The impact of gossip valence on children's attitudes towards gossipers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This research explored children's attitudes towards gossipers in relation to gossip valence. Four‐ to 8‐year‐old children ( N = 214) read three storybooks containing positive, neutral, or negative gossip statements. Following each book, children were interviewed on whom they viewed as nicer and more honest (ascription of desirable traits), whom they preferred to interact with (social preference), and whom they thought had more friends (perceived popularity), by choosing between a gossiper and a non‐gossiping character. The results indicated that overall, children held more favourable attitudes towards gossipers who made positive than negative or neutral statements about a target. This effect of gossip valence was more pronounced for 6‐ to 8‐year‐olds than for the younger children on the ascription of desirable traits. The findings will add to our understanding of how gossip serves as a source of social influence on children, and may have real‐world implications with regard to children's peer interactions in school context. Highlights This research explored children's attitudes toward gossipers in relation to gossip valence. Four‐ to 8‐year‐olds held more favorable attitudes toward gossipers who made positive than negative or neutral statements about a target. The findings may have real‐world implications with regard to children's social perception and peer interactions in school context.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".