eLibrary
  • Home
  • Sources
  • Search
  • About

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

Siying Li, Chen Gao
International Journal of Social Science and Education Research, (2026), Vol.9, No.9, pp.263-282
Published: September 17, 2026
DOI: 10.6918/IJOSSER.202609_9(9).0032
PDF: Download Full Text PDF
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.

Keywords: Generative artificial intelligence; Confucian ethics; parenting; cultural adaptation; human-computer interaction; cross-cultural research.
APA Citation: Siying Li, Chen Gao (2026). Who Defines a “Good Response"? Cultural Adaptation in Generative AI Interactions in Family Contexts. International Journal of Social Science and Education Research, 9(9), 263-282. https://doi.org/10.6918/IJOSSER.202609_9(9).0032

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)
© 2026 eLibrary · Stand on the shoulders of giants