How much do adolescents cybergossip?: Scale development in validation in Spain and Colombia

ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 12 Feb ua y 2018 doi: 10.3389/ psyg.2018.00126 F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 1Feb ua y 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 126 Edi ed by: Va un Du , Indian Ins i u e o Technology Mandi, India Re iewed by: Michelle Hood, G i i h Uni e si y, Aus alia Da id Ál a ez-Ga cía, Uni e sidad de O iedo Mie es, Spain *Co espondence: E a M. Rome a [email p o ec ed] Special y sec ion: This a icle was submi ed o Cogni i e Science, a sec ion o he jou nal F on ie s in Psychology Recei ed: 31 Augus 2017 Accep ed: 25 Janua y 2018 Published: 12 Feb ua y 2018 Ci a ion: Rome a EM, He e a-López M, Casas JA, O ega Ruiz R and Del Rey R (2018) How Much Do Adolescen s Cybe gossip? Scale De elopmen and Valida ion in Spain and Colombia. F on . Psychol. 9:126. doi: 10.3389/ psyg.2018.00126 How Much Do Adolescen s Cybe gossip? Scale De elopmen and Valida ion in Spain and Colombia E a M. Rome a1*, Mau icio He e a-López2, José A. Casas1, Rosa io O ega Ruiz1,3 and Rosa io Del Rey4 1Depa men o Psychology, Uni e sidad de Có doba, Có doba, Spain, 2Depa men o Psychology, Uni e sidad de Na iño, San Juan de Pas o, Colombia, 3Depa men o Psychology, Social Wo k and Counselling, Uni e si y o G eenwich, London, Uni ed Kingdom, 4Depa men o De elopmen and Educa ional Psychology, Uni e sidad de Se illa, Se ille, Spain Cybe gossip is he ac o wo o mo e people making e alua i e commen s ia digi al de ices abou somebody who is no p esen . This cybe beha io a ec s he social g oup in which i occu s and can ei he p omo e o hinde pee ela ionships. Scien i ic s udies ha assess he na u e o his eme ging and in e ac i e beha io in he i ual wo ld a e limi ed. Some esea ch on adi ional gossip has iden i ied i as an inhe en and de ining elemen o indi ec ela ional agg ession. This pape adop s and a gues o a wide de ini ion o gossip ha includes posi i e commen s and mo i a ions. This wo k also sugges s ha cybe gossip has o be measu ed independen ly om adi ional gossip due o key di e ences when i occu s h ough ICT. This pape p esen s he Colombian and Spanish alida ion o he Cybe gossip Ques ionnai e o Adolescen s (CGQ-A), in ol ing 3,747 high school s uden s (M=13.98 yea s old, SD =1.69; 48.5% male), o which 1,931 we e Colombian and 1,816 we e Spanish. Tes models de i ed om i em esponse heo y, con i ma o y ac o analysis, con en alida ion, and mul i-g oup analysis we e un on he ull sample and subsamples o each coun y and bo h gende s. The ob ained op imal i and psychome ic p ope ies con i m he obus ness and sui abili y o a one-dimensional s uc u e o he cybe gossip ins umen . The mul i-g oup analysis shows ha he cybe gossip cons uc is unde s ood simila ly in bo h coun ies and be ween gi ls and boys. The composi e eliabili y a i ies con e gen and di e gen alidi y o he scale. Desc ip i e esul s show ha Colombian adolescen s gossip less han hei Spanish coun e pa s and ha boys and gi ls use cybe gossip o he same ex en . As a conclusion, his s udy con i mes he ela ionship be ween cybe gossip and cybe bullying, bu i also suppo s a ocus on posi i e cybe gossip in psychoeduca ional in e en ions o build posi i e i ual ela ionships and p e en isky cybe beha io s. Keywo ds: gossip, cybe gossip, adolescence, sel - epo , psychome ic p ope ies, gende , c oss-cul u al Rome a e al. Cybe gossip in Adolescence INTRODUCTION Gossip Gossip is de ined as a ype o e alua i e con e sa ion abou somone else who is no p esen (Ede and Enke, 1991; Fos e , 2004). These con e sa ions ha e a si ua ional na u e, as he message emission and in e p e a ion depend on he con ex in which hey a e p oduced (We and Salo ey, 2004). Gossip is a widesp ead and epea ed p ac ice, o which a g ea pa o daily con e sa ions is usually de o ed (Dunba e al., 1997; Le in and A luke, 2013). Gossip has and had a bad epu a ion h oughou ime and ac oss cul u es because i is conside ed as sel -se ing and seen o be ca ied ou o maliciously manipula e he imp essions he hea e s ha e abou a hi d pe son (Goodman and Ben-Ze’e , 1994). Ne e heless, some e idence exis s o he posi i e e ec s o gossip (Baumeis e e al., 2004; Dunba , 2004; Alexand o e al., 2013). Resea ch on he posi i e side o gossip has mainly ocused on i s g oup-se ing unc ions. I has been said ha i can be use ul o in o m membe s o he g oup abou i s no ms and sanc ions (G osse e al., 2010), o p o ec he g oup om hose who b eak he ules (Bee sma and Van Klee , 2011; Feinbe g e al., 2014), o in luence i s membe s’ epu a ion (Gia dini, 2012) and o s eng hen social links wi hin he g oup (Dunba , 2004). Seen his way, gossip p omo es he common good (Bee sma and Van Klee , 2012), and cons ains sel -se ing beha io s ha could damage he g oup gi en he in luence i may ha e on membe s’ epu a ion and inclusion (Bee sma and Van Klee , 2011). Indi idual bene i s ha e also been asc ibed o hose who ecei e gossip, as i allows ob aining e alua i e in o ma ion abou o he s ha can se e as a e e ence wi h which o e alua e onesel (We and Salo ey, 2004). In pa icula , gossip has been shown o inc ease one’s sel -imp o emen alue, an impo an dimension o sel -e alua ion (Ma inescu e al., 2014). This bene i e lec s he lea ning unc ion o gossip, p omo ing impo an social lea ning abou how o achie e success o a oid ailu e in speci ic social si ua ions (Baumeis e e al., 2004). In his con ex , posi i e gossip is aluable o he indi idual because i p o ides a model o imi a e (Li man and Pezzo, 2005). The ad ances in his line di ec owa d he necessi y o making he gossipe s’ mo al delibe a ion explici o egula e he ela ionships and gene a e a g ea e con idence (Pe e s and Kashima, 2015). In addi ion o p o iding in o ma ion, in luence, and s eng hen g oup bonds, gossip also has a g a i ying indi idual unc ion: en e ainmen (Fos e , 2004). Wha di e en ia es gossip om social cu iosi y—a ela ed ype o beha io —is i s objec i e. While gossip p edominan ly has an en e ainmen pu pose, social cu iosi y is mainly di ec ed a ob aining in o ma ion abou o he people (Ha ung and Renne , 2013). Gossip, Cybe gossip, and Cybe bullying A ecen s udy wi h mo e han 55,000 adolescen s om 20 di e en coun ies shows he widesp ead use o ICT in social communica ion and i s impo ance in social and pe sonal de elopmen (A eepa amannil and Khine, 2017). Al hough he e is gene al awa eness o ICT’s impo ance in adolescen ela ionships, he numbe o s udies on cybe gossip is limi ed (Oluwole, 2009; Laghi e al., 2013; Sub amanian, 2013). Mo eo e , mos o he s udies ha do exis ha e aken place wi hin he ield o compu e science (e.g., Apolloni e al., 2013), and only a ew ha e come o h om he psychology sphe e (e.g., Gab iels and De Backe , 2016). Cybe gossip is he equi alen o gossip in he i ual wo ld, bu bo h phenomena mus be s udied in di e en ways, as he con ex s in which hey ake place di e and ma e . Fi s , ace- o- ace gossip makes use o e bal language, whils cybe gossip can ake he o m o w i en messages, images, and ideos. Second, cybe gossip messages a e eco ded and can be ep oduced exac ly as o iginally c ea ed, which may in luence wha is sha ed in he i s place (Be olo i and Magnani, 2013). Thi d, cybe gossip has he po en ial o each a wide audience, a any ime, and ins an aneously. Fou h, gi en he limi ed p osodic, pa alinguis ic, and ex alinguis ic elemen s ha can be used in i ual communica ion, i is ha de o bo h he sende o con ey he social in en ion behind he message and o he ecipien o ecognize i (Ca e a and Pelayo, 2002). This inc eases he possibili y o misunde s andings, which can lead o cybe agg ession and cybe ic imizing beha io s and he e o e o cybe bullying (Del Rey e al., 2015). I is also impo an o di e en ia e be ween cybe gossip and cybe bullying. Gossip’s nega i e po en ial has led nume ous s udies o iden i y i as an indi ec o m o pee g oup agg ession ha has he aim o manipula e ano he ’s epu a ion o achie e his/he exclusion om he g oup (A che and Coyne, 2005). Ne e heless, a clea in en ion o damaging he o he is no necessa ily p esen in cybe gossip, while i is in cybe bullying (Tokunaga, 2010). The e o e, while ela ed, gossip, cybe gossip, and cybe bullying a e no di ec ly compa able and mus be s udied wi h ools app op ia ely designed o each o hese phenomena. The Need o Cybe gossip Scales o Adolescen s Despi e he di e ences be ween he phenomena, wo k on cybe gossip should ake esea ch in o i s o -line e sion as a s a ing poin . Gossip has been widely s udied and wi h di e en esea ch me hodologies. As an h opology is he dominan ield o he s udy o gossip, obse a ional echniques ha e been mos commonly used (Fos e , 2004), bu his is p oblema ic. Con idence and disc e ion a e wo ac o s ha in luence gossip (Gluckman, 1963) and hese condi ions a e di icul o gua an ee in expe imen al and obse a ional s udies. Sel - epo s udies do no iola e hese condi ions due o hei anonymous and e ospec i e na u e, and he e o e, despi e d awbacks which a e mainly ela ed o he isk o ob aining socially desi able answe s, o m he ideal me hodology o he measu emen o gossip (B ady e al., 2017). While he need o such quan i a i e s udies has been iden i ied (Noon and Delb idge, 1993), o da e, e y ew exis , and he sca ce scales ha a e a ailable ha e a numbe o limi a ions. Se e al scales oo na owly de ine gossip as a nega i e beha io and e en as an indi ec mode o agg ession. Examples a e he Di ec and Indi ec Agg ession Scale (DIAS) (Bjö kq is e al., 1992) and he Indi ec /Social/Rela ional Agg ession scale F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 2Feb ua y 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 126 Rome a e al. Cybe gossip in Adolescence (ISRA) (Coyne e al., 2006). In hese examples gossip is equa ed wi h expanding umo s and measu ed using only one i em (commen ing badly abou o he s). O he ins umen s ha do de ine gossip mo e widely, including bo h he posi i e and he nega i e po en ial, ocus on speci ic aspec s, such as he con en o he message (Ne o e al., 1993) a i udes owa d gossip (Li man and Pezzo, 2005), mo i a ions behind gossip (Bee sma and Van Klee , 2012), and unc ions o gossip (Fos e , 2004), bu hey do no measu e he equency o he beha io i sel (B ady e al., 2017). A inal limi a ion o he la e g oup o scales is he lack o Eu opean and La in Ame ican samples used in hei alida ion. Below, se e al exis ing ins umen s a e desc ibed in a bi mo e de ail. The widely known Tendency Gossip Ques ionnai e (Ne o e al., 1993) was alida ed in a s udy wi h 120 Is aeli college s uden s. I consis s o a 7-poin equency scale o 19 i ems ha assess he con en o con e sa ions (physical appea ance, achie emen , social in o ma ion, and sublima ed gossip). This scale has been c i icized o ha ing oo ew i ems wi h which o measu e he wide con en a iabili y possible in gossip (Li man and Pezzo, 2005). The Gossip Func ions Ques ionnai e (Fos e , 2004) measu es ag eemen wi h 24 s a emen s ela ed o he ou basic unc ions ha gossip is said o ha e: in o ma ion p o ision, c ea ion o iendship, a ainmen o in luence, and en e ainmen . Mo e esea ch ocussing on hese unc ions has subsequen ly aken place wi h English speaking coun ies (USA, Canada, Aus alia, Uni ed Kingdom, I eland and New Zealand) (Wa son, 2011; Ha ung and Renne , 2013), bu bo h he o iginal scale and he subsequen wo k ail o conside ha gossip is subjec o he con ex in which i happens (Paine, 1967) and ha i is no a s a e ( ai ) o ap i ude. The Mo i es o Gossip Ques ionnai e (Bee sma and Van Klee , 2012), alida ed wi h uni e si y s uden s in he Ne he lands, does include con ex o some ex en : 22 s a emen s e e ing o speci ic beha io s and g ouped in ou dimensions (in o m, en e ain, in luence, and mee ing he no ms o he g oup) we e p esen ed o unde g adua e s uden s, and he easons o ge ing in ol ed in hei la es gossip expe ience we e assessed. The d awback o his ins umen is ha i only assesses he esponden s’ la es gossip e en and no he equency o he beha io . Ano he c i icism is ha i s in luence dimension is solely nega i e, being ela ed o indi ec agg ession. S i ling’s (1956) and Fos e ’s (2004) o iginal s udies ecognize he e can also be a posi i e side o he in luence dimension, which is ela ed o he lea ning o he g oup’s cul u e and no ms. B ady e al. (2017) ecen ly alida ed he Wo kplace Gossip scale wi h wo k-expe ienced Canadian s uden s, which does include he equency wi h which gossip is ca ied ou and he eby claim his s udy helps esol e he lack o gene ali y o he cons uc and he possible measu emen bias om which p e ious s udies su e ed. While his is indeed a good s ep o wa d, i s ocus on he wo k en i onmen , wi h i s speci ic issues and dimensions, mean i migh no be as ele an o o he con ex s. The scales discussed abo e ha e all been designed and alida ed o (young) adul s. Fo child en and adolescen s, gossip esea ch exis s mainly in he o m o na a i e and obse a ional s udies, and hese app oach gossip om he same na ow nega i e angle o indi ec ag ession aimed a damaging o he s (Xie e al., 2005) as some o he s udies ha ocus on adul s. Resul s om e olu i e s udies show ha as boys and gi ls g ow up, hey inc easinly demons a e indi ec agg essi e beha io s, such as gossip, o ic imize hei pee s (A che and Coyne, 2005). In e hnog aphic s udies, adolescen gi ls a e said o gossip mo e han boys wi h he aim o keep hei social s a us (Me en, 1997). This iew on he ela ionship be ween gende and gossip— unde s ood in i s malignan e sion—is con i med in a e iew by McAnd ew (2014). On he o he hand, me a-analyses on gende di e ences in indi ec agg ession, including gossip, do no ind a consis en ela ionship (A che , 2004; Ca d e al., 2008). Resea ch in o child en and adolescen s needs o adop he me hodological ad ances ha we e made in he s udy o gossip among adul s, and include i s posi i e po en ial o ansmi unde s anding o g oup no ms and see i as pa o he se o socially compe en beha io s (McDonald e al., 2007). I also needs o e lec he changes in in e ac ion and social ela ionships b ough abou by ICT (Lee e al., 2016). Examples o scales ha ha e ocussed on online beha io s among adolescen s and ha co e cybe gossip a e he Cybe -agg ession Ques ionnai e o Adolescen s (CYBA) (Ál a ez-Ga cía e al., 2016) and he Eu opean Cybe bullying In e en ion P ojec Ques ionnai e (ECIPQ) (Del Rey e al., 2015). Howe e , hese su e om he same limi a ion as some o he o -line gossip scales, in ha hey ea cybe gossip as a o m o cybe agg ession and do no include posi i e o ms o gossip. A ocus on gossip in i s wide sense is especially ele an in adolescence, because a his s age ela ionship s yles a e consolida ed. Iden i ying and desc ibing he beha io s ha cha ac e ize hese ela ionship s yles is o g ea esea ch in e es because hey p edic impo an aspec s o social and pe sonal unc ioning in adul hood (Pe y and Paule i, 2011). This a gumen is s eng hened by indings om Engelmann e al. (2016), who obse ed posi i e e ec s o gossip al eady in childhood. To p o ide in he need o a cybe gossip ins umen o child en he Cybe gossip Ques ionnai e-P ima y scale was designed and alida ed o schoolchild en aged 10–12 (López- P adas e al., 2017). I was designed o mee he abo emen ioned needs ela ing o measu emen , de ini ion and he ole o ICT. The ins umen includes nine ypes o beha io s co e ing he ou unc ions o gossip (in luence, en e ainmen , in o ma ion, and iendship). Valida ion showed he scale has he op imal psychome ic p ope ies o s udy cybe gossip among p ima y school child en, bu , o da e, no such scale exis s o adolescen s. The P esen S udy The i s objec i e o his s udy was o alida e he Cybe gossip Ques ionnai e-P ima y scale (López-P adas e al., 2017) o use among adolescen s as well. A sepa a e cybe bullying scale was used o analyse he disc iminan alida ion o he cybe gossip scale. The s udy used samples om wo coun ies in di e en egions, Spain and Colombia, ha ha e cul u al simila i ies, a sha ed his o y and language. This ies i in o he cu en end o ca ying ou c oss-cul u al compa a i e s udies, bu F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 3Feb ua y 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 126 Rome a e al. Cybe gossip in Adolescence adds di e si y as, o da e, hese compa isons ha e mos commonly aken place be ween Eu opean coun ies o be ween he Uni ed S a es and di e en Asian coun ies (Rome a e al., 2017). The second objec i e was o measu e he equency o adolescen s’ use o cybe gossip, and o analyze he possible di e ences by coun y o o igin and gende . This alida ed scale will allow u u e esea ch o gain u he insigh s in o de no ms, alues, con en ions and beha io s o his age g oup when using ICT (Rome a e al., 2016). Ou hypo heses we e: (1) he ins umen will show a one- ac o s uc u e wi h op imal psychome ic p ope ies, homogenei y o measu e ac oss gende and coun y and will ha e a low associa ion wi h cybe bullying; (2) Colombian adolescen s will be less in ol ed in cybe gossip, due o hei lowe use o ICT (Said-Hung, 2014); and (3) he e will be no gende di e ences in he equency o cybe gossip (Ca d e al., 2008). MATERIALS AND METHODS Pa icipan s The o e all sample comp ised 3,747 adolescen s (48.5% boys) aged 10 o 19 (M=13.98; SD =1.69). The Colombian subsample comp ised 1,931 s uden s (46.9% boys), aged 10–19 (M=14.22; SD =1.89), and he Spanish subsample comp ised 1,816 s uden s (50.2% boys) aged 12–19 (M=13.69; SD =1.35). The s udy used a con enience sample based on accessibili y. Ins umen s Cybe gossip Ques ionnai e-Adolescen s (CGQ-A) To measu e cybe gossip in adolescen s, he GCQ-P scale designed o p ima y school child en was used unchanged (López-P adas e al., 2017). The ins umen , which comp ises nine i ems, is based a ound he ou main unc ions o gossip: o in o m (“Le cuen o a mis amigos po las Redes Sociales o Wha sApp las cosas que me en e o que les pasan a o os”—“I use social ne wo ks o Wha sApp o sha e s o ies I hea abou o he s wi h my iends”); o in luence (“He hablado sob e un compañe o o amigo po las Redes Sociales o Wha sApp pa a que el g upo cambie su opinión sob e él”—“I ha e old hings abou a classma e o iend on social ne wo ks o Wha sApp o make he g oup change hei opinion abou him/he ”); o c ea e iendship (“Hablo sob e los demás en las edes sociales o Wha sApp po que me hace sen i más ce ca de mi g upo de amigos o amigas”— “I alk abou o he s on social ne wo ks o Wha sApp because i makes me eel close o my g oup o iends”); and o en e ain onesel (“Hablo con mi g upo de amigos de las Redes Sociales o Wha sApp sob e lo que les pasa a o os compañe os del colegio pa a di e i me”—“I alk wi h my iends on social ne wo ks o Wha sApp abou wha ’s going on wi h o he classma es o un”). Each o he nine i ems has a equency Like scale wi h he ollowing alues: 0 =“nunca”—ne e ; 1 =“casi nunca”—ha dly e e ; 2 =“no malmen e”—a e agely; 3 =“casi siemp e”—almos always; and 4 =“siemp e”—always. The in e nal consis ency o he one-dimensional scale was op imal (CGQ−P=0.83) when o iginally alida ed o 10–12 yea olds. The ques ionnai e in Spanish is included in Appendix A in Supplemen a y Ma e ial. Eu opean Cybe bullying In e en ion P ojec Ques ionnai e (ECIPQ) (Del Rey e al., 2015) This ins umen had p e iously been alida ed o bo h Colombia (He e a-López e al., 2017) and Spain (O ega-Ruiz e al., 2016). I is composed o 22 Like - ype i ems (11 o cybe ic imiza ion and 11 o cybe agg ession) wi h i e answe op ions om 0 o 4: 0 =ne e ; 1 =once o wice; 2 =once o wice a mon h; 3 =a ound once a week; 4 =mo e han once a week. Examples o he i ems a e: “Alguien me ha dicho insul os o g ose ías po in e ne ”—someone has insul ed me ia in e ne ; “He colgado ídeos o o os comp eme edo as de alguien en in e ne ”—I ha e pos ed comp omising ideos o pho os o someone on he in e ne . The in e nal consis ency when alida ed o iginally was op imal: αcybe ic imiza ion =0.84, αcybe agg ession =0.81, α o al =0.87. P ocedu e The esea ch had a ans e sal, es ospec i e, ex pos ac o design, wi h one g oup and mul iple measu es (Mon e o and León, 2007). The s udy was app o ed by he Comi é Coodinado de É ica de la In es igación Biomédica de Andalucía (Coo dina ing E hics Commi ee o Biomedical Resea ch o Andalusia) and was in acco dance wi h all egula ions conce ning p o esional e hics as s a ed in he In e na ional Con e ence on Ha moniza ion Good Clinical P ac ice Guideline. The s udy was app o ed by he Spanish school boa ds and he Colombian schools’ managemen , and w i en pa en al consen was ob ained. In bo h coun ies, he s uden s we e isi ed and he anonymous, con iden ial and olun a y na u e and he objec i e o he s udy we e explained be o e he su ey was aken. The au ho s we e esponsible o he da a collec ion. S uden s had 20 min o ill in he ques ionnai e. The esea che s we e p esen du ing his ime o answe any ques ions. S a is ical Analysis Ma dia’s coe icien was calcula ed o assess he mul i a ia e no mali y o he da ase using he p og am “R” (R De elopmen Co e Team, 2008) and package “MVN” (Ko maz e al., 2015). The psychome ic p ope ies o he CGQ-A scale we e e i ied h ough i em esponse heo y (IRT) analysis, calcula ing a h ee- pa ame e model (3PL) i ed o poly omous scales (Mu aki, 1990). This app oach gi es alues o each i em on he pa ame e s disc ima ion (a), di icul y (b) and p obabili y o success o ailu e (c). This analysis was ca ied ou using “eRm; colospace and mi ” lib a ies ( e sion 3.3.2) in “R” (R De elopmen Co e Team, 2008). To assess cons uc alidi y, con i ma o y ac o ial analyses (CFA) we e ca ied ou using he EQS 6.2 p og am (Ben le and Wu, 2012). The maximum likelihood es ima ion me hod (MLE), obus scaling (B yan and Sa o a, 2012), and polycho ic co ela ions (Mo a a-Ramí ez and Holgado-Tello, 2013) we e used, which is he ecommended app oach o ca ego ical a iables and unde he absence o mul i a ia e no mali y. The i o he models was es ed wi h he ollowing indexes: Sa o a- Ben le scaled chi squa e (χ2 S−B) (Sa o a and Ben le , 2001); he compa a i e i index (CFI) and he non-no mali y i index (NNFI) (≥0.90 is adequa e; ≥0.95 is op imal); he oo mean F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 4Feb ua y 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 126 Rome a e al. Cybe gossip in Adolescence squa e e o o app oxima ion (RMSEA) and he oo mean squa e esidual (SRMR) (≤0.08 is adequa e; ≤0.05 is op imal) (Hu and Ben le , 1999). The Akaike in o ma ion c i e ion (AIC) was used o compa e he ob ained models, whe e he bes model has he lowes alue. The gene aliza ion o he model, ha is, he deg ee o obus ness o he ac o ial s uc u e o in a iance, was es ed h ough mul i-g oup analysis, wi h coun y and gende as analysis c i e ia. This analysis consis s o compa ing a se o inc easingly es ic i e models. In Model 1, con igu al in a iance was es ed by imposing he same ac o ial s uc u e on bo h subsamples, and checking whe he he i indexes o he combined model indica ed good model i . Subsequen ly, in Model 2 he ac o ial loads we e es ic ed and he i indexes o Models 1 and 2 we e compa ed. Changes (1) be ween he models o NNFI, CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR ≤ 0.01 we e accep ed as e idence o measu emen in a iance (Dimi o , 2010). As a u he es o in a iance, he chi squa e di e ence es (1χ2 S−B) was used, whe e non-signi ican di e ences demons a e in a iance in he models (Bollen, 1989; Sa o a and Ben le , 2010). The mul i-g oup analysis was ca ied ou in EQS 6.2 (Ben le and Wu, 2012). The disc iminan alidi y was es ed h ough Spea man’s Rho co ela ions be ween he CGQ-A scale and he ECIPQ dimensions (cybe ic imiza ion and cybe agg ession). In e nal consis ency was analyzed wi h McDonald’s Omega index (), ecommended o ca ego ical a iables unde he absence o mul i a ia e no mali y (Elousa-Oliden and Zumbo, 2008). Fo his we used he 9.2 Fac o p og am (Lo enzo- Se a and Fe ando, 2006). The composi e eliabili y (CR) was de e mined o es gene al eliabili y o he se o i ems, and we looked a he a e age a iance ex ac ed (AVE) o es he accu acy wi h which he cons uc is measu ed. The used cu -o alues we e 0.70 o CR and 0.50 o AVE (Hai e al., 2005). The le el o in ol emen in cybe gossip was calcula ed by aking he a e age o he nine i ems. The adop ed s a is ical signi icance le el was 0.05. RESULTS Psychome ic P ope ies o he Cybe gossip Ques ionnai e o Adolescen s (CGQ-A) Ma dia’s analysis gene a ed a coe icien o skewness o 63.027; p>0.05 and a coe icien o ku osis o 279.537; p>0.05, indica ing he da a ail o mee he assump ion o mul i a ia e no mali y. The 3PL (IRT) analysis p o ided disc imina ion alues abo e 1, which a e conside ed good alues; he di icul y deg ee o he i ems anged om 0.05 o 1.60, which is accep able (accep able alues ange om −3 o 3); and he p obabili y o ailu e alues we e low, indica i e o high quali y i ems (Bake , 1992) (see Table 1). The in e -i em co ela ion analysis showed alues in he uppe -middle ange. The co ela ions be ween he CGQ-A scale and he ECIPQ cybe agg ession and cybe ic imiza ion dimensions we e in he medium ange, sugges ing a low collinea i y and disc iminan alidi y be ween he ins umen s (see Tables 2,3). The CFA o he one-dimension s uc u e o he CGQ-A scale showed an adequa e i : χ2 S−B=286.581; d =27; p<0.001; NNFI =0.979; CFI =0.984; RMSEA =0.055 (90% CI [0.050, 0.061]); SRMR =0.048; AIC =232.581 (see Figu e 1). The ob ained alue o he in e nal consis ency was wi hin he op imal ange (CGQ−A=0.839). The alues o he CR and AVE indexes we e also ound wi hin he op imal ange: CR =0.904; AVE =0.513, o e 0.70 y 0.50, espec i ely (Hai e al., 2005). The esul s o he mul i-g oup analysis indica ed p oo o con igu al and measu emen in a iance o bo h he coun y and gende es s. Fo bo h a iables, he chi-squa e di e ences (χ2 S−B) be ween Models 1 and 2 we e non-signi ican and he del as (1) o he CFI, NNFI, RMSEA and SRMR indexes in all compa isons we e below he 0.01 cu -o poin (see Table 4). Occu ence o Cybe gossip among Adolescen s The adolescen pa icipan s in he s udy had an o e all cybe gossip in ol emen le el o 1.36 (SD =0.49). Cybe gossip occu ed mo e o en among he Spanish pa icipan s (M=1.57; SD =0.59) han he Colombian ones (M=1.24; SD =0.37) ( =17.48; p>0.001). As also hypo hesized, no di e ences we e ound be ween gi ls and boys ( =1.75; p=0.08; M=1.35; SD =0.47 s. M=1.38; SD =0.53, espec i ely). DISCUSSION The objec i e o he s udy was o alida e he CGQ-P scale (López-P adas e al., 2017) o Spanish and Colombian adolescen s (a e wa ds called Cybe gossip Ques ionnai e- Adolescen s, CGQ-A). The esul s con i med he o iginal one-dimensional s uc u e wi h op imal indexes o i and in e nal consis ency. The esul s o he disc iminan alidi y analysis showed ha he CGQ-A scale measu es a di e en concep han he cybe agg ession and cybe ic imiza ion dimensions o he ECIPQ scale, al hough hey a e ela ed. These esul s unde line he p oblem o a na ow concep ualiza ion o gossip as malicious beha io , and suppo aking a wide pe spec i e ha encompasses posi i e aspec s o social lea ning (We and Salo ey, 2004; Bee sma and Van Klee , 2012). The mul i-g oup analysis p o ed con igu al and measu emen in a iance be ween Colombia and Spain and be ween boys and gi ls, indica ing he scale has a obus ac o ial s uc u e ac oss coun ies and gende . Pu in ano he way, i means he di e en i ems con ibu e simila ly o he o e all ac o o gi ls and boys, o Columbians and Spanish. The in a iance he e o e demons a es ha Colombian and Spanish adolescen s concep ualize cybe gossip in simila ways when hey espond o he CGQ-A scale. This indica es simila dynamics in bo h coun ies, despi e he cul u al, socioeconomic and geog aphical di e ences (Rome a e al., 2017). Al hough gossip has been widely iden i ied as a uni e sal beha io (Dunba , 2004), his F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 5Feb ua y 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 126 Rome a e al. Cybe gossip in Adolescence TABLE 1 | Mean, s anda d de ia ion, skewness, ku osis, and 3PL analysis (IRT). I ems (CGQ-A) M SD Skew Ku a b c CG 1 I ha e made commen s abou o he iends o classma es o ge in o a g oup on social ne wo ks o Wha sApp. 1.19 0.55 3.81 17.87 2.03 1.61 0.02 CG 2 I alk abou o he s on social ne wo ks o Wha sApp because i makes me eel close o my g oup o iends 1.41 0.83 2.43 6.20 1.89 1.00 0.04 CG 3 I ha e old hings abou a classma e o iend on social ne wo ks o Wha sApp o make he g oup change hei opinion abou him/ he 1.45 0.83 2.10 4.50 1.92 1.00 0.08 CG 4 When I’m ang y wi h a classma e o iend, I alk abou i on social ne wo ks o Wha sApp 1.39 0.78 2.36 5.80 1.73 0.97 0.00 CG 5 I ha e said nega i e hings abou ano he pe son on social ne wo ks o Wha sApp wi hou ealizing i 1.40 0.74 2.24 5.72 1.99 0.76 0.00 CG 6 I ha e sha ed a classma e’s sec e wi h o he s on social ne wo ks o Wha sApp 1.29 0.68 2.90 9.58 1.76 1.19 0.00 CG 7 I use social ne wo ks o Wha sApp o sha e s o ies I hea abou o he s wi h my iends 1.56 0.94 1.86 3.13 2.19 0.52 0.00 CG 8 When somebody in my g oup does some hing bad, I ell he es o my classma es ia social ne wo ks o Wha sApp so hey know abou i 1.33 0.71 2.61 7.67 2.23 0.99 0.02 CG 9 I alk wi h my iends on social ne wo ks o Wha sApp abou wha ’s going on wi h o he classma es o un 1.32 0.71 2.77 8.65 1.95 1.03 0.00 a, disc imina ion; b, di icul y; c, p obabili y o ailu e ( andom). TABLE 2 | Ma ix o CGQ-A polycho ic co ela ions. I em 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 0.61 1 3 0.54 0.52 1 4 0.43 0.43 0.43 1 5 0.46 0.47 0.45 0.63 1 6 0.48 0.41 0.43 0.53 0.59 1 7 0.46 0.43 0.53 0.58 0.59 0.61 1 8 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.56 0.54 0.59 1 9 0.49 0.49 0.43 0.49 0.56 0.53 0.58 0.59 1 All co ela ions we e signi ica i e, p <0.01. TABLE 3 | Spea man’s Rho co ela ions be ween ECIPQ and CGQ-A. Fac o n (3,747) 1. 2. 3. Skew. Ku . M D.T. 1. Cybe agg ession 1.12 0.26 – 5.13 41.75 2. Cybe ic imiza ion 1.22 0.35 0.49** – 3.85 23.06 3. Cybe gossip 1.37 0.50 0.44** 0.30** – 2.36 7.94 **p<0.01. s udy is he i s o analyze his in Spanish and Colombian samples, and o show ha , also among adolescen s and when ca ied ou ia ICT, gossip has a c oss-cul u al na u e. The in a iance esul s also demons a ed a sha ed concep ualiza ion be ween boys and gi ls. This con adic s some ea lie esea ch ha classi ied gossip as a o m o indi ec agg ession, and ound ha gi ls, o a g ea e ex en han boys, see gossip as a o m o agg ession (A che and Coyne, 2005). Ou esul s a e in line wi h esea ch on gossip in a wide sense, which shows i is a beha io well- ecognized and iden i ied wi h by no only gi ls bu also boys (Ku le e al., 2002). The second objec i e o he esea ch was o measu e how equenc ly adolescen s engage in cybe gossip, and o in es iga e di e ences by coun y and gende . The desc ip i e esul s indica e ha hey enage in his cybe beha io qui e equen ly. Resul s con i med ou second hypo hesis ha Colombian adolescen s would be less in ol ed in cybe gossip han Spanish ones. This could e lec he lowe use o ICT in Colombia (Said-Hung, 2014), bu could also be due o di e ences in cul u e. Spanish cul u e is cha ac e ized by a g ea e p omo ion o indi idualis alues when i comes o social image and ecogni ion and accep ance wi hin he g oup (Ta a odi and Swann, 1996), which would be in line wi h g ea e in ol emen in his in e ac i e phenomenon. On he o he hand, La in Ame ican cul u e is mo e es ic i e, has a highe espec o ules, and app o al and obedience a e alued mo e (Lila e al., 2000), which could explain a lowe in ol emen in beha io s ha a e commonly seen as nega i e. No di e ences we e ound in he equency wi h which boys and gi ls pa icipa e in cybe gossip, which con i ms he hi d hypo hesis. This, oge he wi h he esul s on measu emen in a iance by gende , suppo s he idea ha boys and gi ls engage in gossip in simila ways. P e ious de elopmen al s udies ha e shown a highe in ol emen o gi ls, which hey a ibu ed o adolescen gi ls spending mo e ime on social ac i i ies, and ha ing a ela ionship s yle cha ac e ized by a desi e o p oximi y and an anxie y abou ejec ion (Pe y and Paule i, 2011). In he li e a u e on indi ec agg ession gi ls ha e also been seen o gossip mo e (A che and Coyne, 2005), and his ela ionship be ween gossip and gende was ound in s udies on adul s as well (Ne o e al., 1993). Ne e heless, ou esul s a e in line wi h he majo i y o con ibu ions in his ield, ega dless o whe he s udies wi h a wide de ini ion (Fos e , 2004) o a na ow one (Ku le e al., 2002; Ca d e al., 2008) a e conside ed. This leads F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 6Feb ua y 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 126 Rome a e al. Cybe gossip in Adolescence FIGURE 1 | CFA o he CGQ-A scale (*p<0.05). TABLE 4 | Mul i-g oup analysis o he CGQ-A scale pe coun y and gende . C i e ion Mod χ2 S-B d p NNFI CFI RMSEA SRMR 1χ2 S-B 1p1d 1NNFI 1CFI 1RMSEA 1SRMR Coun y Mod 1 287.072 54 0.000 0.966 0.975 0.053 0.061 Mod 2 276.523 62 0.000 0.973 0.977 0.047 0.061 10.549 0.534 (n.s.) 8 0.007 0.002 0.006 0.000 Gende Mod 1 306.722 54 0.000 0.980 0.985 0.055 0.049 Mod 2 317.516 62 0.000 0.982 0.985 0.051 0.050 10.794 0.793 (n.s.) 8 0.002 0.000 0.004 0.001 Mod 1, model wi hou es ic ions; Mod 2, model es ic ed on ac o weigh s; n.s., non-signi ican . o he ques ion why he e is a alse s e eo yped iew ha gi ls a e bigge gossipe s han boys (in bo h he na ow and wide sense o he concep ). Some s udies a ibu e his associa ion o gende schemas, buil since childhood, which de e mine he p ocessing o social in o ma ion (Ca d e al., 2008). Ano he conclusion om hese esul s should be ha i is essen ial o include boys in he s udy on gossip and cybe gossip, unlike se e al s udies in he pas ha used only emale subjec s (McDonald e al., 2007; Massa e al., 2012). CONCLUSIONS The p esen s udy has made an impo an con ibu ion o his ield o esea ch by p o iding i wi h a alid and eliable ins umen wi h which o measu e cybe gossip beha io . The CGQ-A scale’s op imal psychome ic p ope ies and gene al alidi y allow i s use in compa a i e s udies o desc ip i e and explana o y na u e. Wi hou downplaying he possible ha m ul e ec s o gossip, his pape a gues ha cybe gossip does no ha e o be unde s ood as a cybe beha io which mus be e adica ed o educed in all si ua ions. This esea ch ecognizes and has con i med he ela ionship be ween cybe gossip and cybe bullying, bu i also suppo s a ocus on posi i e cybe gossip in psychoeduca ional in e en ions ha p omo e he lea ning o new me hods o in e ac ion and he de elopmen o communica ion and digi al skills o build posi i e i ual ela ionships and p e en isky cybe beha io s. Limi a ions A numbe o limi a ions o his s udy mus be men ioned. No explici es s o con e gen alidi y ha e been included. These F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 7Feb ua y 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 126 Rome a e al. Cybe gossip in Adolescence we e omi ed as his s udy’s pa icula aim was o obse e i s di e gen alidi y, which is why we ocussed on he co ela ion be ween he concep s. Ano he po en ial limi a ion is ha no es - e es measu es ha e been employed o con i m he eliabili y o he esul s, al hough di e en samples ha e been used and he op imal psychome ic p ope ies o he CGQ-A scale ha e been es ablished. Fu u e Resea ch I is necessa y o con inue ad ancing ou unde s anding o gossip, especially o i s e ec on g oup cha ac e is ics, ollowing ecen e olu iona y s udies ha highligh he in luence o social ne wo king on social beha io (Wu e al., 2016). The ole o gende in cybe gossip also equi es u he a en ion, o example wi h espec o he possible nuances ha ela ional a iables such as iendship may in oduce (Wa son, 2012). Ano he in e es ing di ec ion o esea ch would be o ollow up on he indings by A eepa amannil and Khine (2017) ha pe sonal (a ailabili y, abili y, habi , uses) and mo i a ional (sel -e icacy, in e es , enjoymen ) ac o s co ela e wi h he use o ICT o gossip. I is also necessa y o gene a e new esea ch o a de elopmen al na u e o be e unde s and wha is behind di e ences in in ol emen in gossip and cybe gossip. ETHICS STATEMENT The s udy was app o ed by he Comi é Coodinado de É ica de la In es igación Biomédica de Andalucía (Coo dina ing E hics Commi ee o Biomedical Resea ch o Andalusia) and was in acco dance wi h all egula ions conce ning p o essional e hics as s a ed in he In e na ional Con e ence on Ha moniza ion Good Clinical P ac ice Guideline. The s udy was app o ed by he Spanish school boa ds and he Colombian schools’ managemen , and w i en pa en al consen was ob ained. In bo h coun ies, he s uden s we e isi ed and he anonymous, con iden ial and olun a y na u e and he objec i e o he s udy we e explained be o e he su ey was aken. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS All au ho s con ibu ed o he in e p e a ion o da a, helped o d a , and e ise he manusc ip and ha e ead and app o ed he inal manusc ip . FUNDING ER, JC, RO-R, and RDR we e suppo ed by p ojec s EDU2013- 44627-P (I+D, Spain) and PSI2016-74871-R (I+D+i, Spain). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To he schools and adolescen s who pa icipa ed in his s udy. To SR and TG who helped o collec he da a. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL The Supplemen a y Ma e ial o his a icle can be ound online a : h ps://www. on ie sin.o g/a icles/10.3389/ psyg. 2018.00126/ ull#supplemen a y-ma e ial REFERENCES Alexand o , A., Lilly, B., and Babakus, E. (2013). The e ec s o social-and sel - mo i es on he in en ions o sha e posi i e and nega i e wo d o mou h. J. Acad. Ma ke . Sci. 41, 531–546. doi: 10.1007/s11747-012-0323-4 Ál a ez-Ga cía, D., Ba ei o-Collazo, A., Núñez, J. C., and Doba o, A. (2016). Validi y and Reliabili y o he Cybe -agg ession Ques ionnai e o Adolescen s (CYBA). Eu . J. Psychol. Appl. L 8, 69–77. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpal.2016.02.003 Apolloni, B., Malchiodi, D., and Taylo , J. G. (2013). Lea ning by gossip: a p incipled in o ma ion exchange model in social ne wo ks. Cogn. Compu . 5, 327–339. doi: 10.1007/s12559-013-9211-6 A che , J. (2004). Sex di e ences in agg ession in eal-wo ld se ings: a me a- analy ic e iew. Re . Gen. Psychol. 8, 291–322. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291 A che , J., and Coyne, S. M. (2005). An in eg a ed e iew o indi ec , ela ional, and social agg ession. Pe s. Soc. Psychol. Re . 9, 212–230. doi: 10.1207/s15327957psp 0903_2 A eepa amannil, S., and Khine, M. S. (2017). Ea ly adolescen s’ use o in o ma ion and communica ion echnologies (ICTs) o social communica ion in 20 coun ies: Examining he oles o ICT- ela ed beha io al and mo i a ional cha ac e is ics. Compu . Hum. Beha . 73, 263–272. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.058 Bake , F. (1992). I em Response Theo y. Pa ame e Es ima ion Techniques. New Yo k, NY: Ma cel Dekke , Inc. Baumeis e , R. F., Zhang, L., and Vohs, K. D. (2004). Gossip as cul u al lea ning. Re . Gen. Psychol. 8, 111–121. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.111 Bee sma, B., and Van Klee , G. A. (2011). How he g ape ine keeps you in line: gossip inc eases con ibu ions o he g oup. Soc. Psychol. Pe s. Sci. 2, 642–649. doi: 10.1177/1948550611405073 Bee sma, B., and Van Klee , G. A. (2012). Why people gossip: an empi ical analysis o social mo i es, an eceden s, and consequences. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42, 2640–2670. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00956.x Ben le , R. M., and Wu, E. J. C. (2012). EQS o Windows (Ve sion 6.2) [S a is ical P og am o Windows]. Encino, CA: Mul i a ia e So wa e, Inc. Be olo i, T., and Magnani, L. (2013). A philosophical and e olu iona y app oach o cybe -bullying: social ne wo ks and he dis up ion o sub-mo ali ies. E hics In . Technol. 15, 285–299. doi: 10.1007/s10676-013-9324-3 Bjö kq is , K., Lage spe z, K. M. J., and Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do gi ls manipula e and boys igh ? de elopmen al ends in ega d o di ec and indi ec agg essi e beha io . Agg ess. Beha . 18, 117–127. doi: 10.1002/1098-2337(1992)18:2<117::AID-AB2480180205>3.0.CO;2-3 Bollen, K. A. (1989). S uc u al Equa ions wi h La en Va iables. New Yo k, NY: Wiley. B ady, D. L., B own, D. J., and Liang, L. H. (2017). Mo ing beyond assump ions o de iance: he econcep ualiza ion and measu emen o wo kplace gossip. J. Appl. Psychol. 102, 1–25. doi: 10.1037/apl0000164 B yan , F. B., and Sa o a, A. (2012). P inciples and p ac ice o scaled di e ence Chi-Squa e es ing. S uc . Equ. Model. 19, 372–398. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2012.687671 Ca d, N. A., S ucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., and Li le, T. D. (2008). Di ec and indi ec agg ession du ing childhood and adolescence: A me a-analy ic e iew o gende di e ences, in e co ela ions, and ela ions o maladjus men . Child De . 79, 1185–1229. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x Ca e a, A., and Pelayo, N. (2002). Lenguaje y Comunicación: Concep os Básicos, Aspec os Teó icos Gene ales, Ca ac e ís icas, Es uc u a, Na u aleza, y Funciones del Lenguaje y de la Comunicación o al y Esc i a. Ciudad: Los lib os de El Nacional. F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 8Feb ua y 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 126 Rome a e al. Cybe gossip in Adolescence Coyne, S. M., A che , J., and Eslea, M. (2006). “We’ e No F iends Anymo e! Unless...”: The F equency and Ha m ulness o Indi ec , Rela ional, and Social Agg ession. Agg ess. Beha . 32, 294–307. doi: 10.1002/ab. 20126 Del Rey, R., Casas, J. A., O ega-Ruiz, R., Schul ze-K umbholz, A., Schei haue , H., Smi h, P.,., e al. (2015). S uc u al alida ion and c oss-cul u al obus ness o he Eu opean Cybe bullying In e en ion P ojec Ques ionnai e. Compu . Hum. Beha . 50, 141–147. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.065 Dimi o , D. M. (2010). Tes ing o he ac o ial in a iance in he con ex o cons uc alida ion. Meas. E al. Couns. De . 43, 121–149. doi: 10.1177/0748175610373459 Dunba , R. I. (2004). Gossip in e olu iona y pe spec i e. Re . Gen. Psychol. 8, 100–110. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.100 Dunba , R. I. M., Duncan, N. D. C., and Ma io , A. (1997). Human con e sa ional beha iou . Hum. Na . 8, 231–246. doi: 10.1007/BF02912493 Ede , D., and Enke, J. L. (1991). The s uc u e o gossip: oppo uni ies and cons ain s on collec i e exp ession among adolescen s. Am. Sociol. Re . 56, 494–508. doi: 10.2307/2096270 Elousa-Oliden, P., and Zumbo, B. D. (2008). Coe icien es de iabilidad pa a escalas de espues a ca egó ica o denada. Psico hema 20, 896–901. Engelmann, J. M., He mann, E., and Tomasello, M. (2016). P eschoole s a ec o he s’ epu a ions h ough p osocial gossip. B . J. De . Psychol. 34, 447–460. doi: 10.1111/bjdp.12143 Feinbe g, M., Wille , R., and Schul z, M. (2014). Gossip and os acism p omo e coope a ion in g oups. Psychol. Sci. 25, 656–664. doi: 10.1177/0956797613510184 Fos e , E. K. (2004). Resea ch on Gossip: axonomy, me hods, and u u e di ec ions. Re . Gen. Psychol. 8, 78–99. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.78 Gab iels, K., and De Backe , C. J. (2016). Vi ual gossip: how gossip egula es mo al li e in i ual wo lds. Compu . Hum. Beha . 63, 683–693. doi: 10.1016/ j.chb.2016.05.065 Gia dini, F. (2012). De e ence and ansmission as mechanisms ensu ing eliabili y o gossip. Cogn. P ocess. 13, 465–475. doi: 10.1007/s10339-011- 0421-0 Gluckman, M. (1963). Pape s in hono o Mel ille J. He sko i s: gossip and scandal. Cu . An h opol. 4, 307–316. Goodman, R. F., and Ben-Ze’e , A. (1994). Good Gossip. Kansas: Uni e si y o Kansas P ess. G osse , T. J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., and Labianca, G. (2010). A social ne wo k analysis o posi i e and nega i e gossip in o ganiza ional li e. G oup O gan. Manage. 35, 177–212. doi: 10.1177/1059601109360391 Hai , J., Black, W., Babin, B., Ande son, R., and Ta ham, R. (2005). Mul i a ia e Da a Analyses 6 h Edn. New Yo k, NY: P en ice-Hall. Ha ung, F. M., and Renne , B. (2013). Social cu iosi y and gossip: ela ed bu di e en d i es o social unc ioning. PLoS ONE 8:e69996. doi: 10.1371/jou nal.pone.0069996 He e a-López, M., Casas, J. A., Rome a, E. M., O ega-Ruiz, R., and Del Rey, R. (2017). Valida ion o he Eu opean cybe bullying in e en ion p ojec ques ionnai e o Colombian Adolescen s. Cybe psych. Beh. Soc. N. 20, 117–125. doi: 10.1089/cybe .2016.0414 Hu, L., and Ben le , P. (1999). Cu o c i e ia o i indexes in co a iance s uc u e analysis: con en ional c i e ia e sus new al e na i es. S uc . Equa . Model. 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118 Ko maz, S., Goksuluk, D., and Za a siz, G. (2015). Mu i a ia e No mali y Tes s: Package ‘MVN’ Ve sión 4.0. Recupe ado el 5 de agos o de 2016 de. A ailable online: h p://www.bioso .hace epe.edu. /MVN/ Ku le , A. F., Pa ke , J. G., and La G eca, A. M. (2002). De elopmen al and gende di e ences in p eadolescen s’ judgmen s o he e aci y o gossip. Me ill Palme Q. 48, 105–132. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2002.0008 Laghi, F., Schneide , B. H., Vi o oulis, I., Coplan, R. J., Baiocco, R., Amichai- Hambu ge , and Flamen , M. (2013). Knowing when no o use he in e ne : shyness and adolescen s’ on-line and o -line in e ac ions wi h iends. Compu . Hum. Beha . 29, 51–57. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.015 Lee, S. L., Kim, J. A., Golden, K. J., Kim, J. H., and Pa k, M. S. A. (2016). A c oss-cul u al examina ion o sns usage in ensi y and managing in e pe sonal ela ionships online: he ole o cul u e and he au onomous- ela ed sel - cons ual. F on . Psychol. 7:376. doi: 10.3389/ psyg.2016.00376 Le in, J., and A luke, A. (2013). Gossip: The Inside Scoop. New Yo k, NY: Sp inge . Lila, M., Musi u, G., and Buelga, S. (2000). Adolescen es colombianos y españoles: di e encias, simili udes y elaciones en e la socialización amilia , la au oes ima y los alo es [Colombian and Spanish adolescen s: Di e ences, simila i ies and ela ionships be ween amily socializa ion, sel -es eem and alues]. Re . La . Am. Psicol. 32, 301–319. Li man, J. A., and Pezzo, M. V. (2005). Indi idual di e ences in a i udes owa ds gossip. Pe s. Indi . Di e . 38, 963–980. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.003 López-P adas, I. C., Rome a, E. M., Casas, J. A., and O ega-Ruiz, R. (2017). Cybe gossip and cybe bullying du ing p ima y school yea s. Psicol. Educ. 23, 73–80. doi: 10.1016/j.pse.2017.05.007 Lo enzo-Se a, U., and Fe ando, P. J. (2006). FACTOR: a compu e p og am o i he explo a o y ac o analysis model. Beha . Res. Me hods Ins. C 38, 88–91. doi: 10.3758/BF03192753 Ma inescu, E., Janssen, O., and Nijs ad, B. A. (2014). Tell me he gossip: he sel - e alua i e unc ion o ecei ing gossip abou o he s. Pe s. Soc. Psychol. B 40, 1668–1680. doi: 10.1177/0146167214554916 Massa , K., Buunk, A. P., and Remp , S. (2012). Age di e ences in women’s endency o gossip a e media ed by hei ma e alue. Pe s. Indi . Di e . 52, 106–109. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.09.013 McAnd ew, F. T. (2014). The “swo d o a woman”: Gossip and emale agg ession. Agg ess. Violen Beh. 19, 196–199. doi: 10.1016/j.a b.2014.04.006 McDonald, K. L., Pu allaz, M., G imes, C. L., Kupe smid , J. B., and Coie, J. D. (2007). Gi l alk: gossip, iendship, and sociome ic s a us. Me ill Palme Qua . 53, 381–411. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2007.0017 Me en, D. E. (1997). The meaning o meanness: popula i y, compe i ion, and con lic among junio high school gi ls. Sociol. Educ. 70, 175–191. doi: 10.2307/2673207 Mon e o, I., and León, O. G. (2007). Guía pa a nomb a los es udios de in es igación en Psicología. In . J. Clin. Hl h. Psyc. 7, 847–862. Mo a a-Ramí ez, M., and Holgado-Tello, F. (2013). Cons uc alidi y o Like scales h ough con i ma o y ac o analysis: a simula ion s udy compa ing di e en me hods o es ima ion based on pea son and polycho ic co ela ions. In . J. Soc. Sci. S ud. 1, 54–61. doi: 10.11114/ijsss. 1i1.27 Mu aki, E. (1990). Fi ing a poly omous i em esponse model o like - ype da a. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 14, 69–71. doi: 10.1177/014662169001400106 Ne o, O., Ne o, B., and De ech-Zeha i (1993). The de elopmen o he endency o gossip ques ionnai e: cons uc and concu en alida ion o a sample o Is aeli college s uden s. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 53, 973–981. doi: 10.1177/0013164493053004010 Noon, M., and Delb idge, R. (1993). News om behind my hand: gossip in o ganiza ions. O gan. S ud. 14, 23–36. doi: 10.1177/017084069301400103 Oluwole, D. A. (2009). Spi i uali y, gende and age ac o s in cybe gossip among Nige ian adolescen s. Cybe psychol. Beha . 12, 323–326. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2008.0285 O ega-Ruiz, R., Del Rey, R., and Casas, J. A. (2016). E alua el bullying y el cybe bullying alidación española del EBIP-Q y del ECIP-Q. Psicol. Educ. 22, 71–79. doi: 10.1016/j.pse.2016.01.004 Paine, R. (1967). Wha is gossip abou ? An al e na i e hypo hesis. Man 2, 278–285. Pe y, D. G., and Paule i, R. E. (2011). Gende and adolescen de elopmen . J. Res. Adolesc. 21, 61–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00715.x Pe e s, K., and Kashima, Y. (2015). Bad habi o social good? How pe cep ions o gossipe mo ali y a e ela ed o gossip con en . Eu . J. Soc. Psychol. 45, 784–798. doi: 10.1002/ejsp,.2123 R De elopmen Co e Team (2008). R: A Language and En i onmen o S a is ical Compu ing [Manual y so wa e de cómpu o]. Vienna: R Founda ion o S a is ical Compu ing. Rome a, E. M., Cano, J. J., Ga cía-Fe nandez, C. M., and O ega-Ruiz, R. (2016). Cybe bullying: social compe ence, mo i a ion and pee ela ionships. Comunica 24, 71–79. doi: 10.3916/C48-2016-07 Rome a, E. M., He e a-López, M., Casas, J. A., and O ega-Ruiz, R. (2017). Mul idimensional social compe ence, mo i a ion and cybe bullying: a s udy wi h Colombian and Spanish adolescen s. J. C oss Cul . Psychol. 48, 1183–1197. doi: 10.1177/0022022116687854 Said-Hung, E. (2014). Jó enes ulne ables y pa icipación mó il en Colombia: es udio sob e el g ado de pa icipación y ap opiación ciudadana en e bene icia ios de p og amas sociales. Inno a 24, 31–44. doi: 10.15446/inno a . 24n52.42504 F on ie s in Psychology | www. on ie sin.o g 9Feb ua y 2018 | Volume 9 | A icle 126