The Role of Face Threats in Understanding Target’s Interpretation of a Tease

Teasing is a common phenomenon used across the lifespan, but what teasing is and what makes it prosocial or antisocial is strongly contested. This study argues that viewing teasing as a communication strategy helps researchers focus on the content of the teasing message. Goffman’s Facework Theory was used to explore negative and positive face threats, redressive signals, and relational closeness to help explain why the tease is seen as prosocial or antisocial. In an experimental study, participants were asked to take turns engaging in a teasing game about elements of the other’s identity. The study found that negative face threat significantly predicted relational distancing and emotional pain post-teasing, even after controlling for prior relational closeness. Positive face threat, redressive signals, and relational closeness did not influence relational outcomes. The results suggest that teasing is associated with negative relational outcomes because it might impose on the target\u27s autonomy and ability to engage in privacy management. Positive face threat\u27s lack of impact may arise from the mild nature of teases and the framing of the task as a game. Relational closeness did not mitigate face threats or emotional pain, possibly due to high relational stability and minimized stress during the task. Redressive signals were not correlated with tease hurtfulness or relationship changes, suggesting complexities in interpretation, particularly in videoconference contexts. Overall, this study’s findings underscore the importance of negative face threat in predicting relational outcomes post-teasing and call for further exploration of teasing in varied contexts and provocation intensities