Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Such a Tease: Intentional Sexual Provocation within Heterosexual Interactions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sexual teasing is a form of provocation characterized by the promise of sexual contact followed by withdrawal. The intention is to frustrate or cause tension in the target and incorporates some use of power of one person over another. To date, this form of interaction between individuals has received little research attention. A total of 742 undergraduate university students (143 men, 599 women) provided reports regarding whether they had ever engaged in sexual teasing and, for those who had, the motives behind this behavior, the type of relationship and sexual history with the target, and the reactions and outcomes associated with these interactions. Sexual teasing was relatively common among both women and men, although women were significantly more likely to report having engaged in sexual teasing at least once in the past. The outcomes associated with their interactions were perceived to be more positive for participants (elicitors) than for their targets, although relatively few participants reported more adverse outcomes from the use of sexual teasing. Discussion focused on the need to better characterize forms of communication regarding sexual intentions and consent. The findings may have implications for efforts to improve models of communication and negotiation in sexual interactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Academy for Education Development. (2005). Diffusion of effective behavior interventions (DEBI): Science-based interventions that work. Accessed on March 7, 2005 at http://effectiveinter- ventions.org/index.cfm.

  • Alberts, J. K. (1992). An inferential/strategic explanation for the social organization of teases. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 11, 153–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basile, K. C. (2002). Prevalence of wife rape and other intimate partner sexual coercion in a nationally representative sample of women. Violence and Victims, 17, 511–524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beres, M. A., Herold, E., & Maitland, S. B. (2004). Sexual consent behaviors in same-sex relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 475–486.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Biesanz, J. C., & West, S. G. (2004). Towards understanding assessments of the Big Five: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of convergent and discriminant validity across measurement occasion and type of observer. Journal of Personality, 72, 845–876.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bono, J. E., Boles, T. L., Judge, T. A., & Lauver, K. J. (2002). The role of personality in task and relationship conflict. Journal of Personality, 70, 311–344.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brimlow, D. L., & Ross, M. W. (1998). HIV-related communication and power in women injecting drug users. In N. L. Roth & L. K. Fuller (Eds.), Women and AIDS: Negotiating safer sex practices, care, and representation (pp. 71–80). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 217–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1991). Conflict in married couples: Personality predictors of anger and upset. Journal of Personality, 59, 663–688.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Byers, E. S. (1995). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8, 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, M. (1995). Talking difference: On gender and language. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delaney, S. M., & McCabe, M. P. (1988). Secondary inorgasmia in women: A treatment program and case study. Sexual & Marital Therapy, 3, 165–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491–569.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eder, D. (1993). “Go get ya a French!” Romantic and sexual teasing among adolescent girls. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 17–31). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, A. R. (1986). Teasing: Verbal play in two Mexican homes. In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures: Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language (pp. 182–198). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, J. H. (1990). The explicit and implicit use of the scripting perspective in sex research. Annual Review of Sex Research, 1, 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, L. T. (1998). Perceptions of resistance to unwanted sexual advances. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 10, 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geist, R. L., & Gilbert, D. G. (1996). Correlates of expressed and felt emotion during marital conflict: Satisfaction, personality, process, and outcome. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 49–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gidycz, C. A., Lynn, S. J., Rich, C. L., Marioni, N. L., Loh, C., Blackwell, L. M., et al. (2001). The evaluation of a sexual assault risk reduction program: A multisite investigation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 1073–1078.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grauerholz, E., & Serpe, R. T. (1985). Initiation and response: The dynamics of sexual interaction. Sex Roles, 12, 1041–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–824). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 820–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, J. (1988). Gender differences in sexual attitudes: Conservatism or powerlessness? Gender & Society, 2, 103–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2002). Why some women consent to unwanted sex with a dating partner: Insights from attachment theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 360–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Gleason, K. A., Adams, R., & Malcolm, K. T. (2003). Interpersonal conflict, agreeableness, and personality development. Journal of Personality, 71, 1059–1085.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • John, O. P., & Donahue, E. (1989). The Big Five Inventory. Technical report, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 229–248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oernig, C., & Monarch, N. D. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1231–1247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koukounas, E., & Letch, N. M. (2001). Psychological correlates of perception of sexual intent in women. Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 443–456.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski, R. M. (2000). “I was only kidding!”: Victims’ and perpetrators’ perceptions of teasing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 231–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krahé, B., Scheinberger-Olwig, R., & Kolpin, S. (2000). Ambiguous communication of sexual intentions as a risk marker of sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 42, 313–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee-Baggley, D., Preece, M., & DeLongis, A. (2005). Coping with interpersonal stress: Role of Big Five traits. Journal of Personality, 73, 1141–1180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Livingston, J. A., Buddie, A. M., Testa, M., & VanZile-Tamsen, C. (2004). The role of sexual precedence in verbal sexual coercion. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 287–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, B. D., Mahalik, J. R. (2005). Examining masculinity norms, problem drinking, and athletic involvement as predictors of sexual aggression in college men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 279–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loh, C., Gidycz, C. A., Lobo, T. R., & Luthra, R. (2005). A prospective analysis of sexual assault perpetration: Risk factors related to perpetrator characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1325–1348.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 704–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J. M., & Stasson, M. F. (2005). Interpersonal and personality dimensions of behavior: FIRO-B and the Big Five. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 205–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melendez, R. M., Hoffman, S., Exner, T., Leu, C., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (2003). Intimate partner violence and safer sex negotiation: Effects of a gender-specific intervention. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 499–511.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Metts, S., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1996). Sexual communication in interpersonal contexts: A script-based approach. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 49–91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S., & Sherrard, P. A. D. (1999). Couple communication: A system for equipping partners to talk, listen, and resolve conflicts effectively. In R. Berger & M. T. Hannah (Eds.), Preventive approaches in couples therapy (pp. 125–148). Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muehlenhard, C. L., & Hollabaugh, L. C. (1988). Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women’s token resistance to sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 872–879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Muehlenhard, C. L., & MacNaughtonm, J. S. (1988). Women’s beliefs about women who “lead men on.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, 65–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muehlenhard, C. L., & Rodgers, C. S. (1998). Token resistance to sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 443–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, T. B., & DeLongis, A. (1996). The interactional context of problem-, emotion-, and relationship-focused coping: The role of the Big Five personality factors. Journal of Personality, 64, 775–813.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Osman, S. L. (2003). Predicting men’s rape perceptions based on the belief that “no” really means “yes.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 683–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osman, S. L., & Davis, C. M. (1999). Belief in token resistance and type of resistance as predictors of men’s perceptions of date rape. Journal of Sex Education & Therapy, 24, 189–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, L. F. (2005). Sexual coercion in dating relationships: Conceptual and methodological issues. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20, 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. R. (1994). Disassembling a stereotype: Gender differences in the use of token resistance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1035–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. R. (1998). Feigning sexual desire: Consenting to unwanted sexual activity in heterosexual dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 234–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, L. F., & Gaines, M. E. (1998). Decision-making in college students’ heterosexual dating relationships: Ambivalence about engaging in sexual activity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 347–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Z., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (2004). Was it rape? The function of women’s rape myth acceptance and definitions of sex in labeling their own experiences. Sex Roles, 51, 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renninger, L. A., Wade, T. J., & Grammer, K. (2004). Getting that female glance: Patterns and consequences of male nonverbal behavior in courtship contexts. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 416–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, D. A. (1997). Understanding sexual coercion among young adolescents: Communicative clarity, pressure, and acceptance. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 481–493.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sabini, J., & Silver, M. (1982). Moralities of everyday life. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social psychology and self-presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 921, 641–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shotland, R. L., & Goodstein, L. (1992). Sexual precedence reduces the perceived legitimacy of sexual arousal: An examination of attributions concerning date rape and consensual sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 756–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1987). A sexual scripts approach. In J. H. Geer & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), Theories of human sexuality (pp. 363–383). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, S. J. (1997). When “no” becomes “yes”: Why girls and women consent to unwanted sex. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 6, 157–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping in the context of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 64, 737–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure: The return of the Big Five. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 737–765). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worrell, F. C., & Cross, W. E.,(2004). The reliability and validity of the Big Five Inventory scores with African American college students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 18–32.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, One University Station A8000, Austin, Texas, 78712, USA

    Cindy M. Meston

  2. Department of Psychology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada

    Lucia F. O’Sullivan

Authors
  1. Cindy M. Meston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lucia F. O’Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cindy M. Meston.

Appendix A: Sexual Teasing Questionnaire

Appendix A: Sexual Teasing Questionnaire

Instructions: Sometimes people act or pretend like they are going to have sex with a member of the opposite sex when, in fact, they have no intention of doing so. An example of this situation would be if you were with someone who wanted to have sex with you, and you talked about how much fun sex would be with them leading them to think it would happen, or you told them you would meet him or her upstairs in a bedroom but did not go.

Please indicate below how many times (in your lifetime) you have engaged in this behavior. Keep in mind that we are only interested in situations in which 1) it was very clear to you that the person wanted to have sex (i.e., sexual intercourse) with you, 2) you intentionally communicated in some way (e.g., flirting, body gestures, words) that you were willing to “go along” and have sex with them, and 3) you knew all along that you would not have sex with them.

Table 4  
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meston, C.M., O’Sullivan, L.F. Such a Tease: Intentional Sexual Provocation within Heterosexual Interactions. Arch Sex Behav 36, 531–542 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9167-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9167-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation