Who Defines a “Good Response"? Cultural Adaptation in Generative AI Interactions in Family Contexts

Siying Li; Chen Gao

doi:10.6918/IJOSSER.202609_9(9).0032

Authors

Siying Li Graduate School of Global Business, Kyonggi University, Suwon 16227, South Korea; School of Management, University of Science and Technology Liaoning, Liaoning 114000, China
Chen Gao Graduate School of Global Business, Kyonggi University, Suwon 16227, South Korea

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6918/IJOSSER.202609_9(9).0032

Keywords:

Generative artificial intelligence; Confucian ethics; parenting; cultural adaptation; human-computer interaction; cross-cultural research.

Abstract

As generative artificial intelligence moves more deeply into family life, it may influence how children seek information, express emotion, and form value judgments. The normative problem examined here is therefore not simply whether an AI response appears friendly or reasonable. A further question is whether the same response carries an equivalent educational meaning across different ethical contexts of family life. To address that question, this article treats ren (benevolence), yi (righteousness), li (propriety), zhi (practical wisdom), xin (trustworthiness), xiao (filiality), he (harmony), and chi (moral shame) as analytical lenses. Comparative cultural analysis, conceptual analysis, normative reconstruction, and eight thought experiments are then brought together to consider two sides of AI responses: the values they protect and the relational conditions they may leave insufficiently examined. Five dimensions organize the tensions identified through this analysis: relationality, regulation, discernment, truthfulness, and motivation. On that basis, the article proposes design principles concerning relational sensitivity, age appropriateness, honest feedback, and responsibility-oriented reflection. The framework should, however, be read within its stated limits. It is intended as a contestable and revisable theoretical construction, rather than as empirical evidence about actual parental attitudes or child developmental outcomes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Bedford, O., & Hwang, K.-K. (2003). Guilt and shame in Chinese culture: A cross cultural framework from the perspective of morality and identity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 33(2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00210

[2] Daniels, N. (1979). Wide reflective equilibrium and theory acceptance in ethics. The Journal of Philosophy, 76(5), 256–282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025881

[3] Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

[4] Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

[5] Fei, X. (1998). Xiangtu Zhongguo; Shengyu zhidu [From the soil; Institutions of reproduction]. Peking University Press. (In Chinese)

[6] Gendler, T. S. (2000). Thought experiment: On the powers and limits of imaginary cases. Garland Publishing.

[7] Hall, D. L., & Ames, R. T. (1998). Thinking from the Han: Self, truth, and transcendence in Chinese and Western culture. State University of New York Press.

[8] Hwang, K.-K. (2009). Rujia guanxi zhuyi: Zhexue fansi, lilun jiangou yu shizheng yanjiu [Confucian relationalism: Philosophical reflection, theoretical construction, and empirical research]. Psychological Publishing. (In Chinese)

[9] Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

[10] Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693

[11] Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently ... and why. Free Press.

[12] Peters, R. S. (Ed.). (1967). The concept of education. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

[13] Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438

[14] Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410

[15] Sharma, M., Tong, M., Korbak, T., Duvenaud, D., Askell, A., Bowman, S. R., Durmus, E., Hatfield Dodds, Z., Johnston, S. R., Kravec, S., Maxwell, T., McCandlish, S., Ndousse, K., Rausch, O., Schiefer, N., Yan, D., Zhang, M., & Perez, E. (2024). Towards understanding sycophancy in language models. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2024). https://openreview.net/forum?id=tvhaxkMKAn

[16] Shweder, R. A. (1991). Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in cultural psychology. Harvard University Press.

[17] Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145

[18] UNICEF. (2021). Policy guidance on AI for children 2.0: Recommendations for building AI policies and systems that uphold child rights. https://www.unicef.org/globalinsight/media/2356/file/UNICEF Global Insight policy guidance AI children 2.0 2021.pdf

[19] Wang, W. (2001). Liji yijie [Translation and interpretation of the Book of Rites] (2 vols.). Zhonghua Book Company. (In Chinese)

[20] Wei, J., Huang, D., Lu, Y., Zhou, D., & Le, Q. V. (2023). Simple synthetic data reduces sycophancy in large language models (arXiv:2308.03958). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.03958

[21] Yang, B. (2006). Lunyu yizhu [Translation and annotation of the Analects] (Simplified Chinese ed.). Zhonghua Book Company. (In Chinese)