Design and Governance of Generative AI for Child Users: Cultural-Ethical Translation and Family Relationship Impact Assessment

Authors

  • Siying Li Department of Global Business, Kyonggi University, Suwon 16227, South Korea; School of Management, University of Science and Technology Liaoning, Anshan, Liaoning, 114000, China
  • Chen Gao Department of Global Business, Kyonggi University, Suwon 16227, South Korea
  • Chi Gong Department of Global Business, Kyonggi University, Suwon 16227, South Korea

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/txsy7497

Keywords:

Generative Artificial Intelligence, Child Users, Technology Governance, Family Relationship Impact Assessment, Cultural-Ethical Translation, Confucian Relational Ethics

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) can hand a child an answer that is factually sound and emotionally soothing, yet the child may walk away from it less willing to listen at home. Judging the answer on its own terms would never catch this. This paper introduces family relationship impact assessment (FRIA), an approach for tracing how conversational GenAI becomes involved in the ties between children and the people they live with. The framework was built through conceptual analysis, an integrative reading of the literature, and mapping onto current governance guidance. Five dimensions informed by Confucian relational ethics—relationality, contextual proportionality, judgment, truthfulness, and motivational orientation—form its core, with children's rights bounding how each is interpreted. For every dimension we derive two questions: one asks which human function an assistant must not displace, the other asks what assistance it may legitimately offer. Together they yield ten preliminary indicators dealing with role boundaries, developmental expectations, reasoned judgment, warranted correction, and responsibility repair. Five thought experiments test how the indicators work, and the Govern, Map, Measure, and Manage functions of the NIST AI Risk Management Framework anchor their use. Organizations gain concrete questions for setting product roles, reviewing interactions, and deciding who is responsible for correction. FRIA is still a conceptual proposal: the indicators remain unvalidated, and nothing here shows how often relational harm occurs or whether the suggested controls would actually work.

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00210

[2] Cheng, M., Lee, C., Khadpe, P., Yu, S., Han, D., & Jurafsky, D. (2026). Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence. Science, 391(6792), eaec8352. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aec8352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aec8352

[3] Cyberspace Administration of China, National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Ministry of Public Security, & State Administration for Market Regulation. (2026). Interim measures for the administration of anthropomorphic interactive artificial intelligence services (Order No. 21). https://www.cac.gov.cn/2026-04/10/c_1777558395078289.htm [In Chinese]

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

[5] 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781438405520

[6] 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]

[7] International Organization for Standardization. (2023). Information technology - Artificial intelligence - Guidance on risk management (ISO/IEC 23894:2023). https://www.iso.org/standard/77304.html.

[8] International Organization for Standardization. (2025). Information technology - Artificial intelligence (AI) - AI system impact assessment (ISO/IEC 42005:2025). https://www.iso.org/standard/42005.

[9] Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0

[10] Li, S., & Gao, C. (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.

[11] Livingstone, S., & Pothong, K. (2025). Child rights impact assessment: A policy tool for a rights-respecting digital environment. Policy & Internet, 17(3), e70008. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.70008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.70008

[12] 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

[13] Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(11), 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4

[14] National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1

[15] National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile (NIST AI 600-1). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1

[16] Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., Smith-Loud, J., Theron, D., & Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 33–44). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873

[17] 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.

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

[19] Stahl, B. C., Antoniou, J., Bhalla, N., Brooks, L., Jansen, P., Lindqvist, B., Kirichenko, A., Marchal, S., Rodrigues, R., Santiago, N., Warso, Z., & Wright, D. (2023). A systematic review of artificial intelligence impact assessments. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56(11), 12799–12831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10420-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10420-8

[20] Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606

[21] UNICEF. (2024). Developing global guidance for child rights impact assessments in relation to the digital environment: Summary of initial project findings. https://www.unicef.org/reports/CRIA-responsibletech.

[22] UNICEF. (2025). Guidance on AI and children (Version 3.0): Recommendations for AI policies and systems that uphold child rights. https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/reports/policy-guidance-ai-children.

[23] Wen, Z., Liu, L., & Yao, Y. (2025). Families’ vision of generative AI agents for household safety against digital and physical threats. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9(7), Article CSCW417. https://doi.org/10.1145/3757598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3757598

[24] Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258554

[25] Ye, M., Ibrahim, L., Bo, J. Y., Cheng, M., Mattsson, I., Vennemeyer, D., Kraut, R., & Rathje, S. (2026). What counts as AI sycophancy? A taxonomy and expert survey of a fragmented construct (arXiv:2605.21778). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.21778.

Downloads

Published

28-10-2026

Issue

Section

Articles