Instructional Ribbing as a Cultural Practice for Guiding Children

Abstract

Valued cultural practices of marginalized communities are often critiqued by dominant cultural communities. In this study, U.S. Mexican-heritage mothers who had experience in Indigenous ways (and limited schooling and parenting classes) espoused instructional ribbing—a cultural practice involving indirectly guiding children’s behavior through mock threats or lighthearted teasing to help them see how their misbehavior impacts others—as a positive, familiar practice that encourages active learning. However, European American mothers were very critical.

Indications of cultural change came from U.S. Mexican-heritage mothers with experience in two cultural systems—Western schooling / parenting classes and Indigenous ways. Half viewed instructional ribbing positively, and half were negative and often referred to what they learned in parenting classes as a source of their change from prior generations. The value of instructional ribbing in some communities may be undermined by experience in dominant cultural systems where its familial and communal value and supports are not understood.

Research on child development has focused narrowly on the values and practices of European American highly schooled communities, often with negative judgments of the practices of other communities. The dominance of the institutions and values of European American highly schooled communities limits understanding of and support for alternative ways of raising children and even uses interventions such as parenting classes to promote parenting practices that align with mainstream Western ways.

We focus on a practice that occurs in a variety of nondominant communities around the world, but which may be lumped in with negatively evaluated practices if its cultural logic is not understood. Correcting children’s behavior through indirect means such as mock threats and light-hearted teasing are sometimes preferred to help children learn cultural values and appropriate ways of acting, in some Mexican-heritage, African American, Inuit, Western Apache, Mayan, and working-class white communities (Basso, 1979; Briggs, 1998; Brown, 2002; Eisenberg, 1986; Goodwin, 1990; Miller, 1982, 1986; Rogoff, 2003; Schieffelin, 1986).

However, even light-hearted teasing likely has a negative connotation among developmental researchers and parenting class instructors, many of whom are from European American highly schooled communities. Although some forms of teasing are found to lead to affiliative outcomes (Keltner et al., 2001), a large portion of research on teasing, often in European American communities, highlights negative intentions and outcomes such as social rejection and aggression among children (Boulton & Hawker, 1997; Galen & Underwood, 1997; Keltner et al., 2001; Mooney et al., 1991; Olweus, 1978; Zelizer, 1992). We posit that some forms of light-hearted teasing should not be lumped in with what is referred to as teasing in mainstream literature and in parenting classes.

In this article, we call attention to a cultural practice for guiding children’s behavior that we call instructional ribbing. Some ethnographies and our own experience and fieldwork among Mexican and Central American families lead us to argue that instructional ribbing is valued and may impart important cultural values in some communities. Understanding instructional ribbing is important for avoiding imposition of cultural assumptions that may lead to loss of important cultural values and the imposition of deficit judgments and discriminatory treatment of families.

We identify instructional ribbing as a mode of teaching in which family members guide children’s behavior and subtly teach children about the expectations and moral norms of their community through the light-hearted use of humorous or embarrassing stories, ironic comments, mock threats, and mock insults. Ribbing episodes occur within the context of daily life, often when a child misbehaves in family or other social settings.

An example of instructional ribbing occurred at the end of a long pilot interview in which KGS and BR were asking a Mexican-heritage mother about instructional ribbing: The 9-year-old, sitting beside her mother on their couch, was fidgeting and exaggeratedly acting out her mom’s comments on the research topic, in a funny way that distracted the adults. At first, the mother tried to talk over the child’s actions, looking at her a few times with a slight smile. Eventually she smiled at her daughter and rolled her eyes, telling the researchers, “I don’t know what I did wrong!” The child quieted down but then continued to fidget, making silly faces, poking her mother. The mother jokingly complained and BR said, “Ah she is adorable though!” The mother patted the child, smiled at her, and said affectionately, “Yes, you are adorable—when you are asleep!” and everyone laughed.

BR commented that her own kids were all grown up and she missed the silliness. The mother immediately sat up straight and held her daughter’s wrist out in an offer to BR, laughing, and enthusiastically said, “You can take her!” BR knew enough to play along and nodded, “OK, I’ll take her.” The child squeezed behind her mom on the couch and pretended to hide, extending the lighthearted drama. She responded to her mother under her breath, with an exaggerated scared-face, “You wouldn’t do that to me!!” The mother pretended to beg to BR, “Please take her!!” The child tried to climb into the mother’s lap (despite being about the same size) and pretended to cling as BR played along, asking the child, “You don’t want to come with me? I have a house with three bedrooms because my kids aren’t there anymore.”

The mother smiled at the child, playfully wrestling her back to the couch to sit beside her, and laughed, “See! You can have puppies there!!” The child playfully whined, “But I won’t have a home!” The mother said, “Yes, you will live with her!” and laughed with the child. Then the daughter, hugging and jostling the mother with her face nestled in her mother’s shoulder, said, “Ok, in 400 years [I’ll move in with her]!” as everyone laughed.

Note that the mother had first tried calming gestures and a look, to guide the child, before using mock insults and threats as the child continued to disrupt the conversation. After this event, the child stopped disrupting, comfortably settling into taking part even though the researchers told her and the mother that she didn’t need to stay for the rest of the interview. It is worth pointing out that this light-hearted ribbing seemed to be effective for guiding the child to stop disrupting while she remained engaged in the overall situation.

We view instructional ribbing as fitting within a broader approach to correcting young children’s misbehavior in a social situation. Based on our informal observations and participant observation, before starting to rib a child, a parent or close relative tries other means of resolving the issue. They may try to distract the child. Or they may subtly and gently correct the child, such as quietly giving them “the look” or making a request. Or they may point the child’s attention to the problem—“everyone’s looking at you”—or give a quick reminder of appropriate behavior, such as by reminding an older child that their toddler sibling “is just a baby.”

If that does not work to get the child acting appropriately, then someone may initiate instructional ribbing with the child, often with the help of onlookers. Older children know it is a mock situation and they “get” the message. Younger children often figure the message out on their own, within the situation. Sometimes, a friendly relative acts as an ally and gives a young child suggestions for how to respond in a light way that diffuses the rib (such as a joking comeback) but still keeps the child having to figure out how to manage the problem from within the social situation. If the child takes the scenario too seriously, often the child’s ally gives the child cues (like a look or a wink) that the ribbing is just play.

Cultural Values Related to Instructional Ribbing

There are few studies of instructional ribbing. However, some ethnographic research has suggested that instructional ribbing conveys a range of cultural values, and encourages community affiliation, conflict resolution, and muting the harshness of correction (Basso, 1979; Briggs, 1998; Eisenberg, 1986; Martínez, 2020; Miller, 1982, 1986; Rogoff, 2003; Schieffelin, 1986). For example, in an ethnographic study in an Indigenous community in Mexico, Tzeltal Mayan elders used mock threats to shape the behavior of small children (Brown, 2002): “That woman will grab you and take you away” or “I’ll take you to the clinic for an injection.” Brown argued that this approach could promote an early development of awareness of others’ minds. Even by age 4, Tzeltal children used something like instructional ribbing to correct the behavior of younger children whom they were watching over (Brown, 2002).

In an ethnography of an Inuit Indigenous community in Northern Canada, Jean Briggs (1998) noted that teasing is widely used to teach children. She claimed that teasing serves the central purpose of education in that community—to “cause (or cause to increase) thought” (Briggs, 1998, p. 5). Briggs suggested that being part of little teasing dramas in social situations may provoke children to assess their own behavior.

From our reading of the ethnographic literature related to instructional ribbing, most of which involves Indigenous communities of the Americas, and from our own fieldwork, we identify two key features of teaching children through instructional ribbing: active learning and being embedded in the social situation. We believe these features are based on important cultural values.

Active Learning

In instructional ribbing, children go through the process of figuring out why they should behave in particular ways. They need to think about the consequences of their actions without being explicitly told; adults leave some aspects and decisions about misbehavior and appropriate behavior up to the child to interpret and act on. Instructional ribbing often contains multiple layers of meaning, some of which are not intended for the child to take at face value, but rather for the child to become aware of others’ reactions to their behavior. Anthropologist Carlos Castañeda described this emphasis on active learning. His Yaqui (Indigenous Mexican) guide didn’t believe in handing down knowledge…he thought that knowledge imparted that way lacked effectiveness. It was never there when one needed it. On the other hand, if knowledge was only insinuated, the person who was interested would devise ways to claim that knowledge. (Castañeda, 1991, p. 250)

Shaping children’s behavior through instructional ribbing puts emphasis and confidence on the child’s agency and capability to learn and explore the consequences of their own behavior. Instructional ribbing allows other people to guide children indirectly while respecting children’s independence of thinking. In such an approach, children are active learners, in line with Piaget’s emphasis on the importance of cognitive conflict in fostering children’s understanding.

Being Embedded in the Social Situation

In instructional ribbing, adults correct the child in the social situation. This allows children to see important aspects of the consequences of their actions for themselves, while engaged with the group, rather than just hearing about them from explanations out of context.

In contrast, the mainstream positive discipline method often emphasizes taking the child aside, out of the situation (such as in time out), and giving extensive verbal explanation of the rules and how to behave (Eaton, 1997). Taking children out of the situation and reiterating the rules corresponds with the values and practices of highly schooled communities (Bronfenbrenner et al., 1996; Rogoff, 2003). For example, the “authoritative” parenting style emphasized in middle-class European American communities involves telling children to do or not to do something, with explicit explanations about the reasons (Baumrind, 1971; Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Note that instructional ribbing does not preclude explanation—the ribbing is likely to have been preceded by a straightforward explanation, during the event or on a different occasion; the contrast we are making is with escalation to extensive explanation out of context.

Instructional ribbing’s emphasis on children being guided to discover the impact of their behavior within the social situation fits with a broader perspective on children’s learning that emphasizes guiding children’s behavior while they are embedded in family and community events. In this cultural paradigm, Learning by Observing and Pitching In (LOPI; Rogoff et al., 2014; Rogoff et al., 2003), children are included and pay close attention and learn through contributing to the ongoing activities of their community. Central to LOPI is inclusion of children in the contexts of the community, from the youngest ages, as responsible contributors trusted to notice what is going on, make sense of it, and pitch in to help (Alcalá et al., 2014; Coppens & Rogoff, 2019; Rosado-May et al., 2020). LOPI appears to be especially common in many Indigenous communities of the Americas (Correa-Chávez et al., 2015), perhaps including the Mexican-heritage communities in our study of instructional ribbing.

Asking Mothers with Varying Cultural Experience about Instructional Ribbing

To examine these ideas, we interviewed 50 California mothers of 7- to 12-year-old children about their judgments and reasoning related to three imaginary scenarios of children being greedy or not sharing, and adults responding with mock insults, mock threats, or ironic comments. After each story, the mother and child were asked their opinions on the usefulness of instructional ribbing as a way to correct children’s behavior and teach them lessons.

This article, to our knowledge, is the first to bring to light the cultural practice of instructional ribbing. We examine its cultural logic through systematic comparison of cultural differences in mothers’ judgments and reasoning regarding this practice. We expect that distinct cultural logics and cultural values related to children’s learning and social life will be revealed in both the reflections of people from communities that are likely to use instructional ribbing as well as those from people who are likely to object to it.

We thus examine the extent to which instructional ribbing is regarded as a valuable and effective way of guiding children’s behavior and correcting misbehavior, among Mexican-heritage “Pueblo” mothers. These mothers have immigrated to the United States from areas of Mexico with extensive Indigenous histories (and they have little experience in Western schooling and parenting classes). We expected that they would often discuss instructional ribbing as a positive and appropriate way to teach children and shape their behavior. We expected that they would connect it to other positive community cultural values such as taking initiative to figure things out and being included in the family context to learn.

We compare the Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers’ statements with those of mothers from a European American highly schooled community. We expected many of them to criticize this approach, as in mainstream society where Mexican immigrant communities’ values and practices are frequently devalued and judged as inappropriate. We expected them to relate instructional ribbing to issues of lying to children and hurting their self-esteem.

To indirectly explore continuity or change of cultural values and practices, we also included mothers who have experience with both of these cultural systems—mothers who engage in a constellation of Mexican-heritage practices and values as well as U.S. institutions and value systems such as those of Western schooling and parenting classes (Rogoff et al., 2014). These “Nepantla” mothers have immigrated from México and have either 12 or more grades of Western schooling or have taken two or more U.S. parenting classes. (The label Nepantla is a Nahuat term for being in between.) Mexican-heritage mothers who have extensive experience in Western schooling or parenting classes may have a great deal of exposure to mainstream U.S. notions of parenting, through contact with social agencies, parent support groups, and media, in addition to parenting classes and formal schooling. For the mothers who had experience with both cultural systems, our analysis was exploratory—it would make sense for them to show a pattern like one or the other cultural system, or a mixed pattern.

The Mothers

European American Middle-class Mothers

All 18 European American middle-class mothers had completed at least 14 grades of school (M =17.3; range = 14–22); the grandparent generation had generally completed high school and some college. All 18 mothers had taken some parenting classes: most (11) had taken at least one course in parenting and had done extensive reading.

All but one European American middle-class mother was from the United States; one had immigrated from England as a child. All of the European American families lived in a nuclear family without other family members in the home or nearby, with an average of 2.3 children. The mothers’ occupations included seven teachers, college instructors, or preschool owners, two marketing consultants, two homemakers, two computer engineers, two business owners, a psychotherapist, a medical doctor, and a parenting advice writer.

Mexican-heritage Pueblo Mothers

The 14 Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers averaged 6.4 grades of Western schooling (range = 2–9), all in México; the grandparent generation had generally not participated in western schooling. The parents had little involvement in parenting classes or workshops: five had only had a short workshop and the other nine had not been involved in parenting classes or workshops at all.

Several aspects of the Pueblo mothers’ backgrounds are consistent with having experience of some Indigenous Mexican practices. Most of them had immigrated from areas of México with strong Indigenous history, and most were from rural areas such as small pueblos, towns or ranchos. All of them engaged in or were familiar with the ancient Indigenous practice of burying (or keeping) their baby’s umbilical stump (see Rogoff et al., 2014). And five of the mothers’ families spoke an Indigenous language such as Mixteco and Zapoteco.

Of the Pueblo children, four were born in México and 10 in the United States. Spanish was the primary language in all of the households; children were all bilingual in English and Spanish. Six of the 14 families had extended family members such as grandparents and aunts and uncles living in the same house. There was an average of 3.3 children per family. Maternal occupations were: six house cleaners, two homemakers, five fast food/restaurant/warehouse/agriculture workers, and one unknown.

Nepantla Mothers

The 18 Nepantla mothers averaged 10.8 grades of schooling (range = 4–18) with 12 of the 18 mothers having finished high school; the grandparent generation had generally completed some years of primaria (1–4 grades). Twelve of the mothers had completed their schooling in México. Most of the Nepantla mothers (14 of the 18) had extensive participation in parenting classes (which often included positive discipline, relevant to our study questions). The other four mothers had no or minimal involvement in parenting classes, but had completed at least 12 grades of schooling.

Many of the Nepantla mothers had immigrated from areas of México with strong Indigenous histories; three mothers were from the United States. Most (12) of the 18 mothers were from rural areas of Mexico such as small pueblos, towns or ranchos. Most of the mothers (15 of 18) engaged in or were familiar with the ancient Indigenous practice of burying (or keeping) the baby’s umbilical stump, and one family had experience with an Indigenous language.

Most (15) of the children were born in the US; three were born in México. Spanish was the primary language in 15 of the households; in the other three, Spanish and English were both spoken. All but one of the children were bilingual (English and Spanish). Six of the 18 families had extended family living in the same house. There was an average of 2.8 children per family. Maternal occupations included two house cleaners, four homemakers, six fast food/restaurant/warehouse/agriculture workers, five professionals (including dental hygienist and program coordinator), and one unknown.

Discussing the Stories

Each mother and her 7-to-12-year-old child took part in an informal, conversational videotaped interview in their home, for about an hour, with the first author and a bilingual research assistant (“The Story Lady”), who was blind to the hypotheses and goals of the study. She read the mother and child three brief stories involving instructional ribbing and asked their opinions of “this way of correcting the child’s behavior.” The interview did not specify when mother or child should speak, other than asking to hear from both of them. We focus on the mothers’ opinions in this article; the children responded similarly but in much less detail (summarized below). Siblings, fathers, or other family members were also peripherally involved in the interview, in three to five families in each community.

During a 5 to 10 minute warm-up chat, the Story Lady determined whether the mother and child were more comfortable in English or in Spanish. (Interviews with all of the Mexican-heritage families were conducted in Spanish.) The interview had four sections: three stories with related questions and a general interview about instructional ribbing.

The Three Stories

The stories were created based on the ethnographic studies as well as through instructional ribbing we have observed in Mexican and Indigenous American communities. We piloted the stories extensively to ensure that they conveyed instructional ribbing that was handled in light (not harsh) ways, after already explaining the importance of sharing or not being greedy. The stories were interpreted by pilot participants of Mexican background as familiar forms and situations of instructional ribbing. The stories were presented in the same order to all participants, along with schematic drawings that depicted the scenario to give the participants something to refer to during the questions. For example, here is the first story:

This is Alex’s uncle, and here’s Alex, he’s 5 years old. Alex’s uncle has noticed that Alex has been having a lot of trouble with sharing. His parents have been explaining and explaining to him why sharing is important. But Alex is still having trouble sharing.

One day Alex and his family went for a picnic at the beach. The uncle brought everyone’s favorite donuts. But it turned out that he didn’t buy enough for everyone!

Alex had already eaten a donut, and then he also took the last one. His uncle hadn’t gotten any of the donuts. So the uncle asked Alex for a taste of the last donut. Alex said, “no, it’s mine!”

So the uncle gave a sly grin. Then he looked at Alex and pretended to pout. He said to Alex, “Well then, I’m not going to love you anymore!” Alex’s mom saw what the uncle did, and smiled. Then she looked at Alex and winked.

The second story involved a 5-year-old having a tantrum about sharing with a 3-year-old at a family birthday party; the grandpa pretended he was going to pick up the 5-year-old like a baby and asked for someone to get the “little baby” a bottle. The 5-year-old stopped yelling and joked back to the grandpa, “Make sure it’s chocolate milk in my bottle,” and everyone laughed.

In the third story, a 4-year-old in a store greedily wanted a chocolate bar in addition to the doll her mother was buying her; she threw a fit and refused to give up the chocolate bar. The mother whispered to the child that the lady behind them in line is looking at her and doesn’t like kids making a fuss and will take the new doll away if the child doesn’t behave. The clerk smiled approvingly at how the mother was teaching the child not to be greedy.

The Story Questions

After each story, the Story Lady conversationally asked a standard set of questions about the usefulness of this way to correct children’s behavior, as well as about alternative ways to correct and teach children. The mothers usually talked freely and emotionally about the stories, often spontaneously addressing many of the questions, after the first one.

For example, the questions following the first story asked why the uncle used this way of correcting Alex’s behavior (and whether the uncle was trying to teach Alex something) and how this way of correcting Alex works. If not mentioned spontaneously, the Story Lady asked if the uncle’s way of correcting Alex would help Alex to share (and why), and whether Alex could learn something for the future from what the uncle did. If the participant was critical of the uncle’s approach, the Story Lady asked how else the uncle could handle the situation. If the participant liked the uncle’s approach, the Story Lady asked what the benefits are of this way compared with taking Alex aside and explaining why he should share. (Explaining was the most commonly mentioned alternative in our piloting.) If the participants gave mixed positive and negative comments about the ribbing story, the Story Lady asked them both sets of questions.

Final General Questions About Instructional Ribbing

Following the third story and its questions, the Story Lady laid out all three drawings and conversationally asked the mothers three targeted questions about instructional ribbing as a strategy for correcting children’s behavior. (The child was told that the next questions were mostly for their mom but they are welcome to stay and participate; they tended not to be involved in this general question part of the interview.) Mothers tended to volunteer much more information than what was requested in the questions. The three questions were based on prior ethnographic speculations that we discussed above, and comments made by pilot participants.

We asked:

• whether she agrees with some other moms who think that these strategies for correcting children’s behavior help children see things from other people’s point of view (and why she agrees or not),

• whether she agrees with moms who say that these strategies allow children to think on their own and figure out what they should do rather than being told what to do (and why), and

• whether these strategies are more lighthearted than taking the child aside and explaining when he/she does something wrong (and why).

The analyses combine mothers’ comments made across the three stories and the general questions because the same patterns appeared when the four sections of the interview were analyzed separately or combined.

Judgments of Instructional Ribbing: Good or Bad?

Our primary question is whether Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers would make a higher proportion of positive comments about instructional ribbing than European American middle-class mothers, whom we expected to be largely negative about this practice. We analyzed the Nepantla groups separately as an exploratory analysis; it would not have been appropriate to combine them with the two primary groups, for which we had strong predictions. (Accordingly we used two-tailed tests for these exploratory analyses and one-tailed analyses for the predicted main comparisons.) After we report analyses of the mothers’ positive and negative judgments of instructional ribbing, we examine the reasons that the mothers gave for these judgments.

The videotaped interviews were first segmented by utterance (“comment”), based on bilingual coders’ transcriptions that included relevant facial expressions, actions, and intonation. We then distinguished whether the comment was either clearly positive (e.g., “I think this was a good way to handle the situation!”) or clearly negative (e.g., “This is horrible!”). If the comment was not clearly one of the two (e.g., “I’m not sure”), it was not coded. However, mothers could mix positive and negative comments within and across the four sections of the study. Reliability was excellent between a bilingual coder, blind to the hypotheses, and a second bilingual coder, who coded 40% of the data (total number of coded comments, Pearson’s R= .98; percent of positive or negative judgments, R = .99; disagreements were resolved by consensus).

We employed percentages of each mother’s total coded comments for examining the amount of positive or negative judgments, because although all interviews lasted about the same amount of time (one hour), the European American middle-class mothers averaged considerably more coded comments than the Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers (Ms = 48.8 vs 30.7, SDs = 17.6, 8.9), t(30) = 3.5, p = .001. The European American middle-class mothers also made more coded comments than the Nepantla mothers, both those who made mostly positive comments, M = 33.1, SD = 6.9, t(25) = 2.6, p < .05, and those who made mostly negative comments, M = 38.3, SD = 6.0, t(23.2) = 2.3, p < .05, who in turn averaged more coded comments than the Pueblo mothers, t(21) = 2.2, p < .05. (The rationale for subdividing the Nepantla group is explained below.) We used t-tests to give an idea of magnitude of differences; please note that the sample sizes are small, especially for the Nepantla comparisons. However, most of the differences are striking even for “eyeball” analysis.

Positive and Negative Views of Instructional Ribbing among Mexican-heritage Pueblo and European American Middle-class Mothers

The differences of opinion were striking. Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers averaged 9 times as high a percent of positive comments (M=81.9% of their comments) as the European American middle-class mothers, who almost never made positive judgments of instructional ribbing (M= 9.0% positive comments, SDs = 15.2, 8.9), t(19.8) = 15.9, p < .001. The European American middle-class mothers were often vehement in their aversion to instructional ribbing. For example, one mother said, “…people who do this are self-centered…What the mother is doing is resorting to something that is not true, uh, in order to take pressure off of herself as the person who needs to hold the line!”

There was little variation within these two backgrounds (please refer to the casegraph in Figure 1). The Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers all gave comments that were at least 50% positive (and usually much more positive than that; three made only positive comments). The European American middle-class mothers all commented quite negatively about instructional ribbing, and three made only negative comments. The most positive European American middle-class mother (whose comments were only 34.4% positive) was much more negative than the least positive Mexican-heritage Pueblo mother (whose comments were 53.3% positive).

Figure 1.

Casegraph of Each Mother’s Percent of Positive and Negative Comments about Instructional Ribbing out of All Coded Comments, Ordered from Most Negative to Most Positive within Each Background.

Nepantla Mothers were Split in their Judgments

As shown in Figure 1, half of the Nepantla mothers followed a very similar pattern to that of the Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers and half followed a pattern closer to that of the European American middle-class mothers. Due to this bimodal pattern, we divided the Nepantla mothers into two subgroups based on whether their opinions of instructional ribbing were either less than 50% or at least 50% positive (which happened to yield subgroups each with n = 9). Averaging the percentage of positive comments among the Nepantla mothers would have misrepresented most of the Nepantla mothers’ views about instructional ribbing—the average is 55.8% but only three of the 18 Nepantla mothers gave between 40% and 60% positive comments. Nepantla mothers who were mostly positive made more than double the proportion of positive comments than those who were mostly negative (Ms = 79.6% vs 32.0% positive comments, SDs = 14.9, 13.9), t(16) = 7.02, p < .001. We checked to see what might account for the difference between these two halves of the Nepantla sample; we did not find demographic differences between them, and the difference was not based on differences in schooling or parenting classes.

Nepantla mothers who mainly made positive comments were almost indistinguishable from Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers; they did not significantly differ in the proportion of positive comments about instructional ribbing (Ms = 79.6% vs 81.9%, SDs = 14.9, 15.2). The Nepantla mothers who made mainly negative comments resembled the middle-class European American mothers but were not as extreme; they made more positive comments (Ms = 32.0% vs 9.0%, SDs = 13.9, 8.9), t(11.4) = 4.52, p = .001. However, they made considerably fewer positive comments than the other Nepantla mothers (see above) and than the Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers (32.0% vs 81.9%, SDs = 13.9, 15.2), t(15.7) = 8.2, p < .001.

Ambivalence was common among many of the Nepantla mothers, who hedged when they explained their own use of the practice. One example was the Nepantla mother (with 18 years of schooling and extensive experience in parenting classes) whom we quoted at the beginning of this article providing an instructional rib, after trying subtly and gently to calm her 9-year-old daughter nonverbally. The mother laughingly pretended to suggest that the daughter go live with BR, “You can take her! … “Please take her!!” This mother had already given several highly negative judgments of instructional ribbing, for example:

I’m trying to do the best because my parents didn’t do the right thing with me. That’s why it’s just like a chain that goes, generation after generation. Latino parents do this [instructional ribbing] more because they don’t know any better. Nobody teaches them and it is like a chain. I’m lucky coming here [to the United States] and being able to learn other ways of doing things. I just started learning and learning from the parenting classes and I just wanted to give my kids what I didn’t have and so I just worked on bettering myself and learning more ways.

This mother’s negative judgment of instructional ribbing was accompanied by a beautiful instructional rib. Her ambivalence towards this cultural practice seems characteristic of the situation of Nepantla mothers, being in the middle.

Mothers’ Reasons for Judging Instructional Ribbing as Positive or Negative

Throughout the interview, the mothers discussed why they felt that instructional ribbing was positive or negative. We closely examined these reasons ethnographically, to derive categories to characterize the most common reasons. See Tables 1 and 2. To characterize the prevalence of the different reasons, we counted the number of sections of the interview (three stories and the general interview) each mother mentioned each type of reason. Thus, the maximum was four for each type of reason, for each mother. Mothers often mentioned multiple different reasons in each section of the interview. (The number of times that mothers reiterated their reasons within each of the four sections was not of interest to us for understanding their reasoning, unlike their positive/negative comments, where mothers’ insistence through repetition was relevant.) Mothers’ reasons varied somewhat between stories but were generally congruent.

Table 1. Reasons for positive judgments.

Average number of sections of the interview (out of 4) in which mothers used the general and specific reasons for explaining positive judgments of instructional ribbing at least once, and intercoder reliabilites. One-tailed T-tests are between European American and Mexican-heritage Pueblo groups.

The score for general reasons involves 1 point per section of the interview, for mentioning any of the relevant specific reasons and statements of the general reason that are not further specified.

General Reasons & Specific Reasons; R = intercoder reliability	t-Test comparing European American & Mexican-heritage Pueblo Mothers	European American n = 18 % positive judgments M = 9.0	Nepantla Negative n = 9 % positive judgments M = 32.0	Nepantla Positive n = 9 % positive judgments M = 79.6	Mexican heritage Pueblo n = 14 % positive judgments M = 82.0
Works in the moment and that’s good, R= .97	t(19.4) = 7.7, p < .001	.6	2.2	3.7	3.1
Helps children learn to share or not be greedy, R=.91	t(15.9) = 6.4, p < .001	.2	1.0	2.4	2.3
Has positive side consequences, R=.84	t(30) = 6.6, p < .001	.8	1.6	2.8	3.0
Helps children learn cultural values & teaches them to do it (a good thing), R=.97	t(14.3) = 5.6, p < .001	.1	.6	1.6	1.5
Helps children to take others’ perspectives, R=.92	t(30) = 3.5, p < .005	.5	.7	1.4	1.6
Teaches children to monitor their own behavior, R=.90	t(30) = 4.6, p < .001	.3	.7	1.2	1.5
It’s better than taking the child aside & explaining, R=.83	ns	1.0	1.8	2.3	1.6
Allows children to think for themselves & occurs in real social contexts, R=.93	ns	0	.3	.9	.2
Children can’t understand abstract rules, R=.86	ns	.2	.6	.4	.4
Allows child to saves face; it’s lighthearted, R=.83	ns	.9	.2	.9	.7
It’s quicker than explaining, R=.90	t(13) = 3.6, p < ,005	0	1.0	1.2	1.0
It’s better than other types of correction, R=1	t(13) = 4.0, p < .005	0	.1	1.0	1.4

Table 2. Reasons for negative judgments.

Average number of sections of the interview (out of 4) in which mothers used the general and specific reasons for explaining negative judgments of instructional ribbing at least once, and intercoder reliabilites. One-tailed T-tests are between European American and Mexican-heritage Pueblo groups.

The score for general reasons involves 1 point per section of the interview, for mentioning any of the relevant specific reasons and statements of the general reason that are not further specified.

General Reasons & Specific Reasons; R = intercoder reliability	t-Test comparing European American & Mexican-heritage Pueblo Mothers	European American n = 18 % negative judgments M = 91.0	Nepantla Negative n = 9 % negative judgments M = 68.6	Nepantla Positive n = 9 % negative judgments M = 20.4	Mexican-heritage Pueblo n = 14 % negative judgments M = 18.1
Works in the moment, but it’s not good, R=.91	t(21.2) = 7.2, p < .001	1.6	1.7	.1	.1
Doesn’t work to control behavior, R=.90	t(23.4) = 5.1, p < .001	1.3	.6	.3	.1
Children cannot learn to share or not be greedy from it, R=.92	t(20.3) = 7.5, p < .001	2.6	1.9	.6	.1
Has negative side consequences, R=.70	t(30) = 8.2, p < .001	3.4	2.7	.9	.9
Damages relationships (lose trust or parental authority, makes children fear strangers), R=.94	t(30) = 4.0, p < .001	1.1	.8	.1	.2
Teaches kids to do it (a bad thing), R=.74	t(20.5) = 3.3, p < .005	.8	.9	.1	.1
Damages child’s self-esteem, R=.70	t(21.8) = 3.8, p = .001	.8	1.0	0	.1
Immoral, it’s mean, lying, R=.95	t(30) = 5.6, p < .001	2.8	2.3	.4	.7
There are better alternatives, R=.85	t(14.8) = 8.2, p < .001	3.9	3.8	2.3	1.4
Pull child aside and explain, R=.96	t(30) = 4.9, p < .001	2.9	3.2	1.3	1.0
Control child’s actions by preventing or punishing, R=.94	t(27.2) = 8.0, p < .001	2.4	1.7	1.4	.4

In addition to the specific reasons, we created several general categories of conceptually related reasons. For example, the specific reason “instructional ribbing helps children take others’ perspectives” fits with related reasons in the general category “There are positive side consequences.” (The maximum score for the general categories, like the specific reasons, is also four; each section of the interview yielded one point if the mother stated any of the specific reasons related to that general category or mentioned that general category without further specification.)

Intercoder reliability regarding the number of sections of the interview (out of four) in which the mothers expressed a particular positive or negative reason was calculated between the two coders. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. (See Tables 1 and 2 for reliabilities.)

We first present the mothers’ reasons for stating that the way of correcting children presented in the scenario is good, for the main comparison of the Mexican-heritage Pueblo and European American middle-class mothers, and then for the exploratory analyses of the Nepantla mothers. Then we turn to their reasons for judging that it is bad.

Reasons Why Instructional Ribbing is Good

Mexican-heritage Pueblo and European American Middle-class Mothers

The Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers most commonly gave the three reasons below for their positive judgments of instructional ribbing (usually in two or three of the four segments of the interview). As can be seen in Table 1, the Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers mentioned each of these three reasons significantly more than the European American middle-class mothers, stating them in two or three times as many sections of the interview on average.

• This approach works to correct children’s behavior in the moment – because it makes kids self-conscious or self-aware in front of other people, or it distracts kids and diffuses the situation.

• This approach helps children learn to share or not be greedy – by teaching them in-the-moment, in real contexts, highlighting real examples and teaching through ‘little dramas,’ or letting children experience the emotional side of learning.

• This approach has positive side consequences – which benefit the child, in addition to learning about sharing or not being greedy. The following specific reasons were given in an average of one and a half of the four sections of the interview; these mothers mentioned each of them significantly more often than the European American middle-class mothers did.

  • This approach helps children learn larger cultural values, such as understanding that your behavior impacts the larger group, and it teaches children this positive strategy to help out with other kids.
  • It promotes children’s ability to take others’ perspectives or makes them less egocentric.
  • It teaches autonomy and responsibility to think on their own and monitor their own behavior in future situations.

The Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers also said that It is better than taking the child aside and explaining, in an average of 1.6 of the four sections of the interview, which was not significantly more than the European American middle-class mothers (M = 1.0). The Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers more often specified that instructional ribbing is better because it is quicker. Three other specific reasons that this approach is better than explaining were given by some mothers of both backgrounds:

• By not controlling, it allows children to think for themselves, and it occurs in the social contexts where children need to understand on-the-fly.

• Children cannot understand abstract rules or explanations out of context, or they treat them as just a parent going “bla-bla-bla”.

• It allows the child to save face or is lighthearted.

The Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers also said that this approach is better than using other forms of correction, such as scolding or physical punishment. They gave this reason significantly more than the European American middle-class mothers, who never mentioned this. (This may be consistent with findings from a U.S. national sample that foreign-born Mexican and other Latino parents were the least likely to report spanking their children, and European American parents were the most likely; Han et al., 2012.)

The European American middle-class mothers did occasionally make positive statements about this way of correcting children, such as it would work in the moment to change behavior (in an average of 0.6 of the four sections of the interview). However, their positive statements were usually not spontaneous or straightforward. They usually only occurred in the general interview section when some mothers agreed, upon being directly asked, with some moms who say that instructional ribbing helps children to take others’ points of view, and that it is a more lighthearted method of addressing the child’s behavior than taking the child aside and explaining. However, their responses generally were not straightforward agreement but agreement in principle accompanied by a claim that there nonetheless are better alternatives (“well, yes, maybe, but it would be better to...”). When the Pueblo mothers agreed with the statement it was usually straight agreement, and they often brought up these ideas spontaneously.

Nepantla Mothers

The reasons given by the Nepantla mothers who were mostly positive generally echoed those of the Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers, and the reasons given by Nepantla mothers who were mostly negative were intermediate but for the most part echoed those of the European American middle-class mothers. Figure 2a shows the pattern.

Figure 2.

Average number of segments of the interview in which mothers from the different cultural backgrounds gave each main reason for their positive or negative judgments of instructional ribbing at least once.

a. Reasons given for positive judgments

b. Reasons given for negative judgments

The only discrepancies from this pattern appeared in specific reasons why instructional ribbing is better than taking the child aside and explaining. Nepantla mothers who made mostly positive judgments claimed even more often than Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers that this approach is better than explaining – it allows children to think for themselves in real social contexts, t(21) = 2.7, p < .05. Nepantla mothers who made mostly negative judgments less often claimed that this approach is better than explaining – it allows the child to save face and is lighthearted even compared with European American middle-class mothers, t(25) = 2.4, p < .05.

Reasons Why Instructional Ribbing is Bad

European American Middle-class and Mexican-heritage Pueblo Mothers

The European American middle-class mothers most often explained their negative judgments of instructional ribbing with the following three reasons (mentioning them on average in 2.6 to almost all four segments of the interview). As can be seen in Table 2, they mentioned each of these three reasons significantly more frequently than the Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers, mentioning them about three times as often on average.

• Children cannot learn to share or to avoid being greedy from this approach – because it does not directly address the specific problem behavior, it skirts the issue, or children cannot learn without having someone explain to them.

• This approach has negative side consequences or risks to the child. European American middle-class mothers sometimes commented simply that there are many damaging outcomes if the parent uses instructional ribbing. They often (in an average of almost three of the four sections of the interview) went on to exclaim vehemently that it is immoral or abusive to treat children this way because it involves lying, intimidation, and manipulation (even though the characters in the stories treated the instructional ribbing lightheartedly and with approval). These mothers gave this negative reason four times as much as the Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers, a significant difference. They also gave each of the following “negative consequences” reasons in about one of the four sections of the interview; each was significantly more frequent than among the Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers:

  • This approach damages the child’s relationship with the teaser (the child gets upset and loses trust for the adult, there is a loss of parental authority, or child becomes afraid of other adults);
  • It teaches children to use this approach with others (and that’s bad);
  • The approach damages the child’s self-esteem.
• There are better alternatives: The European American middle-class mothers often claimed that two alternatives were preferable, each in an average of more than two sections of the interview, significantly more than among the Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers:

  • Pull the child aside and explain the rules (or preventatively explain);
  • Control the child’s actions by not including the child in the situation or by giving contingent rewards for good behavior or punishing bad behavior.

Note that the scenarios all stated that the adults had already tried explaining the importance of sharing or not being greedy, before trying the ribbing described in each scenario.

The European American middle-class mothers also gave two other reasons for their negative judgments of instructional ribbing significantly more often than the Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers, in an average of one of the four segments of the interviews:

• This approach only works in the moment, a quick fix but not a positive way to interact with children. For example, “Well I guess it probably stops him from throwing a fit but…I would never do that to my child!”

• This approach simply does not work to control behavior in the moment. Some mothers explained that kids would just get more upset or would not believe or care about the ribbing.

Although the Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers were seldom negative about instructional ribbing, they did on rare occasions make negative statements. The most common negative reason given by these mothers was sometimes saying that it would be better to pull the child aside and explain (in an average of one of the four sections of the interview). A few of these mothers felt that instructional ribbing is not appropriate because it is immoral or mean or involves lying.

Nepantla Mothers

The reasons given by the Nepantla mothers who were mostly positive echoed those of the Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers, and the reasons given by Nepantla mothers who were mostly negative echoed those of the European American middle-class mothers. There were no significant discrepancies from this pattern. Figure 2b shows the pattern graphically.

Children’s Evaluations of Instructional Ribbing

Both the child and mother were encouraged to give their opinions about the use of instructional ribbing during the three stories portion of the interview. There was less depth in the children’s responses than we had hoped, which makes sense in the context of the mothers’ involvement. The children’s statements were generally contextualized by what their mother was saying. They tended to comment similarly to their mothers, although it varied widely whether the child or mother responded first.

The European American mothers and children often took turns going first in responding to the questions, with turn-taking managed by the mothers. Sometimes the mothers urged their child to respond first. Other times the mother would just begin speaking and then ask the child what they thought or just ask the child to confirm, “this is what we think, right?” If their child had a different opinion, they might suggest, “Do you actually think that would work?!” or “really?!!!” The following is from a European American mother and her daughter:

Mom: [looking at the child] We don’t think it works, right?! I don’t think—I don’t know how that would ever teach him to share. I think that would only teach him to be—that his uncle might be…really…a jerk. I mean, to blackmail him like that, I don’t know!

Child: He’s a 5-year-old! [rolling her eyes and scrunching her face, as if she thinks that the uncle is ridiculous for doing what he did because the child is so young]

In contrast, the Pueblo sessions tended to be more organic, with no person in control of managing who spoke when. Either partner started responding depending on who had an idea.

There was some ribbing back and forth to try to get the other partner to give answers. This playful interaction occurred after an 11-year-old had just answered the Story Lady’s question:

Story Lady to mom: And you? What do you think?

[The child looks at mom with an exaggerated, interrogative but silly expression while asking quietly:] And you? What do you think?

[Mom smiles bashfully and child stares at her with wide eyes close to mom’s face.] Story Lady repeats question to mom: Why do you think he used this form of correcting Alex?

[Mom looks like she is concentrating and child starts smiling at her, making ticktock sounds and pointing at where a watch would be, if he was wearing one.]

[Mom looks at child and starts laughing.]

Story Lady: There is no hurry.

Mom: Um…well…because…

Child: [Smiling at mom] One hour later!!

The children, especially the younger ones, tended to talk less than their mothers and overall had less coded comments and less specific reasons. However, the children always indicated whether they thought instructional ribbing was good or bad. The patterns of comments about the usefulness of instructional ribbing given by the children in all of the groups were the same as the patterns shown by their mothers.

In general, the Pueblo children made more positive than negative comments about instructional ribbing. Their top two reasons for approving of instructional ribbing were given in an average of 2.2 and 2.1 of the three stories (“instructional ribbing is good — it works” and “they learn to share”). For example, a Pueblo child explained why they thought this form of correction would help the child in the story to share, “I think so because when my mom does it to my little brother it always works. He learns that he needs to share to not hurt people’s feelings.” The Pueblo children gave very few critiques of instructional ribbing. Their top two critiques were given in only 0.6 and 0.3 of the three stories (“there are better alternatives” and “it doesn’t work to get the child to behave”).

In contrast, the European American children used more negative than positive comments about instructional ribbing. Their top two critiques were given in 2.1 and 1.6 of the three stories (“there are better alternatives” and “instructional ribbing works in the moment — but it’s bad”). A child explained, “Well, I guess it might make him stop whining but, ugh, it’s just not, I can’t understand how that could teach him anything good.” The European American children gave few positive comments about instructional ribbing. Their top two positive comments were given in only 0.9 and 0.4 of the three stories (“its good because it works” and “they learn to share that way”).

The comments of the children of the Nepantla mothers who were mostly positive about instructional ribbing were mostly positive, like their mothers and like the children in the Pueblo background. Their top two reason categories for approving of instructional ribbing were given in an average of 2.3 and 2.0 of the three stories (“It is good because it works” and “they learn to share from it”). Their top negative critiques were given in only 0.7 and 0.1 of the three stories (“there are better alternatives” and “it doesn’t work to get the child to behave”).

The children of the Nepantla mothers who were mostly negative about instructional ribbing did not show much difference between positive and negative comments. Their top two most frequent positive comments were given in an average of 1.7 and 1.7 of the three stories (“its good because it works to get the child to behave” and “they learn to share”). Their top negative critiques were used in an average of 1.9 and 0.8 of the three stories (“there are better alternatives” and “it doesn’t work to get the child to behave”).

Instructional Ribbing Fits with Larger Cultural Systems

The practice of ribbing children to guide them regarding proper values and behavior has features that fit with some widespread Indigenous Mexican and Central American childrearing practices. Instructional ribbing’s emphasis on the child being corrected within the social situation fits with the emphasis on learning within the context of ongoing events, in Learning by Observing and Pitching In to family and community endeavors (LOPI, Rogoff et al., 2014). Instructional ribbing’s emphasis on children actively figuring out what is going on, and being aware of their role in the group, fit with children being included in family and community activities with the opportunity and responsibility to observe and make sense of what is going on around them, to be able to contribute, in LOPI .

Instructional ribbing also connects with some culturally valued aspects of adults’ guiding roles in LOPI. The use of light-hearted, humorous approaches is a tool for providing guidance without being heavy-handed in some Indigenous and Latino communities (Martínez, 2020; Monzó & Rueda, 2003). Relatedly, instructional ribbing creates a little drama (Briggs, 1998) that resembles the use of storytelling to provide lessons in a number of Native American communities (Basso, 1979; Suina, 1988). A key feature of Indigenous uses of storytelling is its indirectness—Basso (1979) describes Apache stories as arrows that bring a lasting lesson to a listener without the listener even being identified as the target of the story. As in storytelling, instructional ribbing’s little dramas create a context for children (and others) to consider cultural values and the effects of individuals in a group. Noted kindergarten teacher Vivian Paley (1984) claims that there is a greater possibility of making change in a pretend drama that disarms and engages, compared with telling a child he has to share.

Experience in Two Cultural Systems with Stark Differences in Views of Instructional Ribbing

With the prevalence of globalization, it is important to examine how people with experience in several cultural systems manage their lives and their values. We wondered if Nepantla mothers, with their experience in two cultural systems, would have mixed opinions about instructional ribbing (sometimes positive, sometimes negative) or opinions resembling either of the strikingly different patterns of the other two groups (extremely positive, extremely negative), or even opinions more extreme than the mothers with experience primarily in one cultural system (Mexican Indigenous-heritage or middle-class U.S. practices and values).

Like the U.S. Mexican Indigenous-heritage Pueblo mothers, Nepantla families had emigrated from regions of México with strong Indigenous histories and limited formal schooling. In addition, they have experience with potentially conflicting practices in Western schooling and parenting classes (and in constellations of related practices; Rogoff et al., 2014). These two cultural systems have a long and continuing history of one system being marginalized by the other, with explicit efforts by the dominant society to suppress Indigenous cultural practices (Bonfil Batalla, 1996) in many nations.

Most of the Nepantla mothers in our study did not show mixed opinions of instructional ribbing. Half of them judged instructional ribbing similarly to the European American mothers and the other half judged it similarly to the Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers. Thus, our research contributes a picture of strong variability of cultural values regarding instructional ribbing among mothers that have experience with more than one cultural system.

Like the U.S. Mexican-heritage mothers whose backgrounds likely included experience with Indigenous practices of Mexico, half of the Nepantla mothers were overwhelmingly positive about instructional ribbing. They gave very similar reasons for their positive judgments as the Pueblo mothers with likely Indigenous Mexican experience. They often explained their positive judgments in terms of their views that it works to control children’s behavior in the moment, often because it makes children self-aware in front of others, and it helps children learn to share and not to be greedy by giving them real life examples in the context where the lesson is to be used. They pointed to positive side-consequences of instructional ribbing—especially that its social nature helps children to see how their behavior affects others, and it helps them take others’ perspectives and monitor their own behavior.

The other half of the Nepantla mothers were negative about this approach to correcting children’s behavior, like the European American middle-class mothers, but not as strongly or vehemently. Their reasons were very similar to those of the European American middle-class mothers, who often explained their negative views of the scenarios of instructional ribbing by claiming—often heatedly—that there are negative side-consequences in using instructional ribbing, especially asserting that this is lying, immoral, or mean, despite the fact that the people in the stories treated the events lightheartedly. They stated that there are better alternatives to correct children’s behavior—especially taking the child aside and explaining or preventing the problem by not allowing the child to be in the situation. They also often said that children cannot learn to share or to not be greedy through this approach, because it is indirect and that children cannot learn without explicit explanation.

The presence of strong variability among the Nepantla mothers is consistent with most other studies that include Nepantla participants. However, most studies report more mixed forms of variability than the bimodal distribution of views of the present study. In studies that have focused on observation, attentiveness, collaboration, and helpfulness, Nepantla participants’ variability has been more evenly spread out between the two approaches or has tended to resemble the approach of one of these backgrounds—often the highly schooled group (Chavajay & Rogoff, 2002; Correa-Chávez & Rogoff, 2009; Correa-Chávez et al., 2005; Mejía-Arauz et al., 2007; Mejía-Arauz et al., 2005). A few studies of mothers’ simultaneous attention and children’s considerateness have found no difference between Nepantla and Indigenous-heritage backgrounds (Chavajay & Rogoff, 1999; Rogoff et al., 1993; Ruvalcaba et al., 2015). An important empirical question is to determine which cultural practices and values tend to be maintained across generations, under what circumstances, and which ones erode or transform when people experience multiple cultural systems—especially when the second one is a dominant system.

Why Were Nepantla Mothers’ Views Split?

The bimodal variability of the judgments of the Nepantla mothers in our study could relate to the study’s focus on moral judgments, unlike previous research focusing on attention and collaboration. There may be moral pressure for the Nepantla mothers, living in the United States, to choose one approach or the other. The vehemence of many of the European American middle-class mothers is likely to be consistent with the negative messages many Nepantla mothers have received explicitly in parenting classes. Indeed, some of the Mexican-heritage mothers (both Pueblo and Nepantla) noted that they avoid using this way of correcting their children if there are Anglos around, because, they report, Anglos are critical of this approach.

Black-and-white views among Nepantla participants might be encouraged by the extremeness of the moral judgments of both the Pueblo mothers and the European American middle-class mothers. This idea is consistent with the Nepantla mothers’ extreme views when they compared instructional ribbing with explaining. The Nepantla mothers who made mostly positive judgments claimed even more often than Mexican-heritage Pueblo mothers that this approach is better than explaining – it allows children to think for themselves in real social contexts. Nepantla mothers who made mostly negative judgments claimed even less often than the European American middle-class mothers that this approach is better than explaining – it allows the child to save face and is lighthearted.

Alternatively, some of the Nepantla mothers might have been influenced to give more positive views of instructional ribbing, given that the interviewers were both Mexican-heritage and the interviews were in Spanish (following the mothers’ preference). However, working in the opposite direction was the fact that the interviewers were both from the university and studying child development, a field that generally treats Mexican-heritage practices negatively. Our protocol was careful to present instructional ribbing in a neutral light.

Also relevant to the split opinions of the Nepantla mothers is the well-known fact that people’s behavior may not correspond with their moral judgments. Many of the Nepantla mothers who discussed instructional ribbing negatively may nonetheless actually use it. Some of them used instructional ribbing during the interview, as in the example we described where a Nepantla mother used mock threats to address her child’s behavior, contradicting her negative comments about instructional ribbing. Some of the children whose mothers reported negative judgments about this practice teasingly reported during the interviews that their mothers use instructional ribbing with them.

There did not seem to be an easy explanation to account for which Nepantla mothers were positive and which were negative about instructional ribbing. Neither parenting class experience nor school experience alone characterized the contrasting views among Nepantla mothers. The differences in views may relate to whether these California families live near and communicate with others that have emigrated from the same communities in México or live in more mixed communities. It may matter for multiple generations of family or community members to be involved in daily life together, given that instructional ribbing often involves support from other family or community members in both creating the little drama and for a trusted ally to help the child resolve it if necessary.

How Do Children Learn their Part in Instructional Ribbing and What Do They Learn?

Given that children are eager to learn and fit in with their family and community, they are motivated to figure out what people mean when they use instructional ribbing, how to change their own behavior to avoid ribbing in the future, and how to be involved in ribbing in different roles. But how do they learn that light-hearted ribbing is actually light-hearted, and how to play their part in instructional ribbing episodes? How do they learn to react playfully and deflect the tease or even engage in repartee that “one-ups” the teaser with funny or skillful jousting?

We have observed a child as young as one year old skillfully deflect a tease. This Mexican-heritage baby routinely attended our lab meetings with her mother. One day, tiring of the meeting, she pulled on her mother’s blouse as a request to nurse. Her mother tried to ignore this, but the baby persisted. The other adults at the meeting noticed, and BR, who knew the baby well, smiled and teased the baby lightly, “Oh you want to nurse??” The baby looked at BR, who was running the meeting, and instantly pointed behind BR towards the whiteboard, effectively distracting BR’s attention from the baby herself. After turning to see what the baby was pointing at, BR looked back at the baby, who had a satisfied smile, and everyone laughed appreciatively about the baby’s skill in deflecting a tease. KGS remembers thinking, ‘Well, Baby showed us for staring and giggling at her!’

Verbal jousting is a valued activity in a number of communities, with skillful repartee greeted with admiration by the audience and even by the person whose parry was deflected or one-upped (e.g., Gossen, 1976; Wieder & Pratt, 1990). Versatility and think-on-your-feet adroitness for repartee may be developed in part as children learn their roles in instructional ribbing. An aid to the children’s learning is the presence and support of an ally, who sometimes suggests a retort for the young child to use. If the child takes the ribbing too seriously, the ally may intervene with a wink to help a young child see that a mock threat or mock insult is not serious. An older child who takes ribbing too seriously might be ribbed about doing so or not included in enjoyable family ribbing in the future.

Adults may also explicitly teach children to use instructional ribbing. For example, a Tzeltal (Mexican Indigenous) mother was trying to get her 2-year-old child (Mik) to come inside. She directed her 6-year-old daughter (Sil), “I’m nursing, say to Mik. Lie to him to get him to come.” Sil yells to Mik, “I’m nursing! I’m nursing! I’m suckling on mama!” Mik comes inside and Sil continues, “Thus, I really suckled well. Thus I’ve finished off your breast for you. Okay.” Sil’s “lies” are skillful in adding information to her mother’s initial request, making the resulting little drama emotionally arousing and believable; she was successful in managing her sibling’s behavior this way (Brown, 2002).

Participation in instructional ribbing may help young children take others’ perspective and employ sophisticated theory of mind. Middle-class European American communities’ emphasis on literalness and explicitness, and strong moral judgment regarding lying (Heyman et al., 2009) may relate to difficulties of middle-class white children with verbal irony and reading speakers’ intentions. Studies indicate that not until about age 6 do they begin to recognize that speakers do not intend ironic comments to be taken literally (Dews et al., 1996; Harris & Pexman, 2003; Pexman et al., 2005). Middle-class white first and third graders could not tell a convincing lie and were not good at detecting deceit (DePaulo & Jordan, 1982), unlike the skills shown by the 6-year-old Tzeltal girl in the example. Experience with instructional ribbing may contribute to children’s understanding of irony, figurative language, deception, intentionality (theory of mind), sensitivity toward nonverbal and verbal cues, problem solving, critical thinking, and rhetorical speech and linguistic virtuosity.

Instructional ribbing’s emphasis on allowing children to figure things out may relate to adult respect for children’s autonomy in some North and Central American Indigenous communities (Alcalá et al., 2014; Coppens et al., 2014; Mosier & Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff, 2003; Pelletier, 1969; Scollon & Scollon, 1981). Sonia Sánchez (2011) noted that lighthearted teasing to correct children’s behavior respects children’s autonomy and retains choice, whereas using physical means, such as removing the child or taking a toy away, removes options for the child. Being allowed to figure things out and encouraged to notice their effect on other people may also contribute to impressive skills that have been observed among Indigenous and Mexican-heritage children, such as showing initiative in helping, responsibility, and considerateness in making requests (Alcalá et al., 2014; Coppens et al., 2016; Ruvalcaba et al, 2015).

Expanding Ideas about Cultural Practices for Guiding Children’s Learning

In a number of U.S. programs for families with young children, families are required to take parenting classes in order to gain benefits for their children. Interventions to influence families around the world to shift their childrearing practices to resemble those of dominant European American practices and institutions have occurred for centuries. For example, schooling has been (and is) imposed as a colonial tool in a number of Indigenous communities (Rogoff, 2003). Parenting classes often reflect the values and ways of life of European American families (Vesely et al., 2013).

Involvement in parenting classes does relate to the ways that parents interact with children at home (Cervantes, 2002). However, the striking cultural differences in the value and function of instructional ribbing, explained by the mothers in our study, suggest that individuals and agencies serving such populations in the United States should avoid jumping to conclusions about the appropriateness of instructional ribbing. Although dominant values in the United States align with European American middle-class communities’ perspectives, there are multiple valuable approaches to childrearing that vary in meaning according to the cultural system of which they are a part. Many Indigenous-heritage mothers with whom we have spoken express concern that in the context of life in the United States, they cannot openly use child-rearing approaches that they regard as effective, such as instructional ribbing. Parenting classes could be structured as hybrid spaces for learning where practices and communication structures from home are accepted and valued (Gutiérrez et al., 1999).

For the increasing numbers of families that function in more than one cultural system, we believe that it is important for them to be able to use the strategies of their communities of origin in addition to adopting valued approaches in their new communities. It will be important in future work on cultural change and continuity to consider how parents and children who are embedded in several distinct cultural systems distinguish which practices to use in which contexts (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff, 2003). Future research on globalization will do well to examine how individuals and communities navigate the distinctions and likely conflicts as they take part in several cultural systems. We call for the ways of dominant communities not to be imposed on other communities, forcing replacement of cultural practices. Instead, we should all learn to do things more than one way.