Gender and Family Studies

Gender and Family Studies

Challenges of digital twin interaction in couples' relationships

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Narges Heshmati 1
Seyed Alireza Tabatabaei 2
Hamed Mohammadi 3
1 University of Religions and Denominations, Qom, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, University of Judicial Sciences, Administrative Services, Qom, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Women and Family Studies, University of Religions and Denominations, Qom, Iran
Abstract
In recent decades, the digital transformation has unprecedentedly reshaped the boundaries of human-technology interaction. A prominent manifestation of this transformation is the emergence of human digital twins; intelligent, interactive, and data-driven representations of real individuals. Initially developed in industrial and healthcare domains, they are now permeating social and human spheres, particularly the institution of the family. Marital relationships, as the most fundamental form of human interaction, are subject to the direct influence of this technology, influences that can simultaneously present opportunities and pose threats.
This research aims to analyze the challenges of digital twins’ interaction in marital relationships. It seeks to examine the legal, ethical, and social consequences of this emerging technology within the family structure and to lay the groundwork for designing regulatory and preventive policies within the legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran.Utilizing a descriptive-analytical method and an interdisciplinary approach, this study conducts a conceptual and functional analysis of human digital twins. Drawing on library and online resources, it scrutinizes the social and legal effects of this phenomenon on marital relations. Furthermore, by referencing upstream documents such as Article 10 of the Constitution and Clauses 5, 9, 10, and 14 of the General Family Policies, a framework for a strategic approach to this technology is provided.
The research findings indicate that human digital twins, due to characteristics such as specificity, continuous and data-driven representation, live interaction capability, and behavior prediction and optimization potential, can play a role in marital relationships. However, in the absence of effective regulation and ethical frameworks, this technology faces numerous challenges:
• Undermining spousal privacy through the collection and analysis of biometric and psychological data without informed consent. Digital twins, by accessing users' biometric, emotional, and behavioral data, erase the boundary between personal and family privacy. Unintended disclosure of hidden feelings or behaviors can lead to violations of emotional and psychological privacy, resulting in data anxiety and diminished human dignity.
• The formation of alternative relationships with digital twins, which can threaten intimacy and trust between spouses. Individuals may become dependent on a digital version of their spouse or even an independent twin instead of engaging in real communication with them. Digital twins may gradually replace human skills in empathy, conflict resolution, and dialogue. This dependence leads to the "outsourcing of mental functions" and, in the long term, deprives marital relationships of cognitive autonomy. This phenomenon shifts attachment from the real person to an artificial version and weakens genuine emotions. Additionally, the unintended disclosure of personal information or analysis by twins without the individual's consent erodes the sense of control and transparency in the relationship. Consequently, human relationships transition from free and honest dialogue to algorithmic interactions.
• The emergence of cognitive or data-based infidelity, where emotional interaction with a twin is considered akin to betrayal. Uninformed use of a spouse's data or emotional interaction with an intelligent system could constitute non-physical infidelity. This type of betrayal occurs not in the body but within data and the mind, severely destabilizing marital trust.
• Algorithmic discrimination in analyzing spousal behavior based on incomplete or biased data. The training algorithms for digital twins may be designed on biased data, reproducing gender or class stereotypes; a practice that conflicts with gender justice and the principle of equality in jurisprudence and the constitution.
• Security risks arising from the infiltration, hacking, or misuse of sensitive spousal data on digital platforms. Breaching the digital twins of spouses and hacking them can lead to the exposure of private information, the manipulation of family relationships, or emotional blackmail.
Given the aforementioned challenges, the research emphasizes the necessity of designing regulatory mechanisms, formulating ethical frameworks, enhancing the digital literacy of couples, and strengthening family resilience in the face of technological developments. Addressing human digital twins is not only a research imperative but also a strategic mission in realizing the family-oriented policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
It is suggested that legislative bodies, research centers, and executive agencies, through foresight, undertake the development of specific regulations regarding human interaction with digital twins, design an ethical system based on human dignity, and provide public education in digital literacy to prevent the potential harms of this technology to the institution of the family.
Keywords
Human Digital Twin
Regulation
Privacy
Family Consolidation
Artificial Intelligence
1. Altman, I. (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding. Brooks/Cole Publishing.
2. Boateng, G., Pauly, T., Lüscher, J., Scholz, U., Speichert, M., Fleisch, E. & Kowatsch, T. (2020, October). Towards Real‑Time Multimodal Emotion Recognition Among Couples. In: Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3382507.3421154
3. Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. Basic Books.
4. Chen, J., Yi, C., Okegbile, S. D., Cai, J. & Shen, X. (2023). Networking Architecture and Key Supporting Technologies for Human Digital Twin in Personalized Healthcare: A Comprehensive Survey. arXiv Preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.03930
5. Clark, A. & Chalmers, D. (1998). The Extended Mind. Analysis, 58 (1). https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7
6. Corral-Acero, J., Margara, F., Marciniak, M., et al. (2020). The 'Digital Twin' to Enable the Vision of Precision Cardiology. European Heart Journal – Digital Health, 1 (1). https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/41/48/4556/5775673
7. Council of Europe (2001). Convention on Cybercrime (Budapest Convention). European Treaty Series. n.185. Retrieved from: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/185
8. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police and Punish the Poor. St. Martin's Press. https://lthj.qut.edu.au/article/view/1386
9. Fuller, A., Fan, Z., Day, C. & Barlow, C. (2020). Digital Twin: Enabling Technology, Challenges and Open Research. IEEE Access, 8, 108952–108971. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2998358
10. Grieves, M. & Vickers, J. (2017). Digital Twin: Mitigating Unpredictable, Undesirable Emergent Behavior in Complex Systems. in: F.-J. Kahlen, S. Flumerfelt & A. Alves (eds). Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Complex Systems, Springer. pp.85-113. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306223791_Digital_Twin_Mitigating_Unpredictable_Undesirable_Emergent_Behavior_in_Complex_Systems
11. HereAfter AI. (2022). Retrieved from: https://www.hereafter.ai
12. Ho, A., Hancock, J. & Miner, A. S. (2018). Psychological, Relational and Emotional Effects of Self-Disclosure in Human-Agent Interaction. Journal of Communication, 68 (6), 965-993. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30100620/
13. Leitao, P., et al. (2021). Digital Twins for Smart Manufacturing and Smart Cities: A Review. Annual Reviews in Control, 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2020.09.001
14. Li, M., Zhang, L. & Wang, X. (2022). Emotional Dependence on AI Companions: Longitudinal Study on Relational Outcomes. AI & Society, 37 (3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01162-9
15. Lu, F. & Liu, B. (2023). Affective Digital Twins for Digital Human: Bridging the Gap in Human‑Machine Affective Interaction. arXiv Preprint arXiv: 2308.10207
16. Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power: Two Works by Niklas Luhmann. Wiley. https://www.wiley.com/en-gb/Trust+and+Power-p-9781509519453
17. Mittelstadt, B. D. (2017). From Individual to Group Privacy in Big Data Analytics. Philosophy & Technology, 30 (4), 475-494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0253-7
18. Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S. & Floridi, L. (2016). The Ethics of Algorithms: Mapping the Debate. Big Data & Society, 3 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
19. Mohammed, A. M., Mohammad, A. A., Ortiz, J. A., Neumann, C., Bochenek, G., Reiners, D. & Cruz-Neira, C. (2025). A Human Digital Twin Architecture for Knowledge-based Interactions and Context-Aware Conversations. arXiv, https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.06714
20. Momoh, B. & Yahaya, S. (2025). Data Sensor Fusion in Digital Twin Technology for Enhanced Capabilities in a Home Environment. arXiv Preprint, https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08874
21. OECD. (2022). Artificial Intelligence in Society: Contract Law Implications. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/digital/ai/
22. Perusquía‑Hernández, M., Gómez Jáuregui, D. A., Cuberos‑Balda, M. & Paez‑Granados, D. (2019). Robot Mirroring: A Framework for Self‑Tracking Feedback Through Empathy with an Artificial Agent Representing the Self. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1903.08524
23. Replika, AI. (2024). Retrieved from: https://replika.com
24. Risko, E. F. & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive Offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20 (9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002
25. Shin, D. (2021). The Effects of Explainability and Causability on Perception, Trust, and Acceptance: Implications for Explainable AI. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 102551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102551
26. Shin, D. & Park, Y. J. (2019). Role of Fairness, Accountability and Transparency in Algorithmic Decision Making: Implications for Trust. Computers in Human Behavior, 106872. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563219301591
27. Tao, F., Qi, Q., Liu, A. & Kusiak, A. (2018). Digital Twins and Cyber–Physical Systems toward Smart Manufacturing and Industry 4.0: Correlation and Comparison. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 14 (4). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209580991830612X
28. Tao, F., Zhang, M. & Nee, A.Y.C. (2021). Architecting Digital Twins for Cyber-Physical Systems. in: Digital Twin Driven Smart Manufacturing, Springer.
29. Tao, F., Zhang, M., Liu, Y. & Nee, A. Y. C. (2019). Digital Twin in Industry: State-of-the-Art. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 15 (4), 2405-2415.
30. Tekinerdogan, B. & Verdouw, C. (2020). Systems Architecture Design Pattern Catalog for Developing Digital Twins. Sensors, 20 (18), 5103.
31. Turkle, S. (2017). Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. New York: Penguin Books.
32. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386695
33. Venkatesh, K. P., Raza, M. M. & Kvedar, J. C. (2022). Health Digital Twins as Tools for Precision Medicine: Considerations for Computation, Implementation and Regulation. NPJ Digital Medicine, 5:150. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-022-00694-7.
34. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B. & Floridi, L. (2017). Transparent, Explainable and Accountable AI for Robotics. Science Robotics, 2 (6), eaan6080. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aan6080
35. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal and Hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research, 23 (1). https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001.
Gender and Family Studies
Volume 13, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
Spring 2025
Pages 157-186