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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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