Politeness toward ChatGPT: Moral Status, Prompt Performance, and Civil Clarity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54691/rf81rn09Keywords:
ChatGPT, artificial intelligence ethics, politeness prompts, anthropomorphism, human–computer interaction, civil clarity.Abstract
When generative artificial intelligence is soon integrated into everyday life, will it be polite to users of chatbots? This is a how-to-problem in engineering ethics, human-computer interaction, and platform governance. The case study mainly takes ChatGPT as the object of analysis. Currently, the language model is capable of simulating human feelings but does not possess subjectivity, which could be harmed. It's not actually the direct recipient of human politeness obligations. The model output can differ even with a hint of tone adjustment. Please note that this power does not allow the platform to influence the distribution of quality politely. Over-expressive personifications without careful usage may alter users' ways of talking to robots and contribute to shifting the responsibility line. On this basis, the principle of clear civilization is proposed. This part of the interaction should simply describe the goals, context, boundaries, and whether it needs to be verified. Tips in Communication: You speak your mind, but don’t fill the etiquette bedding with no information value and let the system grow into a relationship subject of moral personality. This principle could make sense of efficiency, obligation, and the expression of goodwill of people.
Downloads
References
[1] Altman, S. [@sama]. (2025, April 16). Tens of millions of dollars well spent - you never know [Post]. X. https://x.com/sama/status/1912646035979239430
[2] Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
[3] Cai, H., Shen, B., Jin, L., Hu, L., & Fan, X. (2025). Does tone change the answer? Evaluating prompt politeness effects on modern LLMs: GPT, Gemini, and LLaMA. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.12812
[4] Cecco, L. (2024, February 16). Air Canada ordered to pay customer who was misled by airline's chatbot. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/16/air-canada-chatbot-lawsuit
[5] de Mello, V. O., Inzlicht, M., & Plaks, J. E. (2026). The effects of AI anthropomorphism on trust and responsibility. OSF Preprints. https://osf.io/by8wk/
[6] Dobariya, O., & Kumar, A. (2025). Mind your tone: Investigating how prompt politeness affects LLM accuracy. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04950
[7] Elsweiler, D., Elsweiler, C., & Ziegner, A. (2026). Cooking up politeness in human-AI information seeking dialogue. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09898
[8] Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
[9] Gambino, A., Fox, J., & Ratan, R. A. (2020). Building a stronger CASA: Extending the computers are social actors paradigm. Human-Machine Communication, 1, 71–86. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.1.5
[10] Ho, J. Q. H., Hu, M., Chen, T. X., & Hartanto, A. (2025). Potential and pitfalls of romantic artificial intelligence companions: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 19, Article 100715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100715
[11] Moor, J. H. (2006). The nature, importance, and difficulty of machine ethics. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 18–21. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2006.80
[12] Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
[13] Reitz, B. (2025, July 30). Americans, Danes and Swedes are the least polite to AI, survey finds. YouGov/Stacker. https://ktvz.com/stacker-science/2025/07/30/americans-danes-and-swedes-are-the-least-polite-to-ai-survey-finds/
[14] Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–457. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756
[15] Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). (2008). Culturally speaking: Culture, communication, and politeness theory (2nd ed.). Continuum.
[16] Vallor, S. (2015). Moral deskilling and upskilling in a new machine age: Reflections on the ambiguous future of character. Philosophy & Technology, 28(1), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-014-0156-9
[17] Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31(3), 361–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243905285847
[18] Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface. Psychological Review, 114(4), 843–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.843
[19] Yin, Z., Wang, H., Horio, K., Kawahara, D., & Sekine, S. (2024). Should we respect LLMs? A cross-lingual study on the influence of prompt politeness on LLM performance. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Social Influence in Conversations, 9–35. https://aclanthology.org/2024.sicon-1.2/
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Scientific Journal of Intelligent Systems Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
