The current study sought to specifically examine the affect of teasing by way of technology (cyber-teasing) and the importance of the redressive component of a tease. A triangulated approach was used here to gain better insight into the concept of “hurtful” cyber-teasing between romantic partners. A pretheoretical model was developed highlighting the possible associations between teasing via technology and relational outcomes. Findings provide researchers with the prevalence of hurtful cyber-teasing and the associated personal and relational outcomes. In addition, the relationship between hurtful cyber-teasing and the reasons why certain messages escalated into face-to-face verbal aggression and physical violence were also revealed. These results are discussed in light of the inability of technology to fully transmit the redressive nonverbal component of a cyber-tease.
AlbertsJ. K. (1992). An inferential/strategic explanation for the social organization of teases. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 11, 153-177.
2.
AndersonC. A.MillerR. S.RigerA. L.DillJ. C.SedikidesC. (1994). Behavioral and characterological attributional styles as predictors of depression and loneliness: Review, refinement, and test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 549-558.
3.
BachmanG. F.GuerreroL. (2006). Relational quality and communicative responses following hurtful events in dating relationships: An expectancy violations analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 943-963.
4.
BaruchY. (2005). Bullying on the net: Adverse behavior on e-mail and its impact. Information and management, 42, 361-371.
5.
DaileyR.Le PoireB. (2003, May). Exploring the relationship between hurtful messages and partner attachment. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, San Diego, CA.
6.
DaintonM.StaffordL.CanaryD. J. (1994). Maintenance strategies and physical affection as predictors of love, liking, and satisfaction in marriage. Communication Reports, 7, 88-98.
7.
David-FerdonC.HertzF. M. (2007). Electronic media, violence, and adolescents: An emerging public health problem. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S1-S5.
8.
DrewP. (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25, 219-253.
9.
EinarsenS.RaknesB. I.MatthiesenS. B. (1994). Bullying and harassment at work and their relationship to work environment quality: An exploratory study. European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 4, 381-401.
10.
FletcherG. J.FinchamF.CramerL.HeronN. (1987). The role of attributions in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 481-489.
11.
FloraJ.SegrinC. (2001). Relationship development in dating couples: Implications for relational satisfaction and loneliness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 811-825.
12.
HendrickS. S. (1988). A generic measure of relational satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93-98.
13.
HopperR.KnappM. L.ScottL. (1981). Couples’ personal idioms: Exploring intimate talk. Journal of Communication, 31, 23-33.
14.
InfanteD. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In McCroskeyJ. C.Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 157-192). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
15.
InfanteD. A.ChandlerT. A.RuddJ. E. (1989). Test of an argumentative skill deficiency model of interspousal violence. Communication Monographs, 56, 163-177.
16.
KeeleyM. P.HartA. J. (1994). Nonverbal behavior in dyadic interactions. In DuckS.W. (Ed.), Dynamics of relationships (pp. 135-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
KeltnerD.CappsL.KringA. M.YoungR. C.HeereyE. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 229-248.
18.
KeltnerD.YoungR. C.HeereyE. A.OemigC.MonarchN. D. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1231-1247.
19.
KowalskiR. M. (2000). “I was only kidding!” Victims’ and perpetrators’ perceptions of teasing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 231-241.
20.
KrippendorfK. (1970). Bivariate agreement coefficients for reliability of data. In BortattaE. F. (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp.139-150). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
21.
KrugerJ.GordonC. L.KubanJ. (2006). Intentions in teasing: When “Just Kidding” just isn’t good enough. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 412-425.
22.
LearyM. R.SpringerC.NegelL.AnsellE.EvansK. (1998). The causes, phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1225-1237.
23.
LiQ. (2005). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyber bullying in schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1777-1791.
24.
LydonJ. (1996). Toward a theory of commitment. In SeligmanC.OlsonJ.ZannaM. (Eds.), Values: The eighth Ontario Symposium (pp. 191-213). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
MadlockP. E.Booth-ButterfieldM. (2008, November). Hurtful teasing between romantic couples: The truth in disguise?Paper accepted for presentation at the National Communication Association Annual Conference, San Diego, CA.
26.
MadlockP. E.WestermanD. (2010, April). The dark side of cyber-teasing in romantic relationships: When words really do hurt. Paper presented at the Eastern Communication Association Annual Conference, Baltimore, MA.
MillsC. B.CarwileA. M. (2009). The good the bad and the borderline: Separating teasing from bullying. Communication Education, 58, 276-301.
29.
MontgomeryB. M. (1988). Quality communication in personal relationships. In DuckS. W.HayD. F.HobfollS. E.IckesW.MontgomeryB. M. (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 343-359). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
30.
PatchinJ. W.HindujaS. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyber-bullying. Youth Violence Juvenile Justice, 4, 148-169.
31.
PeplauL. A.PerlmanD. (1982). Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research, and therapy. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
32.
RusbultC. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-117.
33.
RusbultC. E. (1991). Commentary on Johnson’s “commitment to personal relationships”: What’s interesting and what’s new?Advances in Personal Relationships, 3, 151-169.
34.
RussellD. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20-40.
35.
SampJ. A.SolomonD. H. (2001). Coping with problematic events in dating relationships: The influence of dependence power on severity appraisals and decisions to communicate. Western Journal of Communication, 65, 138-160.
36.
SimJ.WrightC. C. (2005).The kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy, 85, 257-268.
37.
VangelistiA. L.YoungS. L. (2000). When words hurt: The effects of perceived intentionality on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Person Relationships, 17, 393-424.
38.
WaltherJ. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-91.
39.
WarmT. R. (1997). The role of teasing in development and visa versa. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 18, 97-101.
