Cited by 43Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in EducationSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

Emotional AI in education and toys: Investigating moral risk awareness in the acceptance of AI technologies from a cross-sectional survey of the Japanese population

Open access
Ho, Manh-Tung, Mantello, Peter, Vuong, Quan-Hoang·2024·Heliyon

Abstract

Emotional artificial intelligence (AI), i.e., affective computing technologies, is rapidly reshaping the education of young minds worldwide. In Japan, government and commercial stakeholders are promulgating emotional AI not only as a neoliberal, cost-saving benefit but also as a heuristic that can improve the learning experience at home and in the classroom. Nevertheless, critics warn of a myriad of risks and harms posed by the technology such as privacy violation, unresolved deeper cultural and systemic issues, machinic parentalism as well as the danger of imposing attitudinal conformity. This study brings together the Technological Acceptance Model and Moral Foundation Theory to examine the cultural construal of risks and rewards regarding the application of emotional AI technologies. It explores Japanese citizens' perceptions of emotional AI in education and children's toys via analysis of a final sample of 2000 Japanese respondents with five age groups (20s–60s) and two sexes equally represented. The linear regression models for determinants of attitude toward emotional AI in education and in toys account for 44 % and 38 % variation in the data, respectively. The analyses reveal a significant negative correlation between attitudes toward emotional AI in both schools and toys and concerns about privacy violations or the dystopian nature of constantly monitoring of children and students' emotions with AI (Education: β DystopianConcern = − .094***; Toys: β PrivacyConcern = − .199***). However, worries about autonomy and bias show mixed results, which hints at certain cultural nuances of values in a Japanese context and how new the technologies are. Concurring with the empirical literature on the Moral Foundation Theory, the chi-square (Χ 2 ) test shows Japanese female respondents express more fear regarding the potential harms of emotional AI technologies for the youth's privacy, autonomy, data misuse, and fairness (p < 0.001). The policy implications of these results and insights on the impacts of emotional AI for the future of human-machine interaction are also provided.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36251

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This lack of transparency inhibits informed consent and amplifies the potential for unintended relational harm, particularly among vulnerable populations.

    “This lack of transparency inhibits informed consent and amplifies the potential for unintended relational harm, particularly among vulnerable populations”

    From Toward an Ethic of Synthetic Relationality: Identity, Intimacy, and Risk in AI-Mediated Roleplay Environments (2025) · cites this paper as Ho, Mantello, and Vuong 2024

    The Results (Emotional AI in children's toys; page unavailable) say parents may lack the literacy to assess opaque data practices and call for protecting vulnerable children from possible harms. The Discussion (Policy implications; page unavailable) warns that smart toys may worsen psychological tendencies in at-risk children. These passages support concerns about transparency and harm, but do not establish that a lack of transparency inhibits informed consent or specifically amplifies relational harm. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [35]Abe K. Iwata S. NEC's Emotion Analysis Solution Supports Work Style Reform and Health Management 2022 NEC Technical Journal 2019 190109

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ho, M.-T., Mantello, P., & Vuong, Q.-H.
Affiliations
  • Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (JP)
  • Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences (VN)
Venue
Heliyon
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-08
Volume
10
Issue
16
Pages
e36251
ISSN
2405-8440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4401537241
Cited by
37
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 2
FWCI
15.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Heliyon (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Japan Science and Technology Agency
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
emotional artificial intelligence, affective computing, technology acceptance, technology acceptance model, toys, education, privacy concerns, autonomy, algorithmic bias, gender differences, human-machine interaction, parentalism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review