What are the Features of Playful and Harmful Teasing and When Does it Cross the Line? A Systematic Review and Meta-synthesis of Qualitative Research on Peer Teasing
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Peer teasing is a complex, versatile, and universal form of social interaction, common within youth’s peer relationships. Despite its prevalence, a comprehensive understanding of how youth themselves define this interaction, and the myriad features of playful and harmful teasing experience is lacking in the field. The current review aimed to coalesce the evidence detailing youth’s definitions and experiences of teasing from qualitative studies in a two-part systematic review and meta-synthesis. Part 1 of this review applied a conceptual framework of features of teasing (e.g., content, perpetrator, relationship between target and perpetrator) to understand (1) how youth define teasing and (2) the features present in playful versus harmful teasing experiences. In Part 2, additional analysis examined (3) how combinations of teasing features yield playful versus harmful interpretations by youth, (4) how youth conceptualize teasing across development, and (5) which features of teasing are most salient for youth when determining whether teasing “crosses the line” from playful to harmful. A total of 4134 records were screened, of which 35 were included in the review. Using thematic analysis, results in Part 1 indicated that youth defined teasing along a continuum from playful to harmful. There was substantial overlap in the features of harmful and playful teasing (e.g., teasing meant to be playful could still cause harm). Playful teasing was more likely among friends, whereas harmful teasing often focused on appearance and personal characteristics. Further, the experience of positive emotions and relationship benefits were only found in youth’s descriptions of playful teasing experiences whereas harmful teasing experiences incurred relationship damage. In Part 2, analysis revealed that certain combinations of features are important for the differentiation between playful and harmful teasing (e.g., interaction between teasing content, relationship, and context). In terms of developmental patterns, younger children tended to view teasing as primarily harmful whereas adolescents recognized the capacity for play in teasing interactions, especially among friends. Lastly, when determining whether teasing crossed the line from playful to harmful, youth considered key features including the tone and content of the tease, perpetrator identity, whether the teasing was repeated, and whether the tease was intended to—or did—cause harm. Implications for the growing understanding of the complexity and nuance in playful versus harmful teasing are discussed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,042 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle