MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998823603 · doi:10.1111/bjdp.12319

When is gossiping wrong? The influence of valence and relationships on children’s moral evaluations of gossip

2020· article· en· W2998823603 on OpenAlexaff
Oksana Caivano, Karissa Leduc, Victoria Talwar

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Developmental Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGossipPsychologyValence (chemistry)Context (archaeology)Social psychologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gossip is a common social activity that children admit to engaging in. Although children disapprove of negative gossip (Kuttler, Parker, & La Greca, 2002, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48, 105), less is known about how it is perceived morally compared to positive gossip and how this changes developmentally as children enter adolescence. Interestingly, misbehaviours are evaluated differently depending on who commits the act and whom it targets (Slomkowski & Killen, 1992, International Journal of Behavioral Development, 15, 247), but this has not been examined in the context of gossip. This study examined children's moral evaluations of negative and positive valence gossip and how this changed depending on the listener's relationship to the sharer and target. Children (N = 134, ages 8-16) completed vignettes, evaluating the sharer's action from the listener's perspective, a 2 (valence: negative/positive) × 4 (relationship type: friend/unfamiliar classmate of the sharer and target) design. Additionally, the gossip topic was about the target's behaviour with consequences for him/herself or another (target behaviour type: individual/relational vignettes). The main findings revealed that negative gossip in the sharer-classmate, target-friend condition was rated most negatively. Furthermore, in the individual vignettes condition, positive gossip in the sharer-friend, target-friend condition was rated more negatively than the sharer-classmate, target-friend condition. Girls rated negative gossip more negatively than boys, and adolescents rated gossip more positively than children. Overall, this research allows us to better understand when gossip is viewed as acceptable or unacceptable during an important developmental period. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Children gossip about others negatively but disapprove of negative gossip. Children and adolescents evaluate negative and positive behaviour differently. Children evaluate transgressions differently depending on who commits them and whom the target is. What does this study add? Adolescents believe that positive gossip is more socially acceptable compared to children. Gossip shared by a classmate that targets a friend is rated negatively. Girls view negative gossip as less acceptable compared to boys.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Developmental PsychologySame topicEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationFrench-language works237,207