Given that confusion about whether and when teasing is friendly or not can result in adults potentially dismissing incidents of peer teasing, there is a pressing need to bring clarity to this body of work. To capture the nuances that separate playful from harmful teasing, existing studies examining youth’s definitions of teasing and their experiences with teasing were reviewed and analyzed. Included studies employed qualitative research designs that center youths’ own voices, which aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) stance “that the child’s views must be considered and taken into account in all matters affecting him or her.” Qualitative research is also the most appropriate method to understand perspectives about a phenomenon that may be missed in quantitative approaches. Part 1 of this review focused on three research questions: (1) how do youth define teasing? (2) what are the factors associated with teasing perceived to be playful? (3) what are the factors associated with teasing perceived to be harmful?

MethodsSearch Strategy

Prior to the search, the key term search strategy was developed in consultation with a university librarian and the final review protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/8gdqn). Three groups of search terms identified studies assessing youth’s perspectives of teasing: (1) youth, (2) teasing, and (3) qualitative analysis (see Online Supplements for specific key terms). A total of 6037 peer-reviewed and grey literature records were identified across multiple databases searched in November 2021: Web of Science (1761), PsycINFO (1418), ProQuest Dissertations (750), Education Source (718), ERIC via EBSCOhost (574), ERIC via ProQuest (516), and Google Scholar (300). After importing records into a reference management software (Endnote), 1903 duplicates were removed, yielding 4134 records.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) published in English, (2) publication status as peer-reviewed journals, dissertations, or conference papers/presentations/abstracts, (3) empirical study with a qualitative or mixed-methods design, (4) participants must consist of PK- 12 students (retroactive accounts were accepted), (5) study included self-report measures using qualitative methods (e.g., interview, focus groups, open-ended questions), (6) measures, qualitative protocol, and/or research questions must focus on teasing, (7) teasing must be peer-to-peer teasing, and (8) sufficient qualitative information must be provided (e.g., participant quotes, description of responses).

Titles and abstracts were independently screened for inclusion by two coders out of a team of four coders. Interrater reliability was assessed with percent agreement between coders. All disagreements were reconciled throughout the screening process with an additional coder per recommendations (Polanin et al., 2019). After three rounds of training (160 records) and reaching high interrater agreement, the remaining 3974 records were imported into Covidence screening software (210 duplicates were identified and removed). Interrater agreement for this phase was high (M = 90% agreement, range 86.5–93.9%). Of the 3764 records screened, 3589 were excluded, yielding a total of 175 reports that moved to the full-text screening phase.

Full-text records were independently coded and all discrepancies resolved through discussion with a third coder. A total of 143 records did not meet inclusion criteria and were removed, yielding 32 articles included in the review. Reasons for exclusion at the full-text screening phase included: research questions were not about teasing (n = 53, 37.1% of records excluded), study was not about teasing (n = 39, 28%), wrong study design (n = 20, 14%), full-text not available (n = 10, 7%), qualitative analysis not available (n = 7, 4.9%), wrong publication status (n = 5, 3.5%), not about teasing between peers (n = 3, 2.1%), duplicate report of included study (n = 3, 2.1%), wrong reporters (n = 1, 0.7%), and wrong sample age (n = 1, 0.7%). In accordance with guidelines to seek full-texts (Li et al., 2012), authors of the 10 records with unavailable full-texts were contacted. Three authors with available contact information were emailed, of which one provided a response (33% response rate); the responding author was unable to provide the full-text. No contact information was found for the remaining seven authors; hence, those 10 records were excluded.

Per recommendations, two supplemental searches were conducted (Higgins et al., 2011): (1) the reference lists of the 32 included articles were hand-searched (51 reports identified) and (2) a continuous search in June 2023 using the original key search terms (219 reports identified). Two coders independently screened titles and abstracts of those 270 reports. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion with a third coder. This resulted in 256 excluded reports and 14 reports identified for full-text screening. Subsequently, 11 full-text were excluded for failing to meet the inclusion criteria with the remaining 3 full-texts included in the review. In sum, a total of 35 studies (32 from initial search, 3 from the supplemental searches) were included in the review and meta-synthesis (see Fig. 1 for a flowchart of study selection and Table 1 for details from all included studies).

Fig. 1

Flow diagram of the systematic review selection process

Table 1 Table of included studiesData Extraction

The following information was independently extracted by two reviewers from all studies: publication information (e.g., publication type), sample characteristics (e.g., sample size, location, demographics), data collection method, prompt language, and analytic method. A third reviewer then descriptively compared the information and resolved any discrepancies.

Quality Appraisal

The assessment framework for qualitative studies developed by the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme was used to assess the quality and risk for bias of included reports (CASP, 2018). Two reviewers independently coded for quality in 10 categories (e.g., was there a clear statement of the aims of the research; was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research). Interrater agreement was high (average 87.4%); a third reviewer compared coders’ responses and resolved any discrepancies. Quality scores (out of 10 total categories) for individual studies ranged from 6 to 10 (M = 8.6). The most common criteria missing from papers was: “was the relationship between the researcher and participants adequately considered” (present in 11 of 35 studies; 31%) and “were ethical issues taken into consideration” (present in 22 of 35 studies; 63%). No studies were excluded as a result of the quality appraisal. See Table 2 for item-level and total scores for each included study.

Table 2 Quality assessment scoresData Synthesis

Thematic synthesis of all text included in each report was conducted (e.g., descriptions of results, relevant quotes; Thomas & Harden, 2008). Based on the a priori conceptual framework of key features of teasing experiences, the text of each report was coded according to the following categories: (a) participants’ definition of teasing, (b) content of the tease (e.g., appearance), (c) perpetrator(s) characteristics, (d) target characteristics, (e) relationship between the actors, (f) motivation for the tease, (g) intentionality, (h) audience, (i) context (e.g., environment, developmental period), (j) target’s experience of harm, (k) target’s actions after the tease, (l) perpetrator’s response, and (m) outcome of the tease. During the coding process, an additional category was added reflecting youth’s differentiation between teasing and bullying specifically. The first author (MD) read all articles and did an initial code for meaning units and themes. The second author (NA) reviewed the meaning units and themes and made any necessary edits. Then, higher-order themes were generated based on patterns in meaning units and themes through discussion.

Results

Data synthesis consisted of summarizing themes of harmful and playful teasing experience within category. Information is presented in descending order of frequency, meaning themes are presented from most to least common within each teasing type. However, this information about the frequency of certain codes is impacted by the nature of some studies and must be interpreted with caution. For instance, the most commonly reported harmful teasing content was appearance, but it is important to acknowledge that this emerged from studies that used open-ended methods (i.e., youth sharing what they were teased about) and studies that specifically focused on appearance (i.e., weight-based) teasing. Thus, the number of appearance-related teasing experiences is likely inflated due to that specific line of inquiry in the literature. Accordingly, while information about the frequency of different themes is valuable, it is also valuable to reflect on which themes were absent versus present within each teasing type. Specific examples of each feature are highlighted in our presentation of the results below. A complete list of all studies per feature is available in the Online Resources (see Supplemental Tables S1–S12).

How Do Youth Define Teasing?

Youth’s definitions of teasing ranged from harmful to playful. For instance, some youth discussed teasing as bad, wrong, and even vulgar (Zhao & Selman, 2019) and considered it an experience where you “get made fun of” (Lopez, 2019, p. 383) or are “hurting someone’s feelings” (Heerey et al., 2005). Other youth considered teasing to be playful, describing it as “joking around” (Taylor, 2006, p. 173), trash talking, or messing around (Mills, 2001; Steer et al., 2020). As one youth described it, teasing “was just a game, it really was nothing serious” (Lahelma, 2002, p. 298).

Some studies reported mixed teasing definitions, with youth seeing it as harmful or playful depending on the circumstances (Yoo & Johnson, 2008) For example, Shapiro et al. (1987) shared: “very few subjects stated that teasing is always good, but a number of them said it could sometimes be good.” (p. 1102). When they asked youth “what does ‘teasing’ mean to you?” Khosropour and Walsh (2001) found that some youth described teasing as hurtful (“calling someone names,” “make fun of people” “taunting somebody”) whereas other described it as playful (“calling somebody else names that they’re kind of ok with, that they don’t get mad about,” “something fun for both people”; p. 37).

Some studies probed participants about the difference between teasing and bullying. One difference in conceptualization was whether the interaction was primarily verbal or held the threat of physical violence. As participants in Horowitz et al. (2004) study shared: “Teasing is people calling you names and bothering about stuff like that. But bully [sic] is when kids come up to you and threatening you and saying they’re going to beat you up and make you like not feel comfortable of where you are or stuff like that” (p. 168). Another theme was how repeated teasing can make the interaction cross the line from banter to bullying. Participants in Booth et al. (2023) study reflected that “banter could easily turn into bullying because they’re similar things” and “if you’re not careful the jokes can turn into bullying” (p. 9).

Teasing ContentHarmful Teasing

The most commonly reported harmful teasing content was appearance-related teasing. Targets were teased about their attractiveness (e.g., being ugly), their style in terms of clothing or accessories (e.g., glasses), and their physical features such as their facial characteristics (e.g., large nose, gaps in teeth), hair, height, skin, being too short, and even for having a medical scar. One youth was teased specifically because their physical features violated gender norms, such as a boy having “man breasts” (Stafford et al., 2015, p. 133). Harmful teasing was also weight-based, such as teasing about being too fat or too thin, being called names like tubbo, fatty, pig, wide load, or humongous. Lastly, target’s hygiene was another form of harmful teasing about one’s appearance.

Harmful teasing was also about one’s ability, either their (1) academic ability (e.g., intelligence) or (2) their lack of physical or athletic ability. For instance, youth were teased about making a mistake in school, being stupid/dumb, their grades, having a learning disability (e.g., dyslexia), and even for being too smart. Targets were also teased about their—typically lack of—physical skills, particularly athletic skills in PE or sport settings. For instance, youth were teased about being slow, being bad at games, for making a mistake, or for being clumsy.

Youth were also teased about their behavior, such as being weird or silly, being mean, lacking social skills, being a dork, or being scared or shy. Some youth were teased specifically because their behavior violated gender norms, such as a boy involved in dance or girls playing sports. One boy was made fun of for crying: “These people started making fun of me too. ‘Oh, I thought you were a man. You’re nothing but a girl because you were crying’” (Horowitz et al., 2004, p. 169).

Other harmful teasing content included youth’s relationships and their identity. Specifically, targets of harmful teasing were teased about their family, friends, and romantic interests/partners. One youth was teased about their friends: “A lot of people make fun of you because of the people you hang out with. If you hang out with certain people, if your friends aren’t that popular, then they’ll tease you about it and say oh you’re not cool because you hang out with these people” (Horowitz et al., 2004, p. 170). The majority of identity-based teasing centered around ethnic and racial identity. Such teasing involved racial slurs or stereotypes, or comments about one’s skin color. Targets were also reportedly teased about their gender identity.

The last two major themes in harmful teasing content involved sexuality or personal characteristics. Teasing with sexual content was about youth’s sexual activity (e.g., “whore,” being promiscuous) or their sexual orientation (e.g., homosexuality). Targets’ personal characteristics, such as their name or their interests, were also the focus of teasing.

Playful Teasing

Teasing that was playful in nature was most commonly about youth’s identity, followed by sexuality and appearance. Teasing about identity was specific to ethnic/racial identity and the tease often consisted of racial slurs or stereotypes (“Stop being a lazy Mexican”; Douglass, 2013, p. 203); yet, was interpreted as playful. Youth also reported sexual content in playful teasing, such as how calling someone a “whore” or “homo” can be considered a joke. Appearance-related teasing was about youth’s attractiveness (ugly) or was weight-based (e.g., being overweight/fat/obese). Targets were also playfully teased about their academic ability (i.e., stupid), their relationships (i.e., romantic partner), or target’s religion.

Victim and Perpetrator Characteristics and RelationshipHarmful Teasing

Targets of harmful teasing were frequently described based on personality characteristics that can be interpreted quite negatively (e.g., irritating, weird, wimpy, odd). Only in a few instances were positive personality characteristics (e.g., confident, smart) attributed to targets of harmful teasing. There was also frequent mention of targets’ size and appearance. Again, these could be interpreted as predominantly negative (overweight, small, weak), with only one instance of a target being noted as “good looking” (Shapiro et al., 1991). In terms of social position, targets were described negatively (e.g., loner, loser, rejected, unpopular), with only rare mentions of high social positions (e.g., popular, athlete). Other targets of harmful teasing were described in terms of their disability status, emotions (e.g., sad), or their membership in minority social groups such as religious groups or race/ethnic groups. Overall, targets of harmful teasing were described quite negatively based on personality, appearance, and social position, though not exclusively so, with a small number of target having positive characteristics.

Perpetrators of harmful teasing were described in terms that imply power, including being older, bigger, stronger, and occupying higher social positions (e.g., athletes, socially dominant). Harmful perpetrators engaged in aggression or bullying or were described as having other negative characteristics such as being mean or being one who enjoyed teasing others.

In examining dyadic characteristics of perpetrators and targets, the most frequently noted harmful teasing was between boy-girl dyads, followed by same-gender dyads (boy-boy, girl-girl), with very little mention of girl-boy dyads. Reports of harmful teasing also involved dyadic differences in social power, with perpetrators having higher power (e.g., size/strength), multiple people targeting one individual, a lighter skinned individual targeting a darker skinned individual, or a White individual targeting a Black individual. In terms of the relationship between perpetrators and victims, reports indicate that harmful teasing occurred within the context of negative relationships (non-friends, antipathies), neutral relationships (classmates, unknown individuals), and positive relationships (friends, best friends).

Playful Teasing

Victims of playful teasing were described in both positive and negative ways. Some victims were characterized as quick-witted, popular, or in a dating relationship, whereas others were described negatively in terms of their appearance (i.e., overweight). Interestingly, members of both minority and majority groups (such as racial/ethnic status) were targets of playful teasing. As for perpetrators of playful teasing, they were characterized as liking to joke or as quick-witted. Only one perpetrator of playful teasing was indicated to have some social power in the form of peers who would come to their defense (Lahelma, 2002).

In terms of dyadic characteristics, there was a fairly equal representation across dyadic gender composition (boy-girl, girl-boy). Playful teasing included a single individual teasing multiple targets, both people involved having equal social power, and perpetrator and target having different religious traditions (there was no mention of what the specific religious traditions were). As one youth described: “if it is my friends, then I took it as a joke” (Yoo & Johnson, 2008, p. 21). As for the relationship between perpetrators and victims, playful teasing was reported exclusively within the context of positive relationships such as between best friends, friends, or a romantic interest. Some youth felt friendship was a necessary condition for playful teasing: “you have to be like, quite good friends with them to banter around with someone otherwise somebody you don’t know will take it the wrong way and then you’ll get in trouble for joking around” (Steer et al., 2020; p. 4).

Motivations or Reasons for TeasingHarmful Teasing

Participants reported several motives for harmful teasing. The most common reasons perpetrators were seen to tease included retaliation (e.g., getting back at the target) and recreation (e.g., having fun, wanting to evoke a victim reaction). Other common motives included the perpetrator wanting social power (e.g., to look cool), because of the target’s attribute (e.g., target’s behavior, identity, appearance), or for sadistic motives (“she likes hurting me”; Harwood et al., 2010, p. 252). Another theme was to compensate for something (e.g., trying to hide insecurities or deficits): “they just want to tease you ‘cause they are not good at the thing that you are good at and they want to make them be better than you and make you feel bad…then they just tease you and say they are better” (Harwood & Copfer, 2015, p. 33). The antipathic nature of the relationship between perpetrators and targets was also reported as a reason for harmful teasing (“it’s just because she doesn’t like me”; Mills, 2001, p. 103). Harmful teasing was also driven by peer group motives, such as maintaining group boundaries (“they just want us to go away so they can play by themselves”; Mills, 2001; p. 132). A few harmful teasing episodes were the product of perpetrators being reactionary, meaning they were mad at something else or in a bad mood and lashed out. Less commonly reported motives included to instigate a fight, because the perpetrator was jealous, to exert peer pressure, or because of a threat to their identity (e.g., boys being good at sports).

Playful Teasing

There were fewer overall motives for playful teasing. The most commonly cited reason was recreation, followed by teasing because of the target’s attribute/behavior (“cause she is so loud”; Douglass, 2013, p. 205), or to communicate a message to the target.

IntentionalityHarmful Teasing

Harmful teasing was frequently described as being driven by harmful intent (“to hurt them, to make them feel hurt”; Crozier & Dimmock, 1999, p. 511). Harmful teasing did not, however, exclusively involve harmful intent. In some instances, intent was unclear. It was also noted that some harmful teasing had playful intent, but despite the playful intent, the target still felt harmed. The playful or unclear intent was also described as harmful due to the extended nature of the teasing (e.g., teasing may have had playful intent, but grew harmful as it continued). As one participant described: “I don’t know whether he meant it as a joke, or whether he was serious. Well, I think he was joking, but sometimes it really disturbed me, because it was practically every day.” (Lahelma, 2002, p. 299).

Playful Teasing

Most playful teasing was perceived as playful in intent (“It’s just all in fun”; Douglass, 2013, p. 203). Yet, some playful teasing (even with playful intent) was interpreted as harmful or felt harmful due to its extended nature (“meant it as a joke, but I guess I carried it too far”; Mills, 2001, p. 113).

Audience and ContextHarmful Teasing

When harmful teasing had an audience, it was most often classmates, followed by friends of the perpetrator and then unknown peers. Harmful teasing also reportedly occurred in front of peers online. In terms of the broader context, harmful teasing frequently occurred at school such as the classroom environment where academic success was on display, in the PE environment where students were physically on display or on the playground. Harmful teasing also occurred with the backdrop of cultural issues such as beauty standards in that society, gender norms for appearance and participation in sports, or ethnic and racial dynamics (e.g., discrimination based on skin tone, degree of racial integration at the school).

Playful Teasing

Audiences present for playful teasing experiences were often classmates, followed by mutual friends of the perpetrator and target, then other peers. Playful teasing occurred in person at school. Some teasing (specifically about ethnic identity) occurred within an ethnically diverse school. Other cultural considerations included the degree to which banter is part of gender norms when playing a sport, such as football.

Targets’ Experiences of HarmHarmful Teasing

Youth reported targets of harmful teasing having an array of emotional responses. The most common response was feeling angry/upset or sad/depressed. Youth also commonly reported targets feeling hurt, embarrassed, bad, and crying. Less frequently reported emotional responses included shame, annoyance, and feeling like crying. Infrequently, youth reported that targets did not care or were unbothered by the tease. Other emotional reactions included: felt okay, numb, guilty, resentful, stressed, stupid, uncomfortable, horrible, frustrated, unappreciated, defensive, disturbed, degraded, uncomfortable, self-directed anger, confused, and worthless.

Playful Teasing

Targets of playful teasing reportedly expressed the following: feeling unbothered or not caring, feeling angry, hurt, bad, and sad. Other reports shared that some targets felt okay, had mixed feelings, or even positive emotions.

Targets’ ResponsesHarmful Teasing

The most common response from targets after being harmfully teased was to retaliate: “tell them to shut up. If they keep going on, do it back to them and if they still go on, I’ll hit them” (Mooney et al., 1991, p. 108). The second most common response was to ignore the situation or walk away. Youth also shared how they would seek support or help from others (e.g., family, friends). As one youth put it, following weight-based teasing, “well I had one best friend that was the same as I was and so I just talk to her because I knew she wouldn’t talk about me behind my back, and we got each other’s confidence up” (Li et al., 2012, p. 189). Other common responses included being assertive such as by telling the perpetrator to stop, or using humor or laughing to deflect the situation. Some youth reported engaging in adaptive coping strategies, such as engaging in positive self-talk, cognitive reframing (e.g., attributing the teasing to perpetrator’s issue), or engaging in positive activities (e.g., listening to music; Li et al., 2012). Targets also reported the experience to adults or disguised how hurt they felt and hid their emotional reactions: “I just, you know, like had a mask on, not letting it show. But I wanted to cry so bad” (Taylor, 2006, p. 160). Less frequent responses included targets defending themselves, being submissive, brushing it off, or dissociation (i.e., daydreaming about something that makes them happy; Singer, 2005). One youth who was submissive following the teasing experience shared: “I just let him have his way. If he’s got a problem with it, I just stay away from them all” (Branvold, 1995, p. 77).

Playful Teasing

Comparatively fewer playful teasing episodes included information about how targets responded after teasing. Targets of playful teasing reportedly used humor or laughter to deflect the situation. Other targets used an assertive response, disguised their hurt, or retaliated by teasing back.

Perpetrators’ ResponsesHarmful Teasing

Perpetrators most often engaged in some type of relationship repair behavior following a harmful teasing episode, including apologizing or later expressing support to the target. One perpetrator reportedly felt regret or remorse, but only after some time had passed and after the targets had died. Specifically, one participant who used to tease his good friend shared that even though the teasing “never seemed to bother him…It did, however, have a strong effect on me because [he] got killed one day in a car wreck, and I have regretted all of the times I teased him. I hope that he knew I never meant him any harm. From that point on, I never teased anyone again” (Georgesen et al., 1999, p. 1254). There were a few instances of perpetrators evaluating their behavior: reportedly recognizing that the tease was taken too far, or that there may be negative social consequences (e.g., losing friends; Mills, 2001), should the teasing continue. Other reported perpetrator responses included an escalation of behavior (into physical conflict) or a response suggesting a lack of remorse (laughter).

Playful Teasing

After playful teasing, some perpetrators reportedly engaged in relationship repair behavior. Other responses included laughing, backing off, or communicating the playful intent of the tease (“I was just kidding”; Mills, 2001, p. 90).

OutcomesHarmful Teasing

After a harmful teasing episode, most youth reported that targets engaged in maladaptive coping strategies such as social withdrawal, self-harm, or binge or restrictive eating. To a similar degree, youth engaged in intrapersonal harm, including feeling bad about themselves, having lowered self-esteem, feeling self-conscious, and self-doubt. As one participant reflected: “We don’t feel that strong. We feel like we’re more weaker [physically]. We feel weak if they tell us that, even though we’re strong in the inside” (Lopez, 2019, p. 385). Other youth would change their behavior, such as eating habits. One adolescent shared how the teasing made them try to lose weight: “I really want to lose a whole bunch of weight because I’m tired of every day, people have something negative to say about me, about my weight” (Li et al., 2012, p. 192). Some youth reported that targets engaged in adaptive coping strategies following harmful teasing experiences, such as youth who continued to play the sport they enjoyed, even after being teased for their participation. Others experienced interpersonal harm, meaning harm that was specific to their relationships, such as making the target feel like they were not wanted. Other reported outcomes included relationship damage or escalation of the issue. Only one incident of relationship repair (i.e., forgiving perpetrator) following harmful teasing was identified in participants’ responses.

Playful Teasing

Following playful teasing, outcomes included interpersonal harm, such as questioning whether they were accepted by peers or worry about their peer reputation. Other targets of playful teasing reportedly tried to change their behavior in some way after being playfully teased (e.g., trying to lose weight). One youth reported: “Even though I know they (referring to his friends) didn’t mean anything by it, just the fact that they were calling me fat. And I know they didn’t mean anything by it at all, but that also kind of, you know, just brung (sic) me to try to lose some weight” (Taylor, 2006, p. 174). Another youth shared that the playful teasing made her hate everything about herself, a form of intrapersonal harm (i.e., self-loathing). Other outcomes ranged from relationship damage (broken trust) to relationship benefits such as strengthening the friendship.

Discussion

Part 1 of this review marks the first attempt to consolidate youth’s perspectives on the ubiquitous—yet complex—experience of peer teasing. This work was driven by the following research questions: first, how do youth define teasing? And second, what are the features associated with playful and harmful teasing? Teasing was defined by youth along a continuum from playful to mixed to harmful. On the playful end of the spectrum, teasing was seen as joking around or messing around with peers, with an emphasis on fun (e.g., Khosropour & Walsh, 2001; Mills, 2001; Steer et al., 2020). On the harmful end of the spectrum, teasing was seen as a negative interaction with an emphasis on maltreatment (e.g., Lopez, 2019; Zhao & Selman, 2019).

Playful and harmful teasing experiences were coded using an a priori conceptual framework of teasing features. The analysis revealed that some features clearly distinguish between harmful and playful teasing types, whereas other features were common across both experiences. As for the distinguishing features, some content was only evident in harmful teasing (e.g., target’s behavior) but not playful teasing. Second, the teasing motive to communicate a social message to the target was mentioned for playful—not harmful—teasing. Other motives were specific to harmful teasing experiences, such as wanting to instigate a fight, wanting social power, an antipathic relationship between the perpetrator and target, sadistic motives, and the perpetrator’s attempt to compensate for something. Third, the characteristics of perpetrators and the relationship between perpetrators and targets differed between the two types. Harmful teasing was more likely to be carried out by multiple perpetrators, by boys, or by those with more power (social or physical) compared to playful teasing. Further, no playful teasing experiences were reported to occur between youth with neutral or negative relationships. Fourth, context differences were evident, with mutual friends being present during playful teasing, in contrast to harmful teasing where targets’ friends were largely absent. Fifth, playful and harmful teasing experiences differed in their impact and outcomes. The only report of a target feeling positive emotions followed a playful—not harmful—teasing experience. Perhaps unsurprisingly, relationship benefits were only reported as an outcome in playful teasing with more reports of relationship damage after harmful teasing. Altogether, our analysis provided insight into features of teasing unique to playful or harmful teasing experiences.

Paradoxically, playful and harmful teasing shared many similar features. First, the same content—such as teasing about one’s appearance or their relationships—was present in both playful and harmful teasing episodes. Second, similar motives, such as recreation, were noted by youth in both types of teasing. Third, playful intent was seen in both harmful and playful teasing experiences. Fourth, the following target characteristics were found in both types of teasing: targets could be girls or boys, youth with exceptionalities (i.e., disabilities), or members of minority religious or racial/ethnic groups. Fifth, regarding the context of teasing, analysis of youth’s reports revealed that classmates were a common audience. Sixth, similar features were found in both teasing types in terms of what happens after the teasing occurred (i.e., experience of harm, target actions, perpetrator actions, outcomes). Some targets in both harmful and playful teasing felt negative emotions (e.g., anger, sadness), disguised their hurt or retaliated, and reported both interpersonal (e.g., questioning acceptance among peers) and intrapersonal (e.g., self-loathing) harm. Lastly, some perpetrators in both types of teasing recognized the harm caused to the target and engaged in repair behaviors (e.g., apologized to target). These areas of overlap underscore the need to further examine nuances in combinations of features to fully disentangle playful from harmful teasing.