AI’s Empathy Gap: The Risks of Conversational Artificial Intelligence for Young Children’s Well-Being and Key Ethical Considerations for Early Childhood Education and Care
Open accessAbstract
Rapid technological advancements make it easier than ever for young children to ‘talk to’ artificial intelligence (AI). Conversational AI models spanning education and entertainment include those specifically designed for early childhood education and care, as well as those not designed for young children but easily accessible by them. It is therefore crucial to critically analyse the ethical implications for children's well-being when a conversation with AI is just a click away. This colloquium flags the ‘empathy gap’ that characterises AI systems that are designed to mimic empathy, explaining the risks of erratic or inadequate responses for child well-being. It discusses key social and technical concerns, tracing how conversational AI may be unable to adequately respond to young children's emotional needs and the limits of natural language processing due to AI's operation within predefined contexts determined by training data. While proficient at recognising patterns and data associations, conversational AI can falter when confronted with unconventional speech patterns, imaginative scenarios or the playful, non-literal language that is typical of children's communication. In addition, societal prejudices can infiltrate AI training data or influence the output of conversational AI, potentially undermining young children's rights to safe, non-discriminatory environments. This colloquium therefore underscores the ethical imperative of safeguarding children and responsible child-centred design. It offers a set of practical considerations for policies, practices and critical ethical reflection on conversational AI for the field of early childhood education and care, emphasising the need for transparent communication, continual evaluation and robust guard rails to prioritise children's well-being.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The relatively low number of studies at the primary and secondary levels may be influenced by barriers including ethical concerns related to minors, curricular rigidity, limited technical infrastructure in schools, and perceived risks of deploying emerging technologies in early education.
“On the other hand, the relatively low number of studies at the primary and secondary levels may be influenced by a range of barriers, including ethical concerns related to minors, curricular rigidity, limited technical infrastructure in schools, and the perceived risks associated with deploying emerging technologies in early education [50,51].”
From Systematic review of artificial intelligence in education: trends, benefits, and challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [51]
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
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Literacy in Early Childhood Education: The Challenges and Opportunities
Su, J., Ng, D. T. K., & Chu, S. K. W. (2023) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100124 · Cited by 489 · see citing works
Social Robots for Language Learning: A Review
van den Berghe, R., Verhagen, J., Oudgenoeg‐Paz, O., van der Ven, S. H. G., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2018) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654318821286 · Cited by 382 · see citing works
Chatbots: changing user needs and motivations
Brandtzaeg, P. B., & Følstad, A. (2018) · Interactions · doi:10.1145/3236669 · Cited by 322 · see citing works
Systematic Review of Research Trends in Robotics Education for Young Children
Jung, S., & Won, E.-S. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10040905 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
PopBots: Designing an Artificial Intelligence Curriculum for Early Childhood Education
Williams, R., Park, H. W., Oh, L., & Breazeal, C. (2019) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019729 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Early Childhood Education Journal
(2013) · Early Childhood Education Journal · doi:10.1007/10643.1573-1707 · Cited by 242 · see citing works
Conversational AI: Dialogue Systems, Conversational Agents, and Chatbots
McTear, M. (2021) · Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02176-3 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
(2019) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9781478004493 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Mengesha, Z., Heldreth, C., Lahav, M., Sublewski, J., & Tuennerman, E. (2021) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2021.725911 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Chen, J. J., & Lin, J. C. (2023) · Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood · doi:10.1177/14639491231169813 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Druga, S., Williams, R., Park, H. W., & Breazeal, C. (2018) · ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC) · doi:10.1145/3202185.3202741 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Exploring young children's engagement in joint reading with a conversational agent
Xu, Y., & Warschauer, M. (2020) · ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC) · doi:10.1145/3392063.3394417 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Garg, R., & Sengupta, S. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376631 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Fosch-Villaronga, E., van der Hof, S., Lutz, C., & Tamò-Larrieux, A. (2023) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01295-w · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Kurian, N. C. (2023) · Early Childhood Education Journal · doi:10.1007/s10643-023-01456-0 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Self-citationBecoming clowns: How do digital technologies contribute to young children’s play?
Lafton, T. (2019) · Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood · doi:10.1177/1463949119864207 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Towards Automatic Generation of Peer-Targeted Science Talk in Curiosity-Evoking Virtual Agent
Paranjape, B., Ge, Y., Bai, Z., Hammer, J., & Cassell, J. (2018) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA) · doi:10.1145/3267851.3267894 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Sustained Shared Thinking in the Early Years
Brodie, K. (2014) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315774497 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Bond RR, Engel F, Fuchs M, et al. (2019) Digital empathy secures Frankenstein ' s monster. In: Collaborative european research conference . Collaborative European Research Conference, pp. 335 -349.
- Internet Matters Team (2017) Revealed: The secret life of six year olds. Available at: https://www. internetmatters.org/hub/press\_release/revealed-the-secret-life-of-six-year-olds-online/
- Kurian N (2023b) Toddlers and robots? The ethics of supporting young children with disabilities with AI companions and the implications for children ' s rights. International Journal of Human Rights Education 7(1). Available at: https://repository.usfca.edu/ijhre/vol7/iss1/9
- Neff G and Nagy P (2016) Talking to bots: Symbiotic agency and the case of Tay. International Journal of Communication 10: 4915 -4931.
- Xu Y and Warschauer M (2019) Young children ' s reading and learning with conversational agents. In: CHI EA ' 19: Extended abstracts of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Glasgow, 4 -9 May 2019, pp. 1 -8. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Systematic review of artificial intelligence in education: trends, benefits, and challenges
Garzón, J., Patiño, E., & Marulanda, C. (2025) · Multimodal Technologies and Interaction · doi:10.3390/mti9080084 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
“…studies at the primary and secondary levels may be influenced by a range of barriers, including ethical concerns related to minors, curricular rigidity, limited technical infrastructure in schools, and the perceived risks associated with deploying emerging technologies in early education [50,51].”
- Authors
- Kurian, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kurian, Nomisha
- ORCID
- Kurian, Nomisha
- Venue
- Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2023-10-17
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 132-139
- ISSN
- 1463-9491 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4387707346
- Cited by
- 117
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 64 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 14
- FWCI
- 29.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- conversational AI, empathy gap, child well-being, early childhood education and care, AI ethics, child-centred design, children's rights, responsible AI use
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
