The Impact of National Culture PDF

VINE
The impact of national culture traits on the usage of web 2.0 technologies
Vincent M. Ribière, Maliha Haddad, Philippe Vande Wiele,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Vincent M. Ribière, Maliha Haddad, Philippe Vande Wiele, (2010) "The impact of national
culture traits on the usage of web 2.0 technologies", VINE, Vol. 40 Issue: 3/4, pp.334-361, doi:
10.1108/03055721011071458
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03055721011071458
Downloaded by Univerzitet u Beogradu At 05:53 24 May 2017 (PT)
Downloaded on: 24 May 2017, At: 05:53 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 47 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1948 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2009),"WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 Iss
1 pp. 120-134 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270910931215
(2014),"Implementing Web 2.0 tools in organisations", The Learning Organization, Vol. 21 Iss 1 pp. 2-5
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TLO-08-2013-0042
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:464842 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0305-5728.htm
VINE
40,3/4 The impact of national culture
traits on the usage of web 2.0
technologies
334
Vincent M. Ribière
The Institute for Knowledge and Innovation (IKI-SEA),
Bangkok University, Bangkok, Thailand
Maliha Haddad
School of Business, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA, and
Philippe Vande Wiele
School of Management, New York Institute of Technology, Adilya, Bahrain
Abstract
Purpose – Web 2.0 technologies are becoming popular and are being used not only for social
networking but also to facilitate communication and increase knowledge sharing in the work
environment. Extensive research has been conducted in the past to understand the factors affecting the
adoption and use of IT systems but few have studied the influence of national culture on such adoption
models. When it comes to web 2.0 usage, the literature is only emerging and the role of national culture
has not been addressed. The purpose of this paper is to fill this gap.
Design/methodology/approach – In order to better understand the factors that affect the use of
web 2.0 technologies and the influence of national culture on it, data were collected from 376 young
adults in the age range of 18-29 from the USA, Thailand and Bahrain. A model was developed and
statistically tested to understand the influence of national culture traits, social grooming aspects,
efficiency, online privacy, perceived usefulness, subjective norms and gender.
Findings – Based on the type of web 2.0 usage (expressive or instrumental) different variables were
demonstrated to be significant predictors. For expressive usage, uncertainty avoidance, maintaining
relationships, online privacy and perceived usefulness were significant. For instrumental usage,
long-term orientation and perceived usefulness were significant. A ranking of various types of web 2.0
usage was also created, showing very few differences among countries.
Research limitations/implications – This research is the first step in a series of research activities
that should be conducted to better understand the influence of culture in the adoption and usage of
web 2.0 technologies. The sample was composed only of “Millennial” generation students and should
be extended to other generations and to other countries with markedly different cultural profiles.
Practical implications – The findings of the paper help to better understand the usage of web 2.0
technologies by young adults who are about to enter the labor market and are likely to use Enterprise
2.0 applications in their work environment. Since web 2.0 technologies are centered on the concepts of
communication, collaboration and information sharing, they will influence the behavior of future
knowledge workers in terms of knowledge sharing. Accordingly, better understanding of web 2.0 use
will help to improve the understanding of Enterprise 2.0 and knowledge management tools usage in a
global environment.
Originality/value – This paper’s original contribution stems from the fact that the influence of
VINE: The journal of information and national culture on the use of web 2.0 has not yet been addressed in the literature.
knowledge management systems
Vol. 40 No. 3/4, 2010
Keywords Worldwide web, Culture, Communication technologies, National cultures
pp. 334-361 Paper type Research paper
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0305-5728
DOI 10.1108/03055721011071458
1. Introduction Web 2.0
It is difficult to find a concise, generally agreed upon definition of web 2.0, a term technologies
popularized by Tim O’ Reilly (2007). To some, such as Tim Berners-Lee, there is no real
novelty in web 2.0 since its applications are based on the internet platform and
infrastructure and use the http protocol. What many agree on is that it is a new phase
in internet evolution which represents a paradigm shift in how individuals
communicate and collaborate with each other and the creation of their own user 335
experiences. A broad range of technologies and applications are categorized as web 2.0,
such as blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, socially-based applications such as Facebook,
Myspace, YouTube, Flickr and many others. Web 2.0 includes a wide range of web
sites where users create, produce, edit, and mix content without extensive technical
knowledge. Web 2.0, web 2.0 technologies, web 2.0 applications and web 2.0 sites are
terms that are often used interchangeably.
Generally, web 2.0 is described as being people-centric, participatory, interactive,
engaging, collaborative, emphasizing social interactions, and providing new

opportunities for individuals and businesses. A study by Tufekci (2008a)
distinguishes between the expressive (social) and instrumental (non-social) use of
the internet. Expressive internet usage is defined as the practice of social networking
while instrumental internet usage involves knowledge and information seeking as well
as e-commerce.
This paper explores the impact of national culture on the adoption and usage of web
2.0 technologies by three groups of undergraduate students from three different
countries: the US, Thailand and Bahrain. Some of the questions raised are: how do
national cultural traits, personal concerns, motives, beliefs and demographics influence
the purpose of web 2.0 usage (expressive and instrumental)? What can we learn
from the analysis of these different cultural groups in terms of internet usage and what
are the implications on cultural, social and business level? In a global survey conducted
by McKinsey & Company (2007), more than three-fourth of senior executives who
participated in the study indicated that web 2.0 applications are of strategic nature, and
plan to increase their investment in developing new applications.
2. Studies and factors related to web 2.0 usage

Many studies indicate an increasing and rapid adoption of web 2.0, especially social
networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook and MySpace. Actually, studies show that
80-90 percent of college students have a profile on such sites (Gross et al., 2005; Lampe
et al., 2006; Stutzman, 2006). Several theoretical technology acceptance models, rooted
in information systems, psychology and sociology, were developed to explain user
intention and acceptance of new technology such as the ones based on the technology
acceptance model and extensions (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2003) which provide a
useful starting point for analyzing technology adoption by individuals. However, the
technologies that are used within the web 2.0 scope require added dimensions and
understanding due to their collaborative, participatory and social characteristics. We
found that research on web 2.0 technologies adoption factors is still in the exploratory
stage and focuses mainly on social networking. A relevant study, based on the
theoretical framework of Dunbar (1998) and Goffman (1959), groups SNS activities in
two categories: social grooming and self presentation (Tufekci, 2008b). According to
Dunbar, gossip and people curiosity are the human version of social grooming in
VINE primates that are used to form bonds, affirm relationships, establish alliances and learn
40,3/4 about hierarchies. Social grooming skills provide a competitive advantage in
improving a person’s status, reputation and accumulation of social capital. Many of the
activities individuals engage in on SNS sites replicate the functions of social grooming.
Other activities on SNS are forms of self presentation by posting personalized profiles,
comments on what likes and dislikes, joining groups and linking to friends. Tufekci
336 proposes two major uses of the internet: expressive and instrumental. According to
Tufekci:
The expressive internet use refers to the practice and performance of technologically
mediated sociality: using the internet to perform and realize social interactions,
self-presentation, public performance, social capital management, social monitoring, and
the production, maintenance and furthering of social ties.
The instrumental internet usage refers to “information seeking, knowledge gathering
and commercial transactions on the internet, and non-social communication involved

in such transactions. This is the internet of online banking, shopping and checking the
weather.” We will use this usage dichotomy (instrumental and expressive) for this
study.
Another area of interest to researchers is the concern for privacy in using web 2.0.
Participation in many of the web 2.0 activities involves self-disclosure (Tufekci, 2008a).
Concerns about privacy may discourage use (Acquisti and Gross, 2006). Despite the
existence of privacy controls for numerous social networking sites (SNS), many users
do not use them. According to Tufekci, many college students post personal
information and freely add most people who ask to be “friended” with negative
consequences, which are frequently reported in the media, resulting from SNS posts
and ranging from denied diplomas to lost jobs.
A study of particular interest to this research explores user’s experience on
Facebook, which is considered to be one of the most popular social networking sites, to
understand its success and popularity. The findings of the study help in understanding
usability based on user’s experience (Hart et al., 2008). The Facebook features that were
rated positively are: browsing photos, checking profiles, joining a group, reading the
wall, finding old friends, sharing photos, finding new friends, updating profiles,
creating a profile, joining a network, using an application and adding an application.
These features were rated based on experience or reason for use such as excitement,
self-expression, curiosity, fun and enjoyment.
The results indicate that the often selected experiences were curiosity and
enjoyment. According to the study, the most significant factors that pertain to user
experience are:
.
Pleasure. A social network site provides an enjoyable experience by facilitating
social interaction through a plethora of methods of interacting with friends.
.
Curiosity and fun. This is provided by enticing users to find out more about their
friends. A user is drawn in through the mini feeds, groups, photos and
applications. Although this may cause page clutter, a user ignores the clutter in
order to find out more information about their friends.
.
Identification and self-expression. Relates to representing oneself to other people
in social situations. This is done through the creation of personal profiles which
allows one to express one’s self and reflect one’s values and identity in many
different ways, such as exchanging photos or choosing to belong to different Web 2.0
interest groups. technologies
. Surprise and serendipity. Refers to the positive aspect of making discoveries by
chance (Leong et al., 2005) such as the opportunity to make new friends and find
old friends.
.
Concern for privacy. This represents some drawbacks to accessing other
members data in terms of finding what your friends have been doing and looking
337
up new and old friends.
The aforementioned research demonstrated that basic principles of human behavior

can be used to explain the adoption and current trends in the usage of web 2.0
technologies. The worldwide web and in particular web 2.0 technologies are envisioned
to mirror real-life human activities, in which these sites’ respective functionalities
appeal to basic needs of human nature. From a business perspective, these activities
present a challenge for businesses to find out how best to leverage the usage of the web
by embracing and incorporating them into their business activities.
3. Studies related to national culture and its impact on IT use

3.1 National culture
According to Hofstede, culture is “the collective programming of the mind that
distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” (Hofstede,
2001). For comparing different cultures with each other, Hofstede’s model is probably
the most well known study in terms of descriptive dimensions in the cross cultural
context. A paradigm of four polar dimensions was introduced at first (Hofstede, 1980)
and later extended with a fifth dimension (Hofstede, 1991): power distance, uncertainty
avoidance, individualism, masculinity and long term orientation.
According to Hofstede (1980, 2001) we can concisely define the dimensions as
follows:
.
Uncertainty avoidance (UA). The degree of preference of people towards
structured over unstructured circumstances or situations. This dimension ranges
over a continuum from flexible (low UA) to very rigid (high UA).
.
Power distance (PD). The degree of acceptance or perception of normality in
terms of inequality among people of a country. This dimension varies over a
continuum from favoring equality (low PD) to accepting inequality (high PD).
. Masculinity (MASC). Masculine societies value traits like assertiveness,
performance, success and competition, whereas on the opposite of the
spectrum (also referred to as femininity) societies value quality of life, social
relationships, solidarity, etc. This dimension ranges from femininity (low MASC)
to masculinity (high MASC).
.
Individualism (IND). This dimension captures the degree to which people act as
individuals and are expected to look after themselves and their family. The
opposite of the spectrum – also referred to as collectivism – sees society as a
cohesive group and expects people within it to act accordingly in return for
unquestioning loyalty. This dimension ranges over a continuum between
Collectivism (low IND) and Individualism (high IND).
VINE .
Long-term orientation (LTO). This dimension describes the extent to which a
40,3/4 society has an outlook on life that is long term. Short term orientation (Low LTO)
corresponds to values such as respect for traditions and social obligation
fulfillment, whereas long term orientation (high LTO) supports values such as
thrift and perseverance.
338 3.2 The impact of culture on IT usage

Research on the extent to which national culture impacts the usage of new
technologies, including IT usage is still limited and lacks grounded modeling to
explain the effect of culture on technology adoption (Steers et al., 2008). However, we
can expect a certain impact of national culture values on technology adoption as this
occurs in a social context, which is comprised of values and patterns of behavior. By no
means do we consider the role of national culture in technology adoption to be
exclusive. Diamond (1999), Porter (2000), and Landes (2000) all identify a multitude of
cultural factors, interactively affecting technology evolution, and its adoption. We

concur with their position.
Many papers in the literature (Bagchi et al., 2004; Ein-Dor et al., 1993; Harvey, 1999;
Palvia, 1998; Schneider and Barsoux, 2003; Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004; Lee and
Ungson, 2008) suggest the linkage between technology adoption and some aspects of
national culture, but none provide a solid framework to fully explore the connection.
This paper contributes to the future development of such a model.
Straub et al. (1997) state that the technology adoption model (TAM) was not
comprehensive in comparing technology adoption among cultures. In their study,
TAM was useful for describing the case of Switzerland, but did not hold true for Japan.
This was attributed to the specific national culture. McCoy (2002) also points to the
need for some due diligence in applying TAM based models across cultures.
The choice of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and its relevance in describing the
linkage between technology adoption and culture is supported by several prior studies
(Bagchi et al., 2004; Straub, 1994; Watson et al., 1994). These studies analyzed the
relation between national culture and adoption of specific technologies; but the
analysis of the studies were largely restricted to comparing only two or three countries.
Bagchi et al. (2004) advocate for vigilance when making a connection between IT
usage and culture. On the one hand, there are limitations in terms of the use of
technology by cultures, but at that same time cultures promote considerable flexibility
in how technologies are used. Parallel to this, culture does not wholly determine the use
of technology either.
As IT adoption is a phenomenon that connects people to each other, the effect of
individualism vs collectivism must be acknowledged. The wide spread of IT
applications makes it rather difficult to come up with one rule to describe the
relationship. It can be recognized that the behavior of the individual in the group is
influenced by the behavior of the group (to comply or not), therefore, adding an
additional complexity to the relation with IT usage or adoption. Another dimension
that is closely connected with social interaction is power distance. As this cultural
characteristic refers to acceptance of hierarchy, IT applications and usage in support or
resistance of hierarchy acceptance can be expected to vary depending on high or low
power distance.
Different arguments can be made in terms of IT’s effect on complication or Web 2.0
simplification of life in general. The increased efficiencies in terms of time and money technologies
as well as easier and better access to resources suggest a positive effect in terms of
adoption of IT and level of comfort with the unknown. We must recognize that IT
usually represents a shift in paradigm for the user, thus the effect of this on acceptance
or avoidance of uncertainty can be considered relevant for further exploration.
In terms of masculinity vs femininity, IT adoption and usage can differ. As web 2.0 339
offers a wide variety of applications, Tufekci (2008b) recognizes that the purpose for
using the application can differ among users from promoting the self to establishing
and maintaining relationships. At the same time, the difference between instrumental
and expressive usage of web 2.0 technologies supports the idea that the purpose of
using the web 2.0 technology can vary. In masculine cultures, where acquisition of
material things and accomplishment of work goals are highly valued, IT can be of
assistance and would therefore be welcomed. At the same time however, web 2.0
technologies have a considerable social dimension, which can be expected to be

appreciated by Feminine cultures as the nurturing of relationships on a personal basis
is highly valued in such cultural set up. This presents one of the complexities that this
dimensions holds.
Finally, the dimension of long-term vs short-term orientation is interesting to be
considered in linking culture to technology usage. As IT in general represents a
revolution to a small or big extent in people’s lives, respect for traditional paradigms or
favoring change towards the future may influence the appreciation towards IT
adoption or usage. At the same time, comfortableness and experience with technology
must also be taken into consideration as a moderating factor. People who grow up in
environments where IT applications are widely used and accepted will find it very easy
and normal to adopt those.
4. Research hypotheses
The various research previously described, drove the statement of the following
research hypotheses:
H1. National cultural traits (power distance, individualism, masculinity,
uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation) influence the use of web 2.0
(expressive (H1a) and instrumental (H1b)).
As previously described, national culture traits have demonstrated to be influential in
the usage and adoption of information technology. Web 2.0 applications are a new
wave of internet technologies where the social aspect is emphasized. Since social
behaviors are driven by culture, we expect various cultural traits to impact the usage of
web 2.0 (expressive and instrumental). Lenhart et al. (2010) show that the younger
generations of teens and Millennials spend a considerable amount of their time online,
and show an increasing interest in social networking. This suggests that online
activities become a vested part of their social interactions. An increasing level of access
to internet in social environments outside the home setting makes internet and
subsequently social networking an integral part of people’s life. Lenhart et al. (2010)
also found that there is a strong rise in the instrumental usage of internet applications
by younger generations, including Millennials, in comparison to the older age cohorts.
This suggests that the younger generations have greater trust in using online
VINE applications for information attainment and commercial purposes, which in turn
40,3/4 supports the idea that online activities become a natural part of people’s life. The more
internet usage and the subsequent usage of web 2.0 applications integrates itself in the
lifestyle of an individual, the more synergistic effects between culture and technology
can be expected:
H2. Social grooming aspects (people curiosity, social interaction and keeping in
340 touch) influence the use of web 2.0 applications (expressive (H2a) and
instrumental (H2b)).
The initial work of Tufekci (2008b) on the influence of social grooming on web 2.0
usage reinforces our intuition that such factors might have a strong influence on
expressive and instrumental usage.
These dimensions were not included in well known IT adoption models discussed in
section 2 which considered adoption factors related to mandated IT business
applications in a business setting. The added social dimension, people-centric,

voluntary nature of participation and collaboration involved in web 2.0 applications
require the examination of the social grooming aspects and therefore the inclusion of
this factor. The findings will enhance existing IT adoption models and make them
more applicable to a wider range of IT applications. This factor will also provide an
insight into the changes that might impact the organizational culture with the
introduction of enterprise 2.0 technologies:
H3. Personal efficiency positively influences web 2.0 usage (expressive (H3a) and
instrumental (H3b).
One of the main goals of using IT has been and remains the ability to increase
efficiency of users. We believe that such aspect remains one of the key drivers for the
adoption and usage of web 2.0 applications for both expressive and instrumental
purpose. A positive influence on personal efficiency will accelerate the adoption rate of
web 2.0 applications and provide an incentive to move to the enterprise 2.0
environment by the business community:
H4. A concern for online privacy negatively influences web 2.0 usage (expressive
(H4a) and instrumental (H4b)).
When it comes to sharing personal information regarding one’s personal life we expect
the online privacy concern to be an obstacle to the full adoption of web 2.0 applications.
However, we cannot lose sight of the growing trust in, or perception of security in
terms of online applications. Assuming in the future that web 2.0 technologies become
more and more an integral part of normal life and that there will be stronger
possibilities of online privacy protection, we can expect this obstacle to diminish.
However as web 2.0 is a relatively new concept in IT usage, we expect online privacy
as an obstacle for web 2.0 adoption:
H5. Perceived usefulness positively influences web 2.0 usage (expressive (H5a)
and instrumental (H5b)).
Perceived usefulness is a common construct used in the technology acceptance model
(TAM). It is defined as the degree to which a person believes that using a particular
system would enhance his or her job performance. In our case the questions were
adapted to reflect performance of social activities. As for H3, we believe that web 2.0 Web 2.0
applications remain driven by the need to facilitate some social activities by being technologies
more efficient. We expect this dimension to be very influential in the adoption of web
2.0 applications. A positive influence will encourage organizations to move quicker to
adopt enterprise 2.0 so that workers can take advantage of the benefits of such
applications. The findings on this factor will also improve existing TAM based models
by extending their applicability to a wider range of IT applications: 341
H6. Subjective norms – normative beliefs positively influence web 2.0 usage
(expressive (H6a) and instrumental (H6b)).
This construct is also often part of the TAM based models. This construct is referred to
as the social influence which is defined as the degree to which a person perceives that
his friends, family colleagues, believe he/she should use the system. It is rooted in the
field of social psychology through the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Fishbein and
Ajzen, 1975). In a student environment we believe that this construct might be very
influential in the usage of web 2.0. In a business environment, similar to the perceived
usefulness factor, findings on the influence of this factor could impact existing TAM
based models by extending their applicability to a wider range of IT applications:
H7. Gender does not influence web 2.0 usage (expressive (H7a) and instrumental
(H7b)).
When it comes to social behavior, men and women usually differ. Previous studies
(Tufekci, 2008b) have started to demonstrate the influence of gender on web 2.0 usage.
On the other hand, Lenhart et al. (2010) state that for the age cohort of 18-29, men and
women are equally likely to use social networking sites. As the Lenhart study was
conducted among US respondents only, extrapolating this to other nations is yet to be
tested but we anticipate different of usage might not be significant between the two
genders.
These seven hypotheses are represented on the model shown in Figure 1.
5. Methodology
5.1 Assessment of variables
A questionnaire was developed to measure the different variables of our research.
Various researches show that college students are the heaviest users of web 2.0
(Lenhart et al., 2010) technologies and for this reason we focused our study on them.
The first part of the questionnaire provided a definition of the term web 2.0 and was
used to collect general demographic information about the respondents: gender, age
group, major, and country where the respondent grew up. Nationality was not used
since we wanted to make sure that the respondents had experienced the culture and
that they were able to describe it to the best of their knowledge.
The second part of the questionnaire was used to measure the national cultural
attributes of the respondents. Different instruments have been developed to measure
national culture and its attributes. One of the most famous and mostly used
instruments is the value survey module (VSM) developed by Geert Hofstede (2001,
1980). The problem with the VSM instrument (Hofstede, 2010) is that the questions
refer to the work environment and most of college students do not have any work
experience, so using this tool to collect data will not be relevant. Furrer et al. (2000)
VINE
40,3/4
342
Figure 1.
Research model
representing the various
variables influencing web
2.0 usage
developed a tool, based on the VSM instrument that asks questions that are not related
to the work environment but which are more general. We adopted this tool to measure
the five cultural dimensions in our study (power distance (four questions),
individualism (four questions), masculinity (four questions), uncertainty avoidance
(four questions), long term orientation (four questions)). For these questions a Likert
scale was used ranging from (strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)).
The third part of the questionnaire was used to assess the level of social grooming,
and efficiency disposition of the respondents on web 2.0 usage. The instrument used
was based on the tool developed by Tufekci (2008b) based on Dunbar (1998). The
findings of Tufekci also indicated the possible influence of online privacy. We
developed four questions to assess the level of online privacy concern. For these
questions a Likert scale was used ranging from (strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree
(5)).
The fourth part of the questionnaire was used to collect some information regarding
the usage behavior of the respondents. Among the main questions asked were the
name of web 2.0 applications that they regularly use, for how long have they have been
using them, how often they use web 2.0 on average, and through which device(s). Web 2.0
These data will be used for descriptive statistics but also as control variables. A list of technologies
29 common uses of web 2.0 technologies was presented to the respondents asking them
to indicate how often they use it. This was evaluated by the following Likert scale
(never (1), rarely (2), sometimes (3) and very often (4)). This list was developed by
combining the initial instrument developed by Tufekci (2008b) originally based on
Lenhart and Madden (2005) and the findings of Parker’s (2009) study. 343
The fifth and last part of the survey was used to measure the degree of technology
acceptance. The updated version of the technology acceptance model (TAM) developed
and used by Srite and Karahanna (2006) was used. This version of the TAM model
comprises of four main variables: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,
behavioral intention to use and subjective norms/normative beliefs. Each construct
was measured using four questions. For these questions a Likert scale ranging from
(strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)) was used.
5.2 Data collection

Our target audience was young adults (18-29 years old) studying at the undergraduate
level in universities. A paper-based version of the questionnaire was distributed in
class to undergraduate students of private universities located in Washington, DC
(USA), Manama (Kingdom of Bahrain) and Bangkok (Kingdom of Thailand). A
strategic position between the east (Thailand) and the west (USA) makes the Kingdom
of Bahrain a good candidate for a mixed culture of western and eastern cultures. In the
US and in Bahrain the questionnaire was distributed in English. For Thai students, a
translation to Thai language was developed. A double translation was performed to
ensure the accuracy of the translation. A total of 121 questionnaires were collected
from the US, 181 from Thailand and 113 from Bahrain. Data were entered into SPSS for
further analysis.
5.3 Validity and reliability of the survey instrument

An exploratory factor analysis, using the principal component analysis extraction and
a Varimax with Kaiser Normalization rotation, was used to test the validity of each
construct. Table I shows the rotated matrix and the six emerging constructs. Some
items had to be removed due to their low loading on the constructs (see Appendix 1).
In order to test the internal validity of the different constructs, a Cronbach alpha test
was performed. The results (Table II) demonstrate an acceptable level of internal
validity (a . 0.7).
Overall, we consider that the levels of validity and of reliability of the assessment
tool were acceptable.
6. Data analysis
6.1 Descriptive statistics
Among the 415 questionnaires collected, only 376 were fully usable. The main reasons
for this difference can be explained by the fact that some of the questionnaires were
incomplete, some students were not in our age range target and some students were not
raised in the three countries we had selected for this study. The final data set was
composed of 91 US students (43 percent female and 57 percent male), 178 Thai students
(68 percent female and 32 percent male) and 96 Bahraini students (46 percent female
VINE
Rotated component matrixa
40,3/4 Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
MaintainRelations1 0.179 2 0.027 20.088 20.032 0.693 0.218

MaintainRelations2 0.136 0.121 0.029 0.424 0.541 2 0.110
344 MaintainRelations3 0.014 0.166 0.033 0.187 0.796 0.024
SocialOutgoing1 0.137 0.012 0.103 0.747 0.180 0.015
SocialOutgoing3 0.129 0.133 20.165 0.676 0.030 0.004
SocialOutgoing4 2 0.053 0.095 20.199 0.660 20.150 0.243
SocialOutgoing5 0.057 0.006 0.088 0.710 0.220 2 0.042
Busy3 0.004 2 0.007 0.004 0.129 0.156 0.790
Busy5 0.114 0.021 0.146 20.022 0.000 0.766
Online Privacy1 2 0.002 0.113 0.590 20.055 20.065 0.230
Online Privacy2 2 0.042 0.093 0.826 20.042 0.070 0.061
Online Privacy3 0.048 2 0.123 0.766 0.046 20.021 2 0.078

Online Privacy4 0.009 0.010 0.824 20.057 20.013 2 0.010
PerceivedUsefulness1 0.840 0.233 20.054 0.103 0.057 0.068
SubjectiveNorms1 0.175 0.763 20.094 20.024 0.180 2 0.016
SubjectiveNorms2 0.308 0.825 0.022 0.119 0.016 2 0.008
SubjectiveNorms3 0.179 0.820 0.114 0.070 0.060 0.025
Table I. SubjectiveNorms4 0.380 0.748 0.073 0.162 20.021 0.047
Results of exploratory
factor analysis Note: aRotation converged in six iterations
Construct (number of items) a
Grooming variables (9) 0.702

Table II. Online privacy (4) 0.755
Results of Cronbach Subjective norms (4) 0.859
alpha test Perceived usefulness (4) 0.919
and 54 percent male) all in an age range of 19-27 years old but predominantly
undergraduate students under 24 and enrolled in management/business related
majors.
As previously explained, the survey instrument used to collect the cultural score for
each cultural traits (Furrer et al., 2000) was inspired by Hofstede’s VSM instrument but
it was different in the sense that it was not related to the work environment. As Furrer
et al. (2000) explain, since the items have been selected to measure cultural dimensions
and because Hofstede’s dimensions are not orthogonal (e.g. there exists a correlation of
more than 60 percent between power distance and individualism), each item was
assigned the same weight rather than compute a factorial analysis.
Comparing the scores presented on Figure 2 with Hofstede’s previous findings, is
probably not relevant, as Hofstede’s sample of respondents is too different from our
sample in terms of its survey participants. The difference between the two samples
comes down to the fact that Hofstede used professionals whereas this study uses
Web 2.0
technologies
345
Figure 2.
Cultural traits’ scores by
country
undergraduate university students only. Furthermore is it widely accepted that culture

is a dynamic concept rather than a static given, therefore comparing with past data
does not add relevance to our study. Especially in the case of the cultural values of
Bahrain, the only yardstick for comparison that could be found in the literature is a set
of scores for the Arab World. As the Arab world is made up of very different
subcultures covering a substantially large geographic area, the scores for the Bahrain
based respondents are much more particular. Comparing them with the general scores
of the Arab World as presented by Hofstede would be shortsighted.
Given the alignments made above, the use of the Hofstede dimensions as such, as
they build the most cited framework in the cross cultural literature, still carry relevance
for this study as they will provide a basis for evaluating the findings of the study.
Overall we base our approach on the idea that McCoy (2002) poses in terms of
stepping away from evaluating a whole country and its culture, but instead
recognizing the relevance of individual scores in order to, more correctly, evaluate
cultural influence on certain behaviors. In this study, this argument is being respected
as we focus on a certain age group, which can be considered as a certain generation
rather than extrapolating the results for a whole nation.
The literature (Massey, 2005; Strauss and Howe, 1997; Egri and Ralston, 2004;
Eisner, 2005; Murphy et al., 2006) provides plenty of evidence that different generations
have different views on life, social interactions and values, which supports the
possibility of having scores for one generation or age group that are not necessarily in
line with the general scores for a country presented by research that uses a whole
country in its scope. In this study we approach subjects profiled as Business Students,
in the age group of 19-27, in pursuit of a Bachelors Degree at a private university.
We can even go further in supporting the thesis that comparing with national
cultural scores would not be relevant as the characteristics of undergraduate business
students at private universities, are not representative for a whole nation and its
members.
Description of the generation (Oblinger, 2003):
The Millennials were born in or after the year 1982. Millennials exhibit different
characteristics from those of siblings just a few years older. Millennials:
VINE .
gravitate toward group activity;
40,3/4 .
identify with their parents’ values and feel close to their parents;
.
spend more time doing homework and housework and less time watching TV;
.
believe “it is cool to be smart”;
.
are fascinated by new technologies;
346 .
are racially and ethically diverse; and
.
often (one in five) have at least one immigrant parent.
Furthermore, Oblinger (2003) states that Millennials are characterized by orientation
for collaboration, preference for experiential activities, appreciation of structure and
interest in new technologies. They are prone to exhibit positive attitudes and strengths
in multitasking.
6.2 Description of the Hofstede dimension findings

In general we find that the obtained scores are quite similar for each of the countries
and fall overall in the mid range of the scale. The similarity may be attributed to the
composition of the sample, which presents a very specific profile of people:
undergraduate business students in private universities. All respondents being from
the same generation, and all relatively exposed to the global environment and its
values, may also contribute to such general similarities. Below we discuss the findings
in more detail.
6.2.1 Power distance. In terms of power distance, the overall score for all three
countries is rather low. Bahrain and the US score approximately the same with
respective scores of 2.57 and 2.55, whereas Thailand holds the lowest PD score of the
three at 2.22. This would suggest that of all three groups of respondents, the Thai
students have the least acceptance for unequal division of power. However overall, we
can say that this is the trend for all respondents. As the generation of Millennials
(people born after 1981) identify with their parents values (Oblinger, 2003), we can
expect that they will feel strongly about equality, team work and collaborative efforts,
hence a power distance score at the lower end of the spectrum
6.2.2 Individualism vs collectivism. All three respondent groups score on the mid to
low mid end of the chart. The scores for three groups are very close to each other, with
the US being more collectivist (2.68) than Bahrain (2.79) and Thailand (2.88). The
differences are however very small (0.20 between highest or lowest score). This would
indicate that the respondents see themselves as part of a group. The engagement in
social activities (in the broadest sense of the word) is being valued. The full collectivist
attitude is being moderated by the expanded amount of opportunities on both
economic and personal front, therefore personal success is still valued.
6.2.3 Masculinity vs femininity. Bahrain scores the highest for this dimension with a
score of 3.14, followed closely by the USA with 2.97. For both groups we can attribute
this to a certain sense of valuation of material possessions and success. The idea of the
American Dream for the US respondents on the one hand and the explosive economic
growth of the Kingdom of Bahrain and it subsequent growth in wealth on the other
hand can be an indication of the result of this score. At the same time, there are
indicators of femininity in their cultures. For Bahrain, the valuation of social networks,
connections and solidarity are very high. The complexity of mixtures between image,
social status and societal engagement lead to an average score. For the US, even
though it is a consumption dominated economy, the sense of solidarity is also strongly Web 2.0
present. In the last decade the country’s feeling of unity and solidarity has been put to technologies
the test on several occasions, which surely has left an imprint on the generation that
grew up during these times. Thailand scores slightly lower, but still well above the low
end with a score of 2.70. So a certain valuation of the masculine cultural traits is there.
6.2.4 Uncertainty avoidance. For the UA dimension, even though all present along a
medium score, the US scores the highest at 3.42, followed by Bahrain with 3.26 and 347
Thailand with 3.05. This indicates that the USA respondents value structure,
regulations and clarity the highest. Thai students seem to be more accepting to less
structured and regulated environments. However, all seem to be less comfortable with
the unknown than the known.
6.2.5 Long-term orientation. Bahrain scores the lowest from the three with a score of
2.63. Thailand scores the highest with a score of 3.08, closely followed by the US at
2.97. The fact that Bahrain is a very fast developing economy may be an explanation
for this. Over approximately two decades, the Kingdom of Bahrain has transformed
from a rather traditional environment towards a very modern multicultural,
multiracial society. The generation that grew up in this change may feel that
planning for the future may be overrated as tomorrow things may be very different.
The USA and Thailand have a stronger culture of future orientation, however the
surveyed generation was brought up by parents who cherish the idea of ceasing the
day and a strong sense of quality of life rather than quantity of life. Following Oblinger
(2003), these values are adhered to by their children. Thailand, having the highest score
for this dimension, follows the typical trend for Asian Cultures to be long term
oriented. This supports an expectation that Thai students would show higher levels of
for instance perseverance through an attitude that is strengthened by will power and
the belief that future rewards are being secured by today’s hard work.
6.3 Research variables

Figure 3 represents the average score for each of our main research variables. We can
notice that all the scores are higher than the median value (3) of the measuring
instrument, the Likert scale used varying from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). We can easily identify some significant differences between the scores obtained
Figure 3.
Average scores for each of
the main research
variables, organized by
country
VINE by different countries for specific variables. We will not describe each of these factors
40,3/4 in details but it is interesting to notice that the score obtained by the US students are
higher than Thailand and Bahrain for all the variables except for online privacy where
the score is lower than both of them indicating their lower concern about sharing
personal information on web 2.0 applications. These variables will be further used and
described during the following inferential analysis.
348 The 29 usages levels of web 2.0 technologies were grouped in two categories;
Expressive use and Instrumental use. Figure 4 illustrates the scores obtained for each
usage type by country. We can notice that web 2.0 technologies are on average used
more for instrumental purpose than for expressive purpose for all three countries.
Thailand users are followed by Bahraini and by US users in term of usage frequency.
For each usage type we categorized high users compared with low users. This
distinction was made by looking at the average frequency scores of users. Average
scores lower than the instruments mean (2.5) were categorized as low users and the
others ($ 2.5) as high users. Figure 5, shows that our sample was composed of 47.7.3
percent of high expressive users and 62.2 percent of high instrumental users of web 2.0
technologies.
In terms of what is the primary device that the students used to access web 2.0
technologies, the computer remains the main device for all countries. We can notice the
high percent usage of Black Berry users in Bahrain with a score of 10.5 percent users
using the phone as a primary device to access the web 2.0 applications (Table III).
7. Results
In order to assess which items where the most influential in terms of web 2.0 usage level,
we ran a multiple linear regression analysis using the usage level as a dependent
continuous variable. In a previous research Tufekci (2008b) used a logistic regression
analysis to compare users and non-users but these days it becomes very difficult to find
none users of web 2. 0 technologies among college students (Tufekci, 2008b; Lenhart
et al., 2010), so we decided to focus our research on what factors may influence the usage
Figure 4.
Average score of
frequency expressive and
instrumental usage,
organized by country
Web 2.0
technologies
349
Figure 5.
Usage frequency by usage
type, all countries included
USA (%) Thailand (%) Bahrain (%)
Computer 92.3 95.5 84.2

iPhone 3.3 1.1 4.2 Table III.
Blackberry 4.4 2.8 10.5 Primary device to access
PDA Phone 0.0 0.6 1.1 web 2.0 applications
level of web 2.0 technologies. The results of the two multiple linear regressions (one for
expressive use and one for instrumental use) are presented in Tables IV to VII.
Four variables were significant for the expressive usage and only two for the
instrumental usage. The model used to predict usage of web 2.0 technologies is a better
predictor for expressive usage than for instrumental usage (based on R 2 value: 21.8
percent of the variance of expressive usage was accounted for by our variables, and
12.2 percent of the variance for instrumental usage).
8. Discussion
8.1 Expressive usage of web 2.0
8.1.1 Perceived usefulness. The most influential factor of our model was perceived
usefulness (B ¼ 0:183). This result validates hypothesis number 5a stating that
perceived usefulness positively influence expressive web 2.0 usage. Even though one of
the main reasons for the expressive usage of web 2.0 is entertainment (see Table VIII),
other aspects like social interaction, self-expression and communication benefit from
being perceived as useful. Web 2.0 applications are not just used for fun, but are
perceived as useful because they allow users to conduct various types of social
activities in a more effective and productive way.
8.1.2 Uncertainty avoidance. Our first research hypothesis (H1a) stated that
national cultural traits (power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty
avoidance, long-term orientation) influence the expressive use of web 2.0. Only one of
the five cultural traits (uncertainty avoidance) demonstrated to have a significant
negative influence (B ¼ 20:127) on the expressive usage of web 2.0 technologies.
Uncertainty avoidance is defined as the extent to which the members of a society feel
350
VINE
40,3/4
Table IV.
(model summary)
Results of multiple
expressive usage level

regression analysis on
Model summary
Change statistics
Adjusted Std error of
Model R R2 R2 the estimate R 2 change F change df1 df2 Sig. F change
a
1 0.467 0.218 0.191 0.39805 0.218 8.147 12 351 0.000
a
Note: Predictors: (constant), subjective norms-normative beliefs, power distance, busy, long-term orientation, individualism, online privacy, uncertainty
avoidance, female, maintain_relation, social_outgoing, masculinity, perceived usefulness
Coefficientsa
Web 2.0
Unstandardized Standardized technologies
coefficients coefficients
Model B Std error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.943 0.348 5.577 0.000

Power distance 0.013 0.034 0.019 0.372 0.710 351
Individualism 2 0.016 0.042 20.018 20.374 0.708
Masculinity 0.006 0.040 0.008 0.148 0.883
Uncertainty avoidance * * 2 0.127 0.046 20.139 22.722 0.007
Long-term orientation 0.015 0.047 0.016 0.325 0.745
Gender 2 0.028 0.045 20.032 20.625 0.533
Maintain relation * 0.073 0.031 0.119 2.321 0.021
Social outgoing 0.022 0.041 0.028 0.542 0.588
Busy 0.033 0.026 0.065 1.306 0.193

Online privacy * 2 0.056 0.027 20.105 22.101 0.036
Perceived usefulness * * * 0.183 0.029 0.373 6.343 0.000 Table V.
Subjective norms-normative beliefs 2 0.003 0.028 20.005 20.090 0.928 Results of multiple
Notes: aDependent variable: expressive usage AVG score; *significant at 0.05; * *significant at 0.01; expressive usage level
* * *significant at 0.001 (coefficients)
threatened by uncertain, unknown, ambiguous, or unstructured situations. Our

findings show that the more people are threatened by the unknown the less they will be
likely to use web 2.0 technologies for expressive usage.
Even though IT applications can be argued to reduce the amount of uncertainty in
people’s lives, adoption of very new technologies demands the acceptance of the sorts
of uncertainty associated with the subsequent change. In relation to expressive usage
of web 2.0 technologies, we can consider that the exposure of personal profiles or
opinions may be evaluated as a plunge in the unknown and therefore less desirable for
individuals that score high on uncertainty avoidance. Hasan and Ditsa (1999) stated
that IT in general can be seen as risky and has found itself more available and adopted
among low uncertainty avoidance groups of people.
Figure 4 illustrates this fact where we can see that the student sample from the US
who has the highest uncertainty avoidance level (Figure 2) is also, on average, the
lowest user of web 2.0 for expressive usage.
In a study conducted by Srite and Karahanna (2006) on the role of espoused national
cultural value in technology acceptance, uncertainty avoidance also emerged as a
significant dimensions that in their case moderated the relationship between subjective
norm and behavioral intention to use IT.
8.1.3 Maintaining relations. Maintaining relations and staying informed about
friends activity are some of the main reasons (Cf. Table VIII) for an expressive usage of
web 2.0. Being curious about other people’s lives, liking to keep in touch with friends,
and being curious about people from the past are significant predictors (B ¼ 0:073) of
web 2.0 usage. This result validates hypothesis 2a. It was also expected for this
variable to be more significant for the expressive usage than for the instrumental
352
VINE
40,3/4
Table VI.
(model summary)
Results of multiple
instrumental usage level
Model summary
Change statistics
Adjusted Std error of
Model R R2 R2 the estimate R 2 change F change df1 df2 Sig. F change
a
1 0.349 0.122 0.091 0.47674 0.122 4.046 12 351 0.000
a
Note: Predictors: (constant), subjective norms-normative beliefs, power distance, busy, long-term orientation, individualism, online privacy, uncertainty
avoidance, female, maintain_relation, social_outgoing, masculinity, perceived usefulness
Web 2.0
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized technologies
coefficients Standardized coefficients
Model B Std error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.422 0.415 3.426 0.001

Power distance 2 0.016 0.040 20.021 20.397 0.691 353
Individualism 0.007 0.050 0.007 0.146 0.884
Masculinity 2 0.015 0.048 20.018 20.314 0.754
Uncertainty avoidance 2 0.003 0.055 20.003 20.047 0.962
Long-term orientation† 0.095 0.057 0.087 1.685 0.093
Gender 2 0.018 0.054 20.018 20.334 0.739
Maintain relation 0.050 0.037 0.072 1.332 0.184
Social outgoing 0.061 0.049 0.068 1.263 0.207
Busy 0.040 0.030 0.068 1.307 0.192

Online privacy 0.003 0.032 0.006 0.108 0.914
Perceived usefulness * * * 0.174 0.034 0.314 5.063 0.000 Table VII.
Subjective norms-normative beliefs 2 0.037 0.034 20.066 21.088 0.277 Results of multiple
Notes: aDependent variable: instrumental usage AVG score; *significant at 0.05; * *significant at instrumental usage level
0.01; * * *significant at 0.001; †marginally significant (0.10 . p . 0.5) (coefficients)
usage. This assumption was proven since the maintaining relation variable is not
significant in the instrumental usage model.
8.1.4 Online privacy. The last significant predicting variable of our model is online
privacy. H4a stated that a concern for online privacy negatively influences the
expressive usage of web 2.0. This hypothesis is validated (B ¼ 20:056). This finding is
aligned with the findings of Tufekci (2008b). Figure 3 shows that the US student
sample is the least concerned with online privacy and that the Thai students are the
most concerned about it. This might be explained by the fact that the use of the internet
is probably more common in the US, the risks associated with online privacy are more
known and students who decide to use web 2.0 tools are doing it understanding the
risks. Where in Thailand, the usage of web 2.0 is higher but the concern for online
privacy is also higher since the usage of the web is much more recent in Thailand and
e-commerce is still not a common practice.
8.2 Instrumental usage

8.2.1 Perceived usefulness. Once again for this model, the most influential factor of our
model was perceived usefulness (B ¼ 0:174). This result validates hypothesis number
5b stating that perceived usefulness positively influences instrumental web 2.0 usage.
Table VIII shows the main reasons for using web 2.0. Since our sample was composed
of students, it is normal to find as the top reason to do school work or research. The
other main reasons are related to finding information about the latest news but more
importantly in 4th position to learn and gain knowledge from others.
8.2.2 Long-term orientation. Our first research hypothesis (H1b) stated that national
cultural traits (power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance,
long-term orientation) influence the instrumental use of web 2.0. Only one of the five
VINE
Rank Mean Expressive Instrumental
40,3/4
For no reason, just for fun or pass the time (US:2,
1 3.25 TH:1, BHR:5) 1
2 3.22 Message friends (US:1, TH: 5, BHR:2) 2
3 3.20 To do school work or research (US:4, TH: 6, BHR:1) 1
354 4 3.18 Watch photos from others (US:3, TH: 2, BHR:4) 3
To get news or information about current events
5 3.11 (US:5, TH: 4, BHR:7) 2
To get information about movies, TV shows, music
6 3.05 groups, or sport stars (US:7, TH: 4, BHR:3) 3
To learn and gain knowledge from others (US:6, TH:
7 2.86 13, BHR:6) 4
To get information about a college, university or
other school you were/are thinking about attending
8 2.73 (US:15, TH: 12, BHR:9) 5

9 2.73 Find old friends (US:2, TH: 1, BHR:5) 4
10 2.72 Watch videos from others (US:3, TH: 15, BHR:10) 5
11 2.70 To play games with my friends 6
12 2.67 Upload photos 7
13 2.62 Display favorite/currently listed music 8
14 2.62 To look for information about job 6
15 2.60 Find new friends 9
16 2.51 Join a group 10
17 2.49 To read blogs of other people 11
18 2.47 Install applications/widgets that are useful for me 7
19 2.40 Make contact for work professional reasons 12
To buy things online, such as books, clothing or
20 2.39 music 8
To get information about health topic that is hard to
21 2.28 talk about, like drug use, sexual health or depression 9
22 2.26 To spy on others 10
23 2.21 Install applications/widgets that I want others to see 13
Table VIII. 24 2.11 Upload videos 14
Ranking of the main 25 1.93 To look for religious or spiritual information 11
reasons for using web 2.0 Promote a band or another group or personal activity
applications by types 26 1.85 in which you are involved 15
(expressive and 27 1.83 Organize events 16
instrumental) and by 28 1.80 Write a blog 17
country (top ten only) 29 1.43 Dating 18
cultural traits (long term orientation) demonstrated to have a moderate significant

positive influence (B ¼ 0:095) on the expressive usage of web 2.0 technologies.
Long-term orientation, as the opposite of short-term orientation, stands for a society
that fosters virtues oriented towards future rewards, in particular perseverance and
thrift. Short-term orientation stands for a society that fosters virtues related to the past
and present, in particular respect for tradition, saving face, and fulfilling social
obligations. As expected Thailand obtained the highest score for this dimension (Cf.
Figure 2) since Asian countries are well known for such cultural trait. This finding
shows that long-term oriented people are likely to have a higher usage level of web 2.0
technologies for instrumental usage.
Web 2.0 applications can be considered useful for securing future positives in terms Web 2.0
of social interactions, developing relationships of professional, humanistic or romantic technologies
nature. As it adds an extra dimension of virtual nature to the traditional face to face or
partly technological moderated interaction people have, it can be considered as an
extension of and positive addition to the potential future social set up of an individual.
The popularity of web 2.0 technologies have enjoyed and the interest they have been
given over the last half decade, have pitched web 2.0 as a phenomenon that is here to 355
stay with continuously growing and evolving applications. This exceptional
combination of popularity and novelty is thus highly likely to be appreciated by
long term oriented individuals.
Overall, we can notice that the gender variable was not significant in predicting web
2.0 usage, validating H7a and H7b. We also expected the subjective norm variable to
have an influence on usage since students have a tendency to influence each other
when it comes to trends or fashion or behavior. So hypotheses H6a and H6b failed to be
validated. Personal efficiency did not demonstrate to be significantly influential either,

failing to validate H3a and H3b.
8.3 Main reasons for using web 2.0 technologies

The ranking for the most popular web 2.0 technologies by the survey population is
shown in Table IX. YouTube was the most popular followed by Facebook and
Wikipedia. The least popular web 2.0 sites were Delicious and Digg. Delicious is a
social bookmarking service, while Digg is a web site where users share and evaluate
content on the web from news to videos to images. The results are consistent with the
ranking of the reasons for using web 2.0 technologies shown in Table VIII. It is
interesting to note that the results related to the usage of web 2.0 technologies are also
consistent with published results on the most popular sites based on traffic to websites
(eBizMBA, 2010). Social networks dominate the usage of web 2.0 technologies.
The left column of Table VIII ranks the main reasons for using web 2.0 technologies
(expressive and instrumental taken together). The two columns on the right show the
ranking per usage type. For the top ten reasons we included in between parentheses the
ranking for each country. For example for the top reason “for no reason, just for fun or
pass the time (US:2, TH:1, BHR:5)” this ranking was in 2nd position for US students, in
first position for Thai students and in 5th position for Bahraini students. Students’ top
Web 2.0 technology Count %
YouTube 304 83
Facebook 288 79
Wikipedia 179 49
Hi5 160 44
MySpace 52 14
Twitter 49 13
Flickr 43 12
Blog 42 12
LinkedIn 22 6 Table IX.
Others 12 3 Main web 2.0 application
Digg 8 2 used (more than one
Delicious 4 1 could be selected)
VINE reasons for using web 2.0 technologies are “for no reason, for fun, to pass time”,
40,3/4 followed by messaging friends followed by doing school work and research and
watching photos from others. Three out of the top four reasons are driven by the
expressive usage of web 2.0 technologies. Even though the usage of web 2.0 is higher in
terms of Instrumental usage (cf. Figure 4), the main reasons for using web 2.0
technologies are driven by the desire for social interaction, self-expression
356 communication and entertainment.
A total of 16 of the 29 reasons scored above the instrument median value (2.5) and
13 scored below. By conducting informal interviews with students before this study we
discovered that one of the motivations for students to use social networking sites (SNS)
was to meet potential boyfriend or girlfriend (dating) and also to spy on others
(particularly on their respective boyfriend or girlfriend). These two factors surprisingly
scored very low in our final ranking (position number 22 and 29). We might explain
this difference by the fear or shame of doings so or of using SNS to conduct such
activities.
9. Conclusion
This study was motivated by the lack of the current research conducted to understand
the influence of culture traits on the usage of web 2.0 technologies. As the world is
getting flatter, the need to understand how the usage of various technologies can be
influenced by national culture traits is becoming very important. This study allowed
us to indentify five variables being influential on the expressive usage of web 2.0
technologies (uncertainty avoidance, maintaining relation, online privacy, and
perceived usefulness). Among them is the cultural trait related to uncertainty
avoidance. In terms of predicting instrumental usage, only two variables were
significant predictors; long-term orientation (marginally significant) and perceived
usefulness, which demonstrated to be the best predictor for both usage types.
This research is an initial attempt to better understand what motivates people to use
web 2.0 technologies. This study has some limitations: our target group is limited to
young adults between the age of 18 and 29 years old enrolled in business programs in
private universities in the USA, Thailand and Bahrain. Our sample size remains small
(n ¼ 376) and the instruments used will benefit from being further tested and validated
and new variables should be tested to increase the R 2 value of our initial models.
Nevertheless, we believe that our findings can be a stepping stone to conduct more
advanced research in this domain. Various research efforts have identified
“uncertainty avoidance” as being an influential variable in the prediction of IT
usage. Our findings are aligned with these previous studies. Our findings also show
that cultural differences between countries are becoming lower and lower, at least for
the Millennial generation.
The findings of this research can also help to better understand what will drive the
adoption of Enterprise 2.0 technologies. After graduating, students will enter the “real
business world” and can be expected to continue to use web 2.0 technologies in the
corporate world often labeled as enterprise 2.0 technologies. While many of the web 2.0
technologies have been used by the public, organizations are starting to explore their
use in their operations. As such, enterprise 2.0 is the movement to bring the web 2.0
platforms and culture into the organization’s intranet. The four areas where web 2.0
technologies might be used include communication, cooperation, collaboration and
connection (Cook, 2008) on an intranet. Using web 2.0 applications such as Facebook, Web 2.0
Twitter or Myspace shows plenty of evidence of how organizations use web 2.0 technologies
technologies for marketing (especially promotional) purposes. A social network like
“Linked In” may in the future be acknowledged as a valid tool by HR departments,
head hunters or job applicants. McKinsey & Company (2009) recently conducted a
global survey involving 1,700 executives and asking about the value they have realized
from their web 2.0 deployments. For the “internal purpose” category, the top reason (68 357
percent) was increasing speed of access knowledge, and in the category “working with
external partners/suppliers”, the same reason was ranked as the main value added (51
percent). It shows the important role that web 2.0 technologies will play in the
evolution of KM technologies.
If we look at the main reasons for using web 2.0 technologies (Table VIII), we can
notice that in third position students selected “to do school work or research” and in
seventh position “to learn and gain knowledge from others”. This is a very
encouraging result for knowledge management practices. The fact that students
perceived web 2.0 technologies as a way to connect, share or gain knowledge from their
peers, friends or from the outsiders, shows that they are open to freely share and re-use
knowledge from others. The lack of a knowledge sharing culture remains one of the
main barriers to successful KM and if the young generations are more inclined to
openly share their knowledge with others, it will facilitate knowledge exchange and
creativity in their future company. We expect that the future generation of knowledge
workers will be knowledge sharing workers!
References
Acquisti, A. and Gross, R. (2006), “Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing, and
privacy on the Facebook”, paper presented at 6th Workshop on Privacy-Enhancing
Technologies, Robinson College, Cambridge University, Cambridge.
Bagchi, K., Hart, P. and Peterson, M.F. (2004), “National culture and information technology
product adoption”, Journal of Global Information Technology Management, Vol. 7, pp. 29-46.
Cook, N. (2008), Enterprise 2.0: How Social Software Will Change the Future of Work, Gower
Publishing Limited, Aldershot.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology”, MIS Quaterly, Vol. 13, pp. 319-41.
Diamond, J. (1999), Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, Norton, New York, NY.
Dunbar, R. (1998), Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
eBizMBA (2010), “Top 15 most popular web 2.0 websites”, available at: www.ebizmba.com/
articles/web-2.0-websites
Egri, C. and Ralston, D. (2004), “Generation cohorts and personal values: a comparison of China
and the USA”, Organization Science, Vol. 15, pp. 210-20.
Ein-Dor, P., Segev, E. and Orgad, M. (1993), “The effect of national culture on IS: implications for
international information systems”, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 1,
pp. 33-44.
Eisner, S.P. (2005), “Managing generation Y”, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 70,
pp. 4-15.
VINE Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
40,3/4
Furrer, O., Liu, B.S.-C. and Sudharshan, D. (2000), “The relationships between culture and service
quality perceptions: basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource allocation”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2, p. 355.
Gross, R., Acquisti, A. and Heinz, H.J.I. (2005), “Information revelation and privacy in online
358 social networks”, paper presented at ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society,
New York, NY.
Hart, J., Ridley, C., Taher, F., Sas, C. and Dix, A. (2008), “Exploring the Facebook experience:
a new approach to usability”, paper presented at 5th Nordic Conference on
Human-Computer Interaction: Building Bridges, ACM, Lund, Sweden.
Harvey, F. (1999), “National cultural differences in theory and practice: evaluating Hofstede’s
national cultural framework”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 10, pp. 132-46.
Hasan, H. and Ditsa, G. (1999), “The impact of culture on the adoption of IT: an interpretive
study”, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 7, pp. 5-15.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and
Organizations across Nations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hofstede, G. (2010), “Research and VSM”.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004), Culture, Leadership
and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Lampe, C., Ellison, N. and Steinfield, C. (2006), “A Face(book) in the crowd: social searching
vs social browsing”, Proceedings of the 2006, 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer
Supported Cooperative Work Alberta, Canada, ACM Press, New York, NY.
Landes, D. (2000), “Culture makes almost all the difference”, in Harrison, L.E. and
Huntington, S.P. (Eds), Culture Matters, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Lee, S. and Ungson, G. (2008), “Towards a theory of synchronous technological assimilation:
the case of Korea’s internet economy”, Journal of World Business Horizons, Vol. 43, pp. 274-89.
Lenhart, A. and Madden, M. (2005), Teen Content Creators and Consumers, Pew Internet
& American Life Project, Washington, DC.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A. and Zickuhr, K. (2010), Social Media and Mobile Internet Use
among Teens and Young Adults, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC.
Leong, T.W., Vetere, F. and Howard, S. (2005), “The serendipity shuffle”, paper presented at
19th Conference of the Computer Interaction Special Group (CHISIG), Citizens Online:
Considerations for Today and the Future, Canberra.
McCoy, S. (2002), The Effect of National Culture Dimensions on the Acceptance of Information
Technology: A Trait-Based Approach, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
McKinsey & Company (2007), “How businesses are using web 2.0: a McKinsey Global survey”.
McKinsey & Company (2009), “How companies are benefiting from web 2.0”.
Massey, M. (2005), What You Are Is Where You Were When – Again!, Enterprise Media,
Cambridge, MA.
Murphy, E.F.J., Greenwood, R., Ruiz-Gutierrez, J., Manyak, T.G., Mujtaba, B. and Uy, A. (2006), Web 2.0
“Generational value changes: their history and a cross-cultural empirical test”, paper
presented at Academy of Management Meeting, Atlanta, GA.
technologies
Oblinger, D. (2003), “Boomers and Gen X’ers. Millennials, understanding the new students”,
Educause Review, pp. 37-47.
O’Reilly, T. (2007), “What is web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next
generation of software”, Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA), Munich. 359
Palvia, P. (1998), “Research issues in global information technology management”, Information
Resources Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 27-36.
Parker, G. (2009), “Power to the people”, Social media tracker, Wave 4, Universal McCann.
Porter, M. (2000), “Attitudes, values, beliefs, and the microeconomics of prosperity”,
in Harrison, L.E. and Huntington, S.P. (Eds), Culture Matters: How Values Shape
Human Progress, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Schneider, S.C. and Barsoux, J.L. (2003), Managing across Cultures, Prentice-Hall/Financial
Times, London.
Srite, M. and Karahanna, E. (2006), “The role of espoused national cultural values in technology
acceptance”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30, pp. 679-704.
Steers, R.M., Meyer, A.D. and Sanchez-Rude, C.J. (2008), “National culture and the adoption of
new technologies”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 43, pp. 255-60.
Straub, D.W. (1994), “The effect of culture on IT diffusion: e-mail and fax in Japan and the USA”,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 5, pp. 23-47.
Straub, D., Keil, M. and Brenner, W. (1997), “Testing the technology acceptance model across
cultures: a three-country study”, Information and Management, Vol. 33, pp. 1-11.
Strauss, W. and Howe, N. (1997), The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy, Broadway Books,
New York, NY.
Stutzman, F. (2006), “An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network communities”,
iDMAa Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 10-18.
Tufekci, Z. (2008a), “Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social
network sites”, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, Vol. 28, pp. 20-36.
Tufekci, Z. (2008b), “Grooming, Gossip, Facebook and MySpace. What can we learn about these
sites from those who won’t assimilate?”, Information, Communication and Society, Vol. 11,
pp. 544-64.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 425-78.
Watson, R.T., Teck, H. and Raman, K. (1994), “Culture: a fourth dimension of group support
system”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 37, pp. 45-55.
Appendix
Maintain relations:
MR1 I am curious about other people’s lives.
MR2 I like keeping in touch with friends.
MR3 I am curious about people from my past.
VINE Social outgoing:
40,3/4 SO1 I am outgoing.
SO2 I like to follow trends.
SO3 I do not enjoy social events.
360 SO4 I am shy.
SO5 I like meeting new people.
Busy:
BZ1 I am worried about wasting time on the internet.
BZ2 I value efficiency highly.
BZ3 I am a very busy person.

BZ4 I am usually bored.
BZ5 I am always in a hurry.
Online privacy:
OP1 I am concerned with online/internet privacy.
OP2 I perceived sharing personal information on the Internet as being potentially
dangerous.
OP3 In general, I do not trust Internet sites when it comes to sharing personal information.
OP4 I perceived sharing personal information on the web 2.0 applications as being
potentially dangerous.
Perceived usefulness:
PU1 Using web 2.0 applications enhances my productivity in social activities.
PU2 I find web 2.0 applications useful in my social activities.
PU3 Using web 2.0 applications enhance my effectiveness in term of social activities.
PU4 Using web 2.0 applications improves my performance in term of social activities.
Subjective norms – normative beliefs:
SN1 My relatives think that I should use web 2.0 applications.
SN2 My friends believe I should use web 2.0 applications.
SN3 My professors think I should use web 2.0 applications.
SN4 I believe that my classmates at college will think I should use web 2.0 applications.
The italicized items were items from the original scales that were dropped from the final analysis
due to poor psychometric properties.
About the authors Web 2.0
Vincent Ribière, after teaching for the past ten years at American University
(Washington, DC) and later on at the New York Institute of Technology (NYIT)
technologies
in New York and in the Kingdom of Bahrain, is now the Managing Director of
the South Asian branch of the Institute for Knowledge and Innovation
(IKI-SEA) of Thailand hosted by Bangkok University (http://ikisea.bu.ac.th). Hi
is also an Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of Bangkok University,
Thailand. He received his Doctorate of Science in Knowledge Management 361
from the George Washington University, and a PhD in Management Sciences from the Paul
Cézanne University, in Aix-en-Provence, France. He teaches, conducts research and consults in
the area of knowledge management and information systems. Over the past years, he has
presented various research papers at different international conferences on knowledge
management, organizational culture, information systems and quality as well as publishing in
various refereed journals and books. Vincent Ribière is the corresponding author and can be
reached at: vince@vincentribiere.com
Maliha Haddad is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems and

Technology Management in the School of Business at George Washington
University. She received a Doctor of Science degree in Engineering
Management and Systems Engineering from George Washington University,
a Master’s in Computer and Information Systems from GA Tech and a Bachelor
in Mathematics from GA State University. Her industrial experience spans
a variety of roles involving all aspects of information systems development as a
consultant, principal information engineer, project manager in the USA and overseas. She has
published articles on software engineering and process improvement. Her most recent efforts are
in the areas of hidden costs incurred in software acquisition projects, applying knowledge
management concepts to acquisition processes and use of CASE tools within the IS curriculum.
Philippe Vande Wiele graduated from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Solvay
Management School with a Master’s in Commercial Engineering and with a
Postgraduate Master’s Degree in Environmental Expertise from the cell Human
Ecology at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. He also holds the professional
certificate of Environmental Coordinator-A. He has been teaching at NYIT
Bahrain since 2006 as a Lecturer in Marketing, Management and Economics on
the Undergraduate Program at the School of Management. He has a strong
interest in Cross-Cultural studies, Organizational Behavior, Environmental studies and Green
Marketing. His last paper presentation was at the Global Environment Conference and
Exhibition, Bahrain, 7/8 December. The position paper was titled “Exploring the idea of green
marketing in Bahrain. Need for a ‘can-do’ attitude.”
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Chun Lai, Qiu Wang, Xiaoshi Li, Xiao Hu. 2016. The influence of individual espoused cultural values
on self-directed use of technology for language learning beyond the classroom. Computers in Human
Behavior 62, 676-688. [CrossRef]
2. Mohammed Arif, Al-Zubi Mohammed, Aman Deep Gupta. 2015. Understanding knowledge sharing in
the Jordanian construction industry. Construction Innovation 15:3, 333-354. [CrossRef]
3. Ibrahim Arpaci, Yasemin Yardimci Cetin, Ozgur Turetken. 2015. A Cross-Cultural Analysis of
Smartphone Adoption by Canadian and Turkish Organizations. Journal of Global Information Technology
Management 18:3, 214-238. [CrossRef]
4. Rana Abbas, Gustavo S. Mesch. 2015. Cultural values and Facebook use among Palestinian youth in Israel.
Computers in Human Behavior 48, 644-653. [CrossRef]
5. Wen Gong, Rodney L. Stump, Zhan G. Li. 2014. Global use and access of social networking web sites:
a national culture perspective. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 8:1, 37-55. [CrossRef]
6. John Fotis, Dimitrios Buhalis, Nicos Rossides. 2013. Social Media Impact on Holiday Travel Planning.
International Journal of Online Marketing 1:4, 1-19. [CrossRef]
7. Organizational Contexts 65-88. [CrossRef]
8. John Fotis, Dimitrios Buhalis, Nicos RossidesSocial Media Impact on Holiday Travel Planning 230-249.
[CrossRef]

The Impact of National Culture PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of National Culture PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VINE

Downloaded on: 24 May 2017, At: 05:53 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

School of Management, New York Institute of Technology, Adilya, Bahrain

engaging, collaborative, emphasizing social interactions, and providing new

2. Studies and factors related to web 2.0 usage

and commercial transactions on the internet, and non-social communication involved

The aforementioned research demonstrated that basic principles of human behavior

3. Studies related to national culture and its impact on IT use

338 3.2 The impact of culture on IT usage

cultural factors, interactively affecting technology evolution, and its adoption. We

technologies have a considerable social dimension, which can be expected to be

applications in a business setting. The added social dimension, people-centric,

5.2 Data collection

5.3 Validity and reliability of the survey instrument

MaintainRelations1 0.179 2 0.027 20.088 20.032 0.693 0.218

Online Privacy3 0.048 2 0.123 0.766 0.046 20.021 2 0.078

Construct (number of items) a

Grooming variables (9) 0.702

undergraduate university students only. Furthermore is it widely accepted that culture

6.2 Description of the Hofstede dimension findings

6.3 Research variables

USA (%) Thailand (%) Bahrain (%)

Computer 92.3 95.5 84.2

expressive usage level

1 (Constant) 1.943 0.348 5.577 0.000

Busy 0.033 0.026 0.065 1.306 0.193

threatened by uncertain, unknown, ambiguous, or unstructured situations. Our

1 (Constant) 1.422 0.415 3.426 0.001

Busy 0.040 0.030 0.068 1.307 0.192

8.2 Instrumental usage

8 2.73 (US:15, TH: 12, BHR:9) 5

cultural traits (long term orientation) demonstrated to have a moderate significant

validated. Personal efficiency did not demonstrate to be significantly influential either,

8.3 Main reasons for using web 2.0 technologies

Web 2.0 technology Count %

BZ3 I am a very busy person.

Maliha Haddad is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems and

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

You might also like