“I Laughed Along for Years But Hated It Inside:” Understanding Nuance in Peer Teasing Experiences Using a Thematic Analysis
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".