Culturally-Aware Artificial Intelligence: Personal Values and Technology Acceptance among AI Researchers in China and Germany
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4108/eetiot.10618Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, Cross-Cultural Collaboration, Human-AI Collaboration, Responsible AI, Personal Values, Technology AcceptanceAbstract
INTRODUCTION: AI development is driven by innovation and cultural contexts of collaboration. As AI and IoT systems shape global interaction, understanding cultural influences on technology perception is key for adaptive design and governance. This study compares personal values and AI acceptance among researchers in China and Germany – two leading yet culturally distinct ecosystems.
OBJECTIVES: To identify value patterns supporting trustworthy AI and effective cross-cultural collaboration in research and IoT contexts.
METHODS: A cross-national survey (n = 200) using the Portraits Value Questionnaire (PVQ) and the Digital Technology Acceptance Scale (DTAS) examined factors shaping AI perception.
RESULTS: Chinese participants show higher AI acceptance and stress self-enhancement and conservation; Germans emphasize self-transcendence and greater caution.
CONCLUSION: Findings inform culture-aware AI design, value-aligned governance, and intercultural collaboration.
Downloads
References
[1] Hofstede G. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991.
[2] Kersten GE, Koeszegi ST, Vetschera R. The effects of culture in computer-mediated negotiations. J. Inf. Technol. Theory Appl. 2003; 5(2):1–28.
[3] MacGregor E, Hsieh Y, Kruchten P. The impact of intercultural factors on global software development. In: Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering; 2005; Saskatoon, SK, Canada. Place of publication: IEEE; 2005. p. 920–926. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCECE.2005.1557127
[4] Herzwurm G, Schoop M, Krams B. Intercultural requirements engineering for software development: Culture and its impact on requirements negotiation. In: Proceedings of the REFSQ 2011 Workshops REEW, EPICAL and RePriCo, the REFSQ 2011 Empirical Track, and the REFSQ 2011 Doctoral Symposium; 2011. p. 1–7.
[5] Chun J, Witt CS, Elkins K. Comparative global AI regulation: Policy perspectives from the EU, China, and the US. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21279; 2024.
[6] Sahota N, Ashley M, Ibaraki S. Own the A.I. Revolution: Unlock Your Artificial Intelligence Strategy to Disrupt Your Competition. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2019.
[7] Frimpong V. Cultural and regional influences on global AI apprehension. Qeios. 2024; 6(11). https://doi.org/10.32388/YRDGEX.3
[8] Iamandi IE, Constantin LG, Munteanu SM, Cernat-Gruici B. Insights on the relationship between artificial intelligence skills and national culture. Amfiteatru Econ. 2024; 26(67):741–761.
[9] Groumpos PP. Ethical AI and global cultural coherence: Issues and challenges. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 2022; p. 358–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.12.052
[10] Lerma DFP, Kwarteng MA, Pílik M. Influence of personal cultural orientations in Artificial Intelligence adoption in small and medium-sized enterprises. In: New Sustainable Horizons in Artificial Intelligence and Digital Solutions. Proceedings of the 22nd IFIP WG 6.11 Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society (I3E 2023); 2023; Curitiba, Brazil. Place of publication: Springer; 2023. p. [page numbers if available]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50040-4_3
[11] Whittlestone J, Nyrup R, Alexandrova A, Dihal K, Cave S. Ethical and Societal Implications of Algorithms, Data, and Artificial Intelligence: A Roadmap for Research. London: Nuffield Foundation; 2019.
[12] Stanford University. 2024 AI Index Report. 2024. Available from: https://aiindex.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/HAI_AI-Index-Report-2024.pdf [accessed 2024 Jul 1].
[13] Cihanová J. AI regulation: The EU and China approach. Acta Facultatis Iuridicae Universitatis Comenianae. 2024.
[14] Roberts H, Cowls J, Hine E, Morley J, Wang V, Taddeo M, Floridi L. Governing artificial intelligence in China and the European Union: Comparing aims and promoting ethical outcomes. Inf. Soc. 2023; 39(2):79–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2022.2124565
[15] Cath C, Wachter S, Mittelstadt B, Taddeo M, Floridi L. Artificial intelligence and the “good society”: The US, EU, and UK approach. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 2018; 24(2):505–528.
[16] Floridi L, Cowls J, Beltrametti M, Chatila R, Chazerand P, Dignum V. AI4People – An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks. Minds Mach. (forthcoming, 2018). Atomium – European Institute for Science, Media and Democracy; Available from: https://www.eismd.eu/ai4people [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[17] Hofstede G. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2001.
[18] Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 25. New York: Academic Press; 1992. p. 1–65.
[19] Lammert D, Betz S, Porras J. Software engineers in transition: Self-role attribution and awareness for sustainability. In: Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2022); 2022. p. 7794–7803. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/10125/80279 [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[20] Schwartz SH, Melech G, Lehmann A, Burgess S, Harris M. Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2001; 32:519–542.
[21] Schorr A. Skala zur Erfassung der Digitalen Technologieakzeptanz – Weiterentwicklung zum testtheoretisch geprüften Instrument. In: Digitale Arbeit, digitaler Wandel, digitaler Mensch? 66. Kongress für Arbeitswissenschaft; 2020; Dortmund, Germany. p. 1–7.
[22] Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending certain Union legislative acts. EUR-Lex; 2024. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1689 [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[23] European Commission. Regulatory framework for AI. Digital Strategy: Shaping Europe’s Digital Future. Available from: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[24] Reuters. China issues temporary rules for generative AI services. The Standard. Available from: https://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news/fc/3/205912/China-issues-temporary-rules-for-generative-ai-services [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[25] Han XZ. Logic update and path optimisation for generative AI governance. Admin. Law Rev. 2023; 6:30–42. ISSN: 1005-0078.
[26] Duan W. Build a robust and agile artificial intelligence ethics and governance framework. Sci. Res. 2020; 15(3):11–15, 108–109. [27] Zeng J. Artificial intelligence and China’s authoritarian governance. Int. Aff. 2020; 96(6):1441–1459.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiaa172
[28] Del Castillo AP. The AI regulation: Entering an AI regulatory winter? Why an ad hoc directive on AI in employment is required (ETUI Policy Brief). Brussels: ETUI; 2021. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3873786 [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[29] Webster G, Creemers R, Kania E, Triolo P. Full Translation: China’s “New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan” (2017). DigiChina. Available from: https://digichina.stanford.edu/work/full-translation-chinas-new-generation-artificial-intelligence-development-plan-2017 [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[30] Song B. Applying ancient Chinese philosophy to artificial intelligence. Noema Mag. Available from: https://www.noemamag.com/applying-ancient-chinese-philosophy-to-artificial-intelligence [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[31] Zeng Y. Harmonious artificial intelligence principles. Harmonious AI. Available from: http://harmonious-ai.org/ [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[32] Zeng Y, Lu E, Huangfu C. Linking artificial intelligence principles. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04814; 2018. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.04814 [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[33] European Commission. The EU invests in artificial intelligence only 4% of what the U.S. spends on it. EISMEA Newsroom. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/eismea/items/864247/en [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[34] Guntram W. Europe may be the world’s AI referee, but referees don’t win. Politico. Available from: https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-may-be-the-worlds-ai-referee-but-referees-dont-win-margrethe-vestager/ [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[35] EY. Political agreement reached on the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. 2023. Available from: https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/ai/ey-eu-ai-act-political-agreement-overview-10-december-2023.pdf [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[36] Xia LQ. Diplomatic relationship building in the age of generative AI: The European Union and China. Place Brand. Public Dipl. 2024; 20(1):4.
[37] Schwartz SH. Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? J. Soc. Issues. 1994; 50:19–45.
[38] Rokeach M. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press; 1973.
[39] Kluckhohn C. Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: An exploration in definition and classification. In: Parsons T, Shils E, editors. Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1951. p. 388–433.
[40] Hofstede G. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1980.
[41] Schwartz SH. An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2012; 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116 [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[42] Schwartz SH, Cieciuch J, Vecchione M, Davidov E, Fischer R, Beierlein C, Ramos A, Verkasalo M, Lönnqvist JE, Demirutku K, Dirilen-Gumus O, Konty M. Refining the theory of basic individual values. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2012; 103:663–688.
[43] Thew S, Sutcliffe A. Value-based requirements engineering: Method and experience. Requir. Eng. 2018; 23(4):443–464.
[44] Ferrario MA, Winter E. Applying human values theory to software engineering practice: Lessons and implications. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 2022; 49(3):973–990.
[45] Friedman B, Hendry DG. Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2019.
[46] Kelly S, Kaye SA, Oviedo-Trespalacios O. What factors contribute to the acceptance of artificial intelligence? A systematic review. Telemat. Inform. 2023; 77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101925
[47] Davis FD. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results [dissertation]. Cambridge, MA: Sloan School of Management, MIT; 1986.
[48] Davis FD. On the relationship between HCI and technology acceptance research. In: Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems: Foundations. New York: Routledge; 2015. p. 409–415.
[49] Schorr A. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and its importance for digitalization research: A review. In: International Symposium on Technikpsychologie (TecPsy). Warsaw: Sciendo; 2023. p. 55–65. https://doi.org/10.2478/9788366675896-005 [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[50] Feng GC, Su X, Lin Z, He Y, Luo N, Zhang Y. Determinants of technology acceptance: Two model-based meta-analytic reviews. Journalism Mass Commun. Q. 2021; 98(1):83–104.
[51] Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manage. Sci. 1989; 35(8):982–1003.
[52] Seibert D, Godulla A, Wolf C. Understanding how personality affects the acceptance of technology: A literature review. Leipzig; 2021. Available from: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-75164-7 [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[53] Sunny S, Patrick L, Rob R. Impact of cultural values on technology acceptance and technology readiness. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019; 77:89–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.017
[54] Belanche D, et al. Integrating trust and personal values into the technology acceptance model: The case of e-government services adoption. Cuad. Econ. Dir. Empres. 2012; 15:192–204.
[55] Schmidt P, Bamberg S, Davidov E, Herrmann J, Schwartz SH. Die Messung von Werten mit dem “Portraits Value Questionnaire.” Z. Sozialpsychol. 2007; 38(4):261–275. https://doi.org/10.1024/0044-3514.38.4.261
[56] Jia S, Ling L, Chen H, et al. The characteristics of Chinese people's system of values and its compatibility to core socialist values. J. Psychol. Sci. 2019.
[57] Li J. Assessing Schwartz’s refined value theory in the Chinese context. China Media Res. 2016; 12(1):95–107.
[58] Teo T, Lee CB, Chai CS. Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2007; 24:128–143.
[59] Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 2000; 46(2):186–204.
Pfleeger SL, Kitchenham BA. Principles of survey research: Part 1: Turning lemons into lemonade. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes. 2001; 26(6):16–18.
https://doi.org/10.1145/505532.505535 [61] Jing R, Graham JL. Values versus regulations: How culture plays its role. J. Bus. Ethics. 2008; 80(4):791–806.
[62] Baldwin R, Scott C, Hood C. A Reader on Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998.
[63] Friedman LM. Legal culture and social development. Law Soc. Rev. 1969; 4:19–46.
[64] Liu M. Survey report on the competitive mindset of young Chinese people (2023). CNKI. 2023. Available from: https://xueshu.baidu.com/usercenter/paper/show?paperid=1d750av0r1770p005d1k0ga09e467086 [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[65] Ni J. The phenomenon of “involution” in education and the research on parents’ educational anxiety. Adv. Educ. 2024; 14(3):70–75. https://doi.org/10.12677/AE.2024.143331 [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[66] Fan Q. Analysis of the 996 work system based on the freedom of choice theory. Front. Bus. Econ. Manag. (FBEM). 2023; 8(3):114–118. https://doi.org/10.54097/fbem.v8i3.7789 [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[67] Lu L, Gilmour R. Culture and conceptions of happiness: Individual-oriented and social-oriented SWB. J. Happiness Stud. 2004; 5:269–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-004-8789-5
[68] Huff E, Bonde A. AI meets consumer insights: Welcome to the era of AICI. Ipsos Views. 2022.
[69] Lammert D. Bridging Academic Software Sustainability Design with Corporate Business Planning [dissertation]. Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaensis 1126. Lappeenranta: LUT University; 2024. Available from: https://lutpub.lut.fi/handle/10024/166849 [accessed 2025 Jul 21].
[70] Simonsen J, Robertson T. Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. London: Routledge; 2012.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dominic Lammert, Ming Liu, Stefanie Betz, Jacqueline Lammert, Jürgen Pfeffer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 license, which permits unlimited use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium so long as the original work is properly cited.
