How similar is similar enough? Job profile similarity benchmarks using occupational information network data

Job comparison research is critical to many human resources initiatives, such as transporting validity evidence. Job analysis methods often focus on critical attribute (e.g., tasks, work behaviors) overlap when assessing similarity, but profile similarity metrics represent an alternative or complementary approach for job comparisons. This paper utilizes Occupational Information Network (O*NET) data to establish a distribution of job profile correlations across all job pairs for five attributes – generalized work activities, knowledge, skills, abilities, and work styles. These correlations represent effect sizes, or degree of shared variance between jobs. Practitioners may reference these correlational distributions as benchmarks for gauging the practical significance of the observed degree of similarity between two jobs of interest compared to the broader world of work.     

Children’s developing views of social excluders: A dissociation between social evaluation and partner preference

When facing social exclusion, children seek to strengthen existing social connections and form new ones. This study asked whether they also make strategic choices about the targets of their affiliative goals. Three- to six-year-olds (N = 69; 36 female; mostly non-Hispanic White) observed characters acting inclusively or exclusively. All ages viewed excluders more negatively than includers, but only five- and six-year-olds preferred includers as play partners. Despite easily detecting and remembering exclusion events, younger children expressed no play partner preference. Children's verbal justifications revealed that older children choose partners more carefully and draw on a richer understanding of exclusion. More generally, the initial dissociation between social evaluation and preference formation underscores that these are distinct processes with different developmental trajectories.     

How do Children Evaluate the Gossiper of Negative Gossip?

In this study, we investigated how children evaluate gossipers. There are two conflicting ways in which children evaluate the gossiper of negative gossip about another person. One is that they perceive the gossiper of negative gossip as bad because saying something negative about another person can be seen as indirect aggression. The other is that they perceive the gossiper of negative gossip as good because such gossip is beneficial to regulate their relationship with the gossip's target. To address the issue, we asked 7- and 8-year-olds to choose the gossiper of negative gossip or the gossiper of neutral gossip as a cooperative partner and to distribute resources between the gossipers. We found that the children often did not choose the gossiper of negative gossip as a partner and did not distribute many resources to her, indicating a perception of the negative gossiper as bad. This suggests that children's evaluation of a gossiper is influenced by the valence of gossip rather than the value of gossip.