Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cultural Dimensions: Who Is Stereotyping Whom: January 2005
Cultural Dimensions: Who Is Stereotyping Whom: January 2005
Cultural Dimensions: Who Is Stereotyping Whom: January 2005
net/publication/228516559
CITATIONS READS
12 7,885
3 authors:
Aaron Marcus
Aaron Marcus and Associates
261 PUBLICATIONS 4,202 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Gabrielle Ford on 22 May 2014.
Abstract
Research to establish what aspects of subjective culture influence usability, and to what extent, requires the use of a
valid and relevant cultural model. The use of cultural dimension models in general, and Hofstede’s model in
particular, has been widely criticized as being stereotypical and rigid, resulting in the rejection of this model as the
basis for such research. In contrast to these criticisms, analysis and synthesis of the extant literature has revealed
sufficient theoretical evidence to suggest that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions impact a system’s usability in terms of
the cognitive load, user acceptance, objective usability, and the context of use. In addition, we present evidence that
the problem of stereotyping is not caused from the use of the model, but rather as a result of the way in which the
model is used in experimental design. Consequently, we conclude Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model is a
relevant paradigm for further research into the effects of subjective culture on cross-cultural usability.
1 Introduction
The literature contains as many arguments against as supporting the accommodation of subjective culture into user
interface design. Consequently a need exists for further research to establish the aspects of subjective culture that
influence usability, and to what extent. Such research requires the use of a valid and relevant cultural model. The use
of cultural dimension models in general, and Hofstede’s model in particular, has been widely criticized as being
stereotypical and rigid [Fitzgerald, 2004; Bourges-Waldegg & Scrivener, 1998; Jagne et al., 2004; Light, 2003],
resulting in the rejection of this model as the basis for this further research.
A literature review was undertaken to identify and analyze the results of studies previously undertaken that were
based on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model [Ford, 2005]. Only a handful of studies [Straub et al., 1997; Smith
and Chang, 2003; Anandarejen et al., 2002; Forer and Ford, 2003; Hall et al., 2003; Massey et al., 2001] were found.
In contrast to the criticisms, these studies suggest that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions will influence the cognitive
load on the users, and are related to usability from three different perspectives: user acceptance, context of use, and
objective usability.
Consequently, this paper argues that there is sufficient theoretical evidence to suggest that Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions do influence usability, and is therefore a relevant paradigm for further research into the effects of
subjective culture on cross-cultural usability. Section 2 reviews the concept of culture, approaches to culturalization,
and criticisms against the use of cultural dimension models. Section 3 presents evidence that supports the use of
Hofstede’s model [2001] as a basis for researching the impact and extent of subjective culture on usability. Section 4
examines the way in which Hofstede's cultural dimensions have been used in experimental design and concludes
that it is the implementation of the model, rather than the model itself, that is causing the problem of stereotyping.
2 Culture
Culture is a complex concept that cannot merely be described: culture must be interpreted [van Peursson, in Evers
and Day, 1997]. This complexity implies one must consider dimensions of culture. Metamodels of culture provide a
high-level view of the overriding philosophies surrounding the concept of culture, by defining different layers of
culture [Hoft, 1996; Masaaki, 2002]. Cultural models provide a detailed view of culture, by identifying a number of
cultural dimensions that are used to organize cultural data [Marcus, 2004; Marcus and Baumgartner, 2004b].
2.1 Cultural models and dimensions
Hoft [1996] describes four models of culture, developed by Victor [1992], Hall [1959], Trompenaars [1993] and
Hofstede [2001], which are summarized in Table 1. A best-of-breed set of dimensions derived from these and other
models is presented in Marcus and Baumgartner [2004b]
Table 1: Cultural models and their dimensions
Victor [1992] Hall [1959]
• Language • Speed of Messages
• Environment and Technology • Context
• Social Organization • Space
• Contexting • Time
• Authority Conception • Information Flow
• Nonverbal Behavior • Action Chains
• Temporal Conception
Hofstede [2001] focuses his model on determining the patterns of thinking, feeling and acting that form a
culture’s mental programming. He conceptualized culture as ‘programming of the mind’ in the sense that certain
reactions were more likely in certain cultures than in others, based on differences between the basic values of the
members of different cultures [Smith et al., 2004].
As reflected in Table 1, Hofstede identified five cultural dimensions that can be used to distinguish among
different cultures [ITIM, 2003]. All five of Hofstede’s dimensions relate to subjective culture, and many of these
dimensions also appear in the other three models summarized in Table 1. Each of these dimensions is a dichotomy,
in that there are two opposing sides to each dimension. A brief explanation of each of these dimensions is presented
below [ITIM, 2003; Evers, 2001; Hoft, 1996; Marcus and Gould, 2000]:
• Power distance: refers to the extent to which less powerful members expect and accept unequal power
distribution within a culture. The two opposing sides to this dimension are high and low power distance.
• Uncertainty avoidance: relates to the way in which people cope with uncertainty and risk. The two
opposing sides to this dimension are high uncertainty avoidance and low uncertainty avoidance.
• Masculinity vs. femininity: refers to gender roles, as opposed to physical characteristics, and is commonly
characterized by the levels of assertiveness or tenderness in the user. The two opposing sides to this
dimension are masculinity and femininity.
• Individualism vs. collectivism: refers to the role of the individual and the group, and is characterized by the
level of ties between an individual in a society. The two opposing sides are individualism and collectivism.
• Time orientation: refers to people’s concerns with the past, present and future. The two opposing sides to
this dimension are short-term orientation and long-term orientation.
5 Conclusions
In contrast to the criticisms against using cultural dimension models, the synthesis of the cited studies provides
strong theoretical evidence to support the use of Hofstede’s model, and by inference, other cultural dimension
models, as a basis for researching the impact of subjective culture on usability. In addition, we argue that perhaps
the way in which researchers use such models causes stereotyping, rather than the developers of the models
themselves: omitting to identify cultural profiles of individual test users is a prime example of such stereotyping.
Consequently, we believe the assumptions surrounding the validity of cultural dimension models should be
reassessed, and such reassessment should be sensitive to the interdisciplinary framework within which human-
computer interaction needs to operate.
References
Anandarejen, M., Igbaria, M. and Anakwe, U.P. 2002. IT acceptance in a less-developed country: a motivational
factor perspective. International Journal of Information Management 22, 47-65.
Bailey, R. 1996. Human Performance Engineering. London: Prentice Hall PTR.
Barber, W and Badre, A. 1998. Culturability, the merging of culture and usability. In Proceedings of the 4th
conference on Human Factors and the Web. NJ, USA: Basking Ridge.
Bevan, N. and Macleod, M. 1994. Usability measurement in context. Behaviour and Information Technology, 13:
132–145.
Bourges-Waldegg, P. and Scrivener, S.A.R. 1998. Meaning, the central issue in cross-cultural HCI design.
Interacting with Computers, (9)3: 287-309.
Bryan, N.B., McLean, E.R., Smith, S.J. and Burn, J. 1994. The structure of work perceptions among Hong Kong and
United States IS professionals: a multidimensional scaling test of the Hofstede cultural paradigm. In A Duane
and P Finnegan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1994 computer personnel research conference on Reinventing IS:
managing information technology in changing organizations (pp 219-230). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press.
Carey, J.M. 1998. Creating Global Software: A Conspectus And Review. Interacting with Computers, 9: 449-465.
Chau, P.Y.K., Cole, M., Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M. and O’Keefe, R.M. 2002. Cultural Differences in the
Online Behavior of Consumers. Communications of the ACM, 45(10): 138–143.
De Souza, M. and Dejean, P. 1999. Interculturality and design: Is culture a block or an encouragement to innovation.
In Proceedings of the International Conference of Design Research: Design Cultures. Sheffield, England:
Sheffield Hallam University and The European Academy Of Design.
Ciborowski, T.J. 1979. Cross-Cultural aspects of Cognitive Functioning: Culture and Knowledge. In A.J. Marsella,
R.G. Tharp, and T.J. Ciborowski (Eds), Perspectives on Cross-Cultural Psychology. New York, NY: Academic
Press Inc.
Davis, F. D. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information technology.
MIS Quarterly, 13(3): 319-340.
del Galdo, E and Nielson, J. 1996. International User Interfaces. John Wiley and Sons.
Dix A, Finlay, J, Abowd, G and Beale, R. 1998. Human-Computer Interaction. Hemel Hampstead: Prentice Hall
International (UK).
Duncker, E. 2002. Cross-cultural usability of the library metaphor. In Proceedings of the second ACM/IEEE-CS
joint conference on Digital libraries (pp 223 – 230). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press.
Dunckley, L. and Smith, A. 2000 Cultural Dichotomies in User Evaluation of International Software. In D. Day, E.
del Galdo, and G. Prahbu, (Eds.), Proceedings of IWIPS’00, Designing for Global Markets 2. Baltimore, MD:
Backhouse Press.
Evers, V. and Day, D. 1997. The Role of Culture in Interface Acceptance.In Mende S. Howard, J. Hammond and G.
Lindgaard, Proceedings of the Human Computer Interaction INTERACT’97 Conference (pp 260 – 267).
Sydney: Chapman and Hall.
Fitzgerald, W. 2004. Models for Cross-Cultural Communications for Cross-Cultural Website Design, National
Research Council Canada, Institute for Information Technology.
Ford, G. 2005. Researching the Effects of Culture on Usability. MSc Dissertation, University of South Africa.
Forer, D. and Ford, G. 2003. User performance and user interface design: Usability heuristics versus cultural
dimensions, in Proceedings of the South African Computer Lecturer’s Association, June- July 2003.
Gould, E.W., Zakaria, N. and Yusof, S.A.M. 2000. Applying culture to website design: a comparison of Malaysian
and US websites. In Proc. IEEE prof. comm.. society’s internat. prof. comm. conf. and Proc. 18th annual ACM
internat. Conf. on Computer documentation: technology and teamwork (pp 161-171). Piscataway, NJ, USA:
IEEE Educational Activities Department.
Hall, P., Lawson, C. and Minocha, S. 2003. Design Patterns as a Guide to the Cultural Localisation of Software, in
Proceedings of the IWIPS 2003 conference, Berlin.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences. (2 ed) Sage Publications.
Hoft, N. 1996. Developing a Cultural Model. In E del Galdo and J. Nielson (Eds.), International User Interfaces.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Honold, P. 2000. Culture and Context: An Empirical Study for the Development of a Framework for the Elicitation
of Cultural Influence in Product Usage. Internat. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3&4): 327–345.
ISO9241. 1997. ISO 9241-1: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals. Berlin: Beuth.
ITIM. 2003. Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions. Retrieved January 12, 2005 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.geert-hofstede.com/geert_hofstede_resources.shtml.
Jagne, J., Smith, S.G., Duncker, E. and Curzon, P. 2004. Cross-cultural Interface Design Strategy, Technical Report:
IDC-TR-2004-006, Interaction Design Centre, , Middelsex University.
Kurosu, Masaaki (2003). “Theory of Layers of Culture.” Proc. HCII, 2003.
Light, A. 2003. Culture and Usability: Will Design Patterns ease Problems of Context?, in Usability News.
http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article1185.asp.
Marcus, A. 2000. Cultural Dimensions and Global Web User Interface Design: What? So What? What Now? in
South African Human-Computer Interaction Conference, May 2000. http://www.chi-sa.org.za/abstracts.htm
Marcus, A. and Gould, E.W. 2000. Crosscurrents: cultural dimensions and global Web user-interface design.
Interactions, 7(4): 32-46.
Marcus, Aaron. 2004. "User-Interface Design and Culture," Chapter 3 in Aykin, Nuray, ed., Usability and
Internationalization of Information Technology, Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, New York, 51-78, 2004.
Marcus, Aaron, and Baumgartner,Valentina-Johanna. 2004a. "Mapping User-Interface Design Components vs.
Culture Dimensions in Corporate Websites," Visible Language Journal, MIT Press, 1-65, 2004.
Marcus,Aaron, and Baumgartner, Valentina-Johanna. 2004b. "A Practical Set of Culture Dimension for Evaluating
User-Interface Designs" in Proceedings, Sixth Asia-Pacific Conference on Computer-Human Interaction
(APCHI 2004), Royal Lakeside Novotel Hotel, Rotorua, New Zealand, 30 June-2 July 2004, 252-261.
Marti, J. and Muller, C. 2003. Cross-Cultural Communication and Comprehensibility on Websites. In V. Evers, K.
Röse, P. Honold, J Coronado, D.L. Day, (Eds.), Proceedings of the IWIPS 2003 Conference (pp 57 – 64).
Berlin, Germany: University of Kaiserslautern.
Massey, A.P., Hung, Y.C., Montoya-Weiss, M. and Ramesh, V. 2001. When culture and style aren't about clothes:
perceptions of task-technology ‘fit’ in global virtual teams , in Proc. 2001 International ACM SIGGROUP
Conf. on Supporting Group Work Boulder, Colorado, USA, pp 207 - 213 ACM Press New York, NY, USA
Mrazek, D and Baldaccini, C. 1997. Avoiding cultural false positives. Interactions, 4(4): 19-24. New York, NY,
USA: ACM Press.
Norton, D. 2001. Implementation of an Electronic Report Viewing Application for Multi-cultural Users. In
Proceedings of the South African Human Computer Interaction Conference. CHI-SA.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y. and Sharp. H. 2002. Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
Russo, P. and Boor, S. 1993. How Fluent is your Interface? Designing for International Users. In Proceedings of the
INTERCHI ’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: INTERACT ’93 and CHI’93 (pp 342-
347). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press.
Shneiderman, B. 1998. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction.
Addison-Wesley.
Smith, A. and Chang, Y. 2003. Quantifying Hofstede and Developing Cultural Fingerprints for Website
Acceptability, In Proceedings Of The IWIPS 2003 Conference, Berlin, Germany, July 2003, V. Evers, K. Röse,
P. Honold, J Coronado, D.L. Day, Eds. University of Kaiserslautern.
Smith A., Dunckley, L., French, T., Minocha, S. and Chang, Y. 2004. A Process Model for Developing Usable
Cross-Cultural Websites. Interacting with Computers, 16: 63–91.
Straub, D., Keil, M. and Brenner, W. 1997. Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three
country study, Information and Management, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 1-11