of a power (im)balance between those involved and whether the teasing was repeated (one‐sided) or reciprocated (equal exchange of teasing). Returning to the conceptual model (Figure 1), this combination primarily addresses Features of the Participants, while also highlighting the Broader Context (e.g., peer group dynamics) (see Table 1). When teasing was reciprocal, meaning there was a back‐and‐forth nature to the exchange with those involved taking turns as both perpetrator and target, this tended to happen within a relational context typified by equal power. In contrast, teasing that occurred repeatedly over time—but was not reciprocated—tended to occur within the context of a power imbalance wherein the perpetrator had some form of power over the target (e.g., physical strength, social power/popularity). This second type of interaction—typified by a power imbalance and repetition—mirrors the hallmarks of bullying (Olweus 2010). Accordingly, it is perhaps unsurprising that this combination of features during teasing exchanges were considered harmful by participants.

7.2. Amplifiers or Buffers of Harm

Our thematic analysis of participants' teasing experiences shed light on certain features that amplify or buffer harm within teasing interactions. Several amplifiers were found in participants' accounts of teasing. First, harmful teasing felt worse when there was malintent behind the tease. Intentionality captures the extent to which the perpetrator means to cause harm (Olweus 2010) and participants in the current study shared that the intentionality behind the harmful tease could make the experience more painful. Thus, for teasing to cause harm, intentionality may or may not be necessary, but when it is present, harm may be exacerbated. However, participants noted some instances where harm still occurred, despite benign intent. This points to the subtle nature of teasing, highlighting that even an interaction that might appear prosocial may, indeed, cause feelings of harm for the target.

Second, perpetrator's identity or characteristics seemed to exacerbate feelings of harm in hurtful teasing situations. When harmful teasing was perpetrated by a friend, this seemed to amplify the feelings of harm for some participants. Friends are expected to support and trust each other, which may be compromised when harm occurs (Berndt 1992). For one participant, this interacted with the content: if a friend teased you about something that should be “off‐limits” because of the sensitivity of the subject (e.g., appearance), the fact that the friend was the one doing the teasing made it more painful. This is in line with the notion that when certain others (i.e., friends) tease about certain content, this crosses the line (Dawes and Andrews 2025; Steer et al. 2020). This again represents multiple features presented in the conceptual model, specifically Features of the Participants (relationship), Features of the Teasing Episode (perceived intent, verbal content), and Outcomes (impact on target) (see Table 1).

Third, when teasing was done in front of an audience, this amplified participants' harm. The presence of others (e.g., bystanders) can increase feelings of embarrassment (Ho et al. 2004) and prompt fear of negative evaluations (Tang et al. 2023). The presence of an audience may also induce fear that they may be targeted again: participants shared that when others witnessed their teasing, the “floodgates” would open and now they can be teased by anyone.

Who is part of the audience also seemed to matter. Participants noted a few characteristics of audience members that could make the harmful teasing feel even worse. First, when witnesses to harmful teasing included the target's friends but those friends did nothing to intervene or—even worse—laughed along with it, that exacerbated the feeling of harm. It is understandable why such behavior from friends in the audience—which violate expectations for supportive friendship—would be painful to youth (Berndt 1992). Second, when the audience consisted of peers with high levels of social power, this also heightened their negative emotions. Because high status youth serve as social role models for behavior and norms, garnering their positive perceptions may be particularly salient and important to youth (Cillessen and Rose 2005; Dijkstra and Gest 2015). Being teased in front of popular peers may amplify fear of negative evaluations because those popular peers have the power to jeopardize the target's acceptance by other peers; a salient need for youth across development.

Our analysis of participants' responses also revealed a potential buffer of harm. Specifically, having the social skills necessary to “read the room” was noted as important to individuals' ability to disentangle the nuances of teasing interactions that may cross the line. Being able to read body language and facial expressions to pick up on any off‐record markers that might signal the playful nature of the teasing (Keltner et al. 2001) or to ascertain whether one's teasing was going too far, were skills noted by participants to be helpful in mitigating the potential for harm in teasing interactions. This represents a complex set of features involved in the teasing interaction: Features of the Participants (teasing perpetrator), Features of the Teasing Episode (verbal content, nonverbal cues, perpetrator motives), and Outcomes (impact on target, relationship outcomes) (see Table 1).

7.3. Interaction Sequences

Whether teasing is interpreted as playful or harmful may also depend on the interaction pattern between teasers and targets. Our analysis of participants' teasing experience suggests that patterns of reciprocity between friends was more common among playful teasing exchanges. Being able to go back‐and‐forth, wherein peers take turns being the teaser and the target, may help establish the friendly nature of teasing. Another example of how these patterns inform interpretations was one participant's experience that because the perpetrator teased other friends, the target understood the behavior to be normative among those peers and part of the group's dynamics. When banter among friends or among group members is common, this creates a mental representation (i.e., schema) of these interaction patterns, which then influence how one interprets future teasing exchanges with those same individuals (Ghosh and Gilboa 2014). To illustrate, one participant shared how past experiences with teasing as a form of bonding with her peers helped her view teasing in a positive light.

Another important interaction sequence that we saw in participants' reports was the interplay between targets' responses to being teased and the perpetrators' subsequent response. Indeed, what separated harmful from playful teasing, at times, was the expected response from the perpetrator given a particular reaction to the teasing. For instance, targets assumed that playful teasing from a friend would stop if the target objected. In contrast, in harmful teasing interactions, some targets seemed to anticipate that the teasing would continue regardless of their response, and therefore aimed to show no response, as to avoid “giving more material” to the perpetrator which could escalate the teasing. Further, there was a somewhat implicit assumption that harmful teasing would always escalate; thus, the target should either stop engaging to avoid the escalation or respond assertively which would then lead to escalation. This indicates the fine line between teasing and more serious, overt aggressive behaviors, and supports prior research that teasing may begin as a verbal exchange but escalate into a physical one (Andersson and Pearson 1999; Kowalski 2004).

7.4. Lasting Impacts

During our analysis of participants' experiences with teasing, we developed an additional theme: that teasing experiences can have lasting impacts on participants involved. It is particularly telling that most participants who were asked to recall either a playful or harmful teasing episode shared their experience with harmful teasing first. Emotions play a key role in memory formation (Tyng et al. 2017) and it is well established that negative memories associated with negative (e.g., sad) emotions tend to be more salient during retrieval (Williamson et al. 2019). Accordingly, it is perhaps unsurprising that participants found it easier to share memories of harmful teasing experiences that “stay with you,” compared to playful teasing experiences that were more difficult to recall. In addition to the heightened salience of harmful teasing, participants responses highlight the continued harm that can come from being hurtfully teased by one's peers.

Another notable finding from our analysis of participants' responses was that during follow‐up questions about playful teasing experiences, narratives included features more often seen in harmful teasing interactions (e.g., target's emotional harm such as embarrassment or humiliation). This suggests that the playful teasing experience may have been more ambiguous that previously acknowledged. In fact, one participant, during the course of the interview, came to interpret the situation in a different light, acknowledging that something she previously considered banter was actually “kind of messed up.” She described not only that this experience caused her considerable harm at the time, but also that it continued to impact her life concurrently through feelings of resentment toward the perpetrators who teased her. Combined, the evidence from participants' reflections on their teasing experiences underscores the notion that the ripple effects of youth's teasing interactions can be felt even into emerging adulthood.

7.5. Implications for Youth

There are several practical implications of this study for youth as they navigate teasing interactions with their peers. First, youth should understand that playfully teasing peers or friends should ideally be reciprocated (i.e., give‐and‐take) and not one‐sided. Youth should reflect on whether they and their friends are taking turns being both the perpetrator and the target of teasing, because when there is an imbalance of power (more giving, less taking), this can turn playful banter into something harmful. And, when imbalance occurs, relationships repair skills may be needed to restore the balance. Second, youth should be careful about the presence of others when they try to playfully tease their peers or friends, given findings from the current study that the presence of an audience amplifies harm. Third, youth may need support to bolster their bystander intervention skills, given that participants in the current study reported that harm was exacerbated when their friends witnessed their harmful teasing but did nothing to intervene. Lastly, social and communication skills seem to be a necessary prerequisite to successfully interpret the ambiguousness of teasing interactions. Youth who struggle to discern the meaning of off‐record markers or interpret social and facial cues may need more support from professionals to help them learn how to interpret and respond to teasing in ways that build relational closeness rather than conflict. Altogether, the current study provides valuable insight into teasing dynamics that can help youth engage in teasing interactions in ways that foster positive social outcomes and mitigate its potentially harmful effects.

7.6. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

This study has several important strengths, including the use of a qualitative design to disentangle the complexity that exists within our conceptualization of teasing. Further, our sample of emerging adult participants had the cognitive and social maturity necessary to discuss their prior experiences with a high degree of reflection. Indeed, given the insights participants made about their shifting feelings of the acceptability of their experience over time (even within the interview itself), it is unlikely that this level of insight would have been possible using a child or adolescent sample. However, retrospective reports have limitations, such as recall bias (Hardt and Rutter 2004). We tried to reduce this limitation by allowing participants flexibility to discuss any easily remembered experience (i.e., being quite open in terms of what type of teasing experience they wanted to discuss and at what developmental period). Interestingly, despite instructions to consider any time between Kindergarten and Grade 12, most participants recalled a teasing experience from middle or early high school (M = Grade 8 for playful teasing, Grade 9 for harmful teasing). In line with our theoretical rationale, this suggests that 1) this may be a key developmental period where teasing experiences are plentiful, and 2) that these experiences are most easily remembered several years later. Future research is needed to gain the perspectives of youths themselves, particularly around the middle school period, while they are engaged “in the moment” in these teasing interactions.

A limitation of the study is our relatively homogenous sample; particularly being predominantly female. Indeed, there may be gender differences in the way individuals manage teasing interactions, which requires future research to explore more fully. For instance, the pattern of competitive escalation as both parties attempt to “one‐up” each other and jockey for position was only discussed by male participants. This is in line with findings that boys tend to be more competitive in their peer interactions (Booth and Nolen 2012; Niederle and Vesterlund 2011). More research is needed, however, to further this line of inquiry, including explicitly asking females about potentially similar competitive interactions. Further, and particularly given that teasing content is frequently related to violations of gender norms (e.g., Horowitz et al. 2004; Mills and Babrow 2003; Stafford et al. 2015), research is also needed with participants identifying outside the gender binary. Using Grady (1998) guidelines for reaching data saturation (wherein we began to see no new codes in the data), we reached saturation from female participants early, then began a second state of recruitment targeting non‐female participants. Despite this, our sample contains fewer male participants and only one nonbinary participant. Though this interview did not differ in any significant way from the other data collected, it is entirely possible (even probable) that we did not reach data saturation in terms of the teasing experiences of gender nonbinary youth. Indeed, this is frequently an underrepresented population in research, and more needs to be done to fully explore the experiences of gender diverse young people.

8. Conclusions

Complicating the differentiation between playful and harmful teasing is the fact that both types of teasing may share similar features (e.g., content, perpetrator identity). To better understand nuances in teasing interpretations, the current study used a qualitative design to elucidate how different features of teasing may interact or combine to yield different interpretations of teasing. Our thematic analysis of emerging adults' retrospectively‐reported teasing experiences yielded insight into several potential mechanistic patterns that should be considered when interpreting teasing as harmful or playful. Specifically, we identified certain combinations of features that should be considered, we noted features that can either amplify harm (e.g., presence of an audience) or buffer harm (e.g., social skills), and we found evidence suggesting that the interaction pattern between perpetrators and targets all offer essential information necessary to the interpretation of teasing.

Stemming from our prior work and conceptual framework, we applied this framework to develop and present a conceptual model of teasing. Further, we used emerging adults' experiences to see how the various components of the model work in tandem to elicit experiences that feel playful or harmful. Not only can our model and findings support continued theoretical and empirical work addressing youth's teasing experiences, but findings can be used by teachers, parents, and others who work with children and youth to gain a better understanding of their social interactions which are—often times—ambiguous. This study is critical to improving our understanding of complex social interactions; thereby improving our ability to support children and youth's positive peer relationships.

Ethics Statement

Ethics approval was obtained by the participating university's Research Ethics Board.

Consent

All participants provided written informed consent to participate.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

JoAR2 Teasing Appendix.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the authors upon reasonable request.