Cultural Preferences and Dispositions toward Websites: Implications for Universities

Universities in the United States continue to recruit international students in growing numbers (Institute of International Education, 2011), and institutions worldwide are becoming increasingly dependent on revenue generated by international student enrollments (Marriott, du Plessis, & Pu, 2010; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2008; Turner & Robson, 2007). It can be argued then, that since higher education institutions operate websites for the purpose of recruiting students and communicating with stakeholders, the content and design of their websites should take into account an audience that comprises individuals from numerous and varied national and cultural backgrounds. This argument may apply to the institution as a whole as well as to units inside the institution that have some control over their own pages of the institution’s website. This analysis therefore attempts to answer the following questions: To what extent, and in what ways, should universities adapt the content, design, and navigability of university websites for varying cultures? Do people from different cultures process information in different ways, and could inappropriate design result in communication failure? Drawing on literature from a number of disciplines including computer-mediated communication, advertising, and electronic commerce, the analysis investigates the extent to which cultural preferences and dispositions toward websites have been identified and built into website design, and seeks implications for university website design that will ensure effective communication between the institution and an audience of different cultures.

How Web Users’ Norms and Preferences Vary across Cultures

Much of the research examining the cultural variations in website content and design draws on the work of Geert Hofstede, whose extensive surveys of IBM employees worldwide (and later, students) resulted in five dimensions along which, he claims, cultures vary (“Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions,” 1987). The dimensions are: power distance, or the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations expect to belong to a hierarchy comprising more and less powerful individuals; individualism/collectivism, or the extent to which individuals are perceived as being integrated into groups; masculinity/feminism, which refers to the distribution of roles between men and women and roughly equates to the extent to which members of a society are assertive or modest; uncertainty avoidance, or the extent to which members of a society have a tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; and long-term/short-term orientation, or the degree to which individuals tend to act to protect long-term or short-term interests (“Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions,” 1987). Studies of website design that draw on Hofstede’s typology make the assumption that how cultures vary along these five dimensions has some determining effect on the communication preferences of their members, and that this is, or should be, reflected in websites directed at members of those cultures. The five dimensions have the advantage of breaking the complexity of cultural differences down into something manageable (Gevorgyan & Porter, 2008). On the other hand, they were developed over 30 years ago, and other frameworks have been developed since, suggesting that multiple frameworks ought to be used to analyze cultural differences (Ahn, Kwon, & Sung, 2010).

Nonetheless, Hofstede’s work is the most frequently cited in research into web content and design across cultures. Several studies have compared U.S. and Chinese websites using Hofstede’s categories (Chang, 2011; Gevorgyan & Porter, 2008; Liao, Proctor, & Salvendy, 2009; Zhao, Massey, Murphy, & Fang, 2003; Zhu & Wang, 2011), and others have compared U.S. and South Korean websites (Ahn et al., 2010; H. Kim, Coyle, & Gould, 2009; I. Kim & Kuljis, 2010; Shin & Hu, 2009). Other studies based on Hofstede’s work include one on the level of adaptation of Mexican websites to international audiences (Gonzales-Trejo, 2010), and one that analyzes two U.S. business school websites to determine their level of “cultural competence” (Goebel-Lundholm & Reid, 2011).

Hofstede’s typology is not the only one used to distinguish the norms and preferences of people of different countries. Liao, Proctor, and Salvendy (2008) included consideration of cognitive differences between Chinese and American readers, drawing on research that found variance in image processing abilities, verbal fluency, and digit span (short-term memory for digits), as well as field dependence/independence (the ability to distinguish objects from the surrounding field) and relational-contextual cognitive style vs. inferential-categorical cognitive style (categorizing on the basis of thematic relationships vs. inferences made about objects grouped together). H.Kim, Coyle, and Gould (2009) compared websites on the basis of monochromic and polychromic time management (the ability to handle one task at a time vs. several tasks simultaneously). They related this dimension to high vs. low context cultures, that is, cultures in which communication is embedded to a greater extent in the context (believed to be true of Asian cultures) as opposed to being stated explicitly in words (truer of western cultures), a dimension also adopted by some other researchers. (Goebel-Lundholm & Reid, 2011; Gonzales-Trejo, 2010). Some studies (I. Kim & Kuljis, 2010) also draw on the work of Nisbett (2003) who argued that Westerners and Asians differ on a wide range of measures.

Cultural preferences for web content and design may not be related to culture-specific dimensions. Chinese website users may be less trusting of e-commerce sites because of relative lack of internet penetration in that country, as well as factors such as inadequate online security, low credit card use, and a lack of internet-related laws and regulations (and these factors themselves are related to China’s economic standing), all of which create a perception among the Chinese that online transactions are risky, compared with the perceptions of U.S. web users (Liao et al., 2009). The more advanced design features of South Korean websites (as compared with UK sites) may be related more to the relative advancement of Korean internet technology rather than cultural preferences (I. Kim & Kuljis, 2010). Finally, Vyncke and Brengman’s (2010) meta-analysis concluded that culture-specific differences among the peoples of different nations account for only some of the variance in web design, and that other factors such as countries’ economic, political, and legal situations need to be taken into account.

How Website Design and Content Preferences Vary across Cultures

Several research studies have attempted to identify the preferences among internet users in different countries for specific website features. The examples described below contrast Chinese and U.S. users, and South Korean and U.S users; and one study analyzes the preferences of Hispanics in the U.S.

In their survey of Chinese and American college students, Liao, Proctor, and Salvendy (2009) attempted to identify contrasting preferences in websites offering portable consumer electronics. Contrasting preferences in several areas were found. American respondents scored high in focus on price and lower on cost-effectiveness, the Chinese respondents vice-versa. This the researchers attributed to the relative economic standing of the two countries: U.S. consumers were thought to be concerned with affordability while the Chinese consumers were thought to be concerned in addition with the benefits of the product relative to the price. On the other hand, the Chinese respondents were less concerned with specific product features than the Americans. The researchers speculated that this may be attributable to the finding of previous research that advertisements which describe product features are more successful in low-context cultures like the U.S., than in high-context cultures such as those of the Far East. An interesting finding in this study is that Chinese consumers paid attention to product safety features, which scored higher than product convenience. Drawing on previous research, the study’s authors suggested that the focus on safety may be related to China’s one-child policy, which causes parents and grandparents to place emphasis on the health and safety of the only child in the family. An emphasis by Chinese users on product warranty and return policy information was attributed to China’s collectivist culture: the lack of face to face contact in the web transaction, contrasted with transactions in the society at large, may have contributed to a lack of trust of e-commerce. Additionally, the lack of a mature e-commerce infrastructure has already been mentioned.

In another paper, the same researchers reached three conclusions about differential preferences of Asian and U.S. consumers shopping for products online (Liao et al., 2008). First, East Asians tend to pay less attention to specific product features because they tend to see the product as a whole rather than the sum of its separate parts – what the authors referred to as holistic cognition and analytic cognition respectively. Westerners living in low context cultures tend to rely more on factual information for decision making, and thus seek out specific product information. Because their cultures are more individualistic, they are used to being rewarded for individual initiative, and so are more likely to want to seek out specific product information. Second, East Asians are more likely to look for price information, as well as guarantees, warranties, and return information. The researchers related this tendency to collectivist cultures, which have a stronger in-group/out-group perception, and where, therefore, people may be less trusting of outsider sellers represented on the web. Since they are not able to touch and see the products up close, they look for information that will give them reassurance about the purchase. Third, East Asians are likely to be trusting of research results presented on websites. Because their countries score high on power-distance, they tend to trust researchers, whom they perceive as having greater power or authority than themselves.

These results are consistent in part with those of Gevorgyan and Porter (2008), whose study investigated how internet users’ web design preferences were related to their nationality. Focusing on the dimensions of power distance (manifested in, for example, information about website ownership and certain types of pictures) and uncertainty avoidance (manifested in customer service and secure payment availability), they found that Chinese users prioritized features reflecting high power distance and uncertainty avoidance, compared with American users. They concluded that organizations need to tailor web design and content to different cultures if they want their websites to be effective.

Ahn, Hung, and Kwon (2010) compared the preferences of U.S. and South Korean web users in a study of online brand communities, that is, non-geographically bound communities of individuals who share an enthusiasm for a brand. Based on prior research that drew on Hofstede’s typology, the authors hypothesized that Korean users would exhibit a greater preference for website features that reflected greater collectivism (pictures of historic monuments, pictures of the national flag, pictures of groups of community members, etc.), greater uncertainty avoidance (site and member search features, guided navigation, FAQ pages, etc.), and greater power distance (depiction of community hierarchy, use of proper titles, description of membership approval process, etc.); and that the U.S. users would prefer features manifesting individualism (privacy statement, ability to personalize the website, pictures depicting self-reliance, etc.), and masculinity (depiction of men as powerful, separate pages for men and women, games, quizzes, and so on emphasizing the value of enjoyment, etc.). Although not all the hypotheses were supported (for example, a high degree of individualism was found on the Korean sites), the authors concluded that there was sufficient evidence of difference to recommend that marketers should adapt websites to differing cultures.

A study of a minority culture in the U.S. also revealed differing preferences for website features related to culture. Singh et al. (2008) studied strongly and weakly acculturated Hispanics in the U.S., and hypothesized that those who were weakly acculturated would demonstrate preferences for content relevant to Hispanic cultures, such as use of both Spanish and English on the site, evidence of the organization’s contribution to the Hispanic community, pictures of Hispanics in the top levels of the organization, and so on. The authors found their hypotheses supported – Hispanics in the U.S. demonstrated some preference for websites that reflected their culture – and made recommendations to marketers: that they use Spanish on websites targeted at Hispanic populations, include information about giving back to the Hispanic community, and emphasize family ties, among others.

How Cultural Preferences are Manifested in Websites

The research described above provides some evidence that website users from differing cultures exhibit preferences toward website design and content based on features of their cultures. Another strand of research has investigated the extent to which, or how successfully, websites targeted at different cultures are adapted to those cultures. Organizations, including corporations and universities, generally have attractive websites; but website design and content may be incomplete and therefore ineffective if they have not taken cultural factors into consideration; and merely translating websites into the target languages is insufficient if the website does not address the cultural preferences of the user (Zhu & Wang, 2011).

There are at least two schools of thought on the question of whether web design and content should be standardized or localized (that is, adapted to cultural preferences and local language). Those in favor of standardization believe that consumers around the world tend to be more alike than different in their preferences, while those who argue for localization stress the benefits of reaching consumers in diverse cultures by adapting to their needs (H. Kim et al., 2009; Shin & Hu, 2009). Around the turn of the century, cultural adaptation of websites was in its first stages, and corporations were not yet conscious of the need to tailor their websites to other cultures (Singh et al. (2003), as cited in Gonzales-Trejo, 2010). Recent empirical studies suggest that adaptation continues to happen only on a limited basis (H. Kim et al., 2009), but that when it does occur it is more effective than standardization.

Goebel et al. (2011) compared the websites of international business programs offered by two U.S. universities. The websites were created in a low-context culture (the U.S.) but were targeted at high-context cultures. Website features corresponding with high-context cultures include elaborate animation, a focus on the enjoyment of the product as opposed to the features of the product, and greater use mouse-overs (menus that appear when the user moves the mouse over an image or text), as opposed to links. They found that one of the websites was oriented to a greater extent than the other toward a high-context audience. An interesting feature of the high-context oriented website was its purposeful use of images, showing the expressions on the individuals’ faces, in contrast to the images on the other website which appeared to be “window dressing.” (Goebel-Lundholm & Reid, 2011, p. 146)

Another example of a website deemed inappropriate was that of a Chinese petrochemical corporation aimed at English speakers (Zhu & Wang, 2011). The homepage contained several features typical of high power-distance cultures, such as pictures of imposing company buildings, a speech by the company president, and an organizational chart. In contrast, the homepage of a website created by an American petrochemical company aimed at an American audience contained information about products and services, and appeared to be designed to give the impression of being in a store. The authors of this study claimed that the website of the Chinese company “seems to say…that anyone who wants to do business with me gets to know who I am.” (Zhu & Wang, 2011, p. 52) For this reason, they also deemed Dell’s website aimed at the Chinese market inappropriate, because although it contained pictures of smiling customers and detailed product information, it was not oriented to the cultural values of the Chinese. The authors concluded that homepages targeted at Chinese users should accommodate Chinese cultural preferences concerning power, collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance.

A study Zhao et al. (2003) suggests that researchers like the ones above do not selectively find evidence to support their hypotheses regarding cultural adaptation. Zhao et al. hypothesized that because web design tools are culturally neutral, this should lead to websites that are standardized, as opposed to expressing the cultural preferences of their designers. Comparing U.S. and Chinese websites using Hofstede’s typology, they found that neither the design nor content of the websites were culturally neutral (that is, websites varied depending on the culture), and their hypotheses were not supported.

Similar results have been found in studies of South Korean websites. For example, H. Kim et al. (2009) discovered that Korean sites contain information on consumers’ relationships to their communities, while American sites mainly provide product information. The authors found support for their hypotheses that the Korean cultural preference for collectivism would be manifested in website features: the Korean sites contained more rollover and pull-down navigation bars, pop-up windows, and splash pages – all suggestive of an ability to handle tasks in a polychromic way necessary in high-contact, collectivist cultures. A comparison of UK and South Korean charity websites yielded similar results: the Korean sites contained more dynamic drop-down menus, streaming video, and sound, features which the authors of the study attributed to differences on Hofstede’s individualist/collectivist dimension, but which they also speculated might be a result of more advanced internet technology in South Korea (I. Kim & Kuljis, 2010). The question of which country’s multinational corporations – U.S. or South Korean – adapted their websites to other cultures as opposed to keeping them standardized, was addressed in a study by Shin and Hu (2009). They found that in spite of the cultural differences between the two countries identified by Hofstede, multinational corporations from both countries tended to keep their websites standardized, though the websites of U.S. corporations were a little more likely to display adaptation.

This lack of adaptation was evident also in a study of Europe’s largest multinational corporations in the UK, France, and Germany (Halliburton & Ziegfeld, 2009). Although the study aimed to investigate how corporations communicate their identity across cultures, only 62% of the corporations were found to have developed websites for the other two markets outside their home market, and overall, little support was found for the hypothesis that corporations would adopt a local branding strategy in their foreign markets. Gonzales-Trejo (2010) also found little evidence of adaptation in his study of Mexican companies’ U.S. websites: the only adaptation displayed by the majority of them was a simple translation of the content into English. This is consistent with Gevorgyan and Porter’s (2008) characterization of web design for international audiences as “one size fits all” (p. 36), and runs contrary to the imperative to develop “culturally congruent websites” (Vyncke & Brengman, 2010) – websites that include features manifesting Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, as well as some non-cultural (i.e. economic, legal, political) aspects of a target society. Vyncke and Brengman’s (2010) meta-analysis suggested that such websites are more effective with regard to their usefulness, ease of use, and positive attitudes and intentions displayed by users (p. 27). Ahn et al.’s (2010) study comparing brand communities in South Korea and the U.S. reached a similar conclusion: that marketers should localize – that is, adapt design and content – their web presence when using online communities for marketing communications. Halliburton and Ziegfeld (2009) recommended a ‘glocalization’ approach in which essential branding features are standardized but design and content are adapted to the host country, while H. Kim et al. (2009) described a process of customizing to differing locales while maintaining centralized or standardized information technology. Similarly, Chang (2011) concluded that corporations should tailor websites to the language and cultures of the markets where they do business, in order to gain competitive advantage.

Discussion

This analysis has attempted to answer the questions of whether and how universities should adapt their websites to varying cultures. Although the literature reviewed is focused mainly on studies of commercial websites, and are therefore unlikely to be of direct relevance to the design and content of university websites, they nonetheless reveal some foundational knowledge that universities might use as a basis for exploring the possibilities for the cultural adaptation of their own websites. First, the people of different countries and cultures vary in the way they see society and the world, along a number of dimensions; second, these differences are reflected in the design and content of websites created in and by those cultures; third, this implies that websites aimed at users in other cultures might be more effective if their design and content is adapted to the people of those cultures; and fourth, so far the extent of this adaptation has been found to be limited. Absent more examples of how websites have been adapted successfully, it is difficult to recommend to universities and university departments (including my own) that they make the attempt, or what specific features might make organizational communication through a website more effective for a diverse audience. On the other hand, knowledge of how different cultural preferences are manifested in website design and content could lead to website design that is more conscious of these preferences and less oriented culturally to the designers’ own culture. While a lack of concrete recommendations might be seen as a disappointing result of the above analysis, this lack is itself a result: it demonstrates that the usability of an institutional website by people of different cultures is a legitimate concern, and that institutions have an interest in making their websites maximally usable by stakeholders from diverse cultures.

Future research that would be more relevant to universities might address the following issues. First, while there is some evidence that adapted websites are more effective, the question of whether web users from one culture are turned off by web features of another culture does not seem to have been thoroughly explored. Perhaps as more users become web literate, they themselves will adapt to various website styles. This would obviate the need for websites to be adapted to users. Second is the question of whether a single website can be designed to take into account the preferences of people from many cultures; the alternative is to create multiple websites aimed at different cultures, which is not likely to be a viable option except for the largest institutions. Third, universities might research user reactions to their own website: how is the website perceived by users from different cultures, and does their perception vary with different stages of the user’s relationship with the university – as an inquirer, an applicant, a student, and an alumnus? And fourth, is a university fundamentally different from a commercial enterprise in that applicants may one day become students who are expected to conform to the cultural norms of the society in which the university is located? Does this imply that universities should not make an effort to adapt their websites, but that they should expect users to adapt?

In addition to providing a basis for further research, the studies reviewed above may also be helpful in shedding light on current communication issues that universities have with stakeholders. An example that is of current significance is the recruitment of mainland Chinese students by U.S. institutions. While universities place their application information and process on their websites, implying direct communication between the university and the applicant, the majority of Chinese applicants prefer to apply by way of an intermediary such as a study abroad agent in their locality rather than engage with the recruitment process directly via the website (“Majority of Chinese Undergraduates in the United States Use Agents, Study Suggests,” 2011). Although many in U.S. higher education frown on the use of recruitment agents in foreign countries (Fischer, 2011), if China is indeed a collectivist culture in which relationships are important (“Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions,” 1987), then either reliance on the web is not realistic and the use of agents should be assessed in a more culturally sympathetic way, or institutions should consider how they might adapt their websites to encourage Chinese applicants to use them through the application process.

Communicating on the web presents a challenge for all organizations. While communication experts advise leaders to target their message to their audience (Baldoni, 2003), those who prepare content and design features of websites do not know their precise audience: they do not know what types of information their audience is seeking, nor how to present information in a way that corresponds with users’ goals (Liao et al., 2009). This challenge is exacerbated when the audience comprises individuals from diverse cultures. Being aware of the norms and expectations of members of different cultures can only support universities’ attempts to communicate effectively with culturally diverse stakeholders.




References

Ahn, H., Kwon, M. W., & Sung, Y. (2010). Online Brand Community Across Cultures. International Journal of e-Business Management, 4(1), 34-52. doi:DOI 10.3316/IJEBM0401034
Baldoni, J. (2003). Great Communication Secrets of Great Leaders. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chang, H.-J. (2011). Multinationals on the Web: Cultural Similarities and Differences in English-Language and Chinese-Language Website Designs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(6), 1105-1117. doi:10.1002/asi.21515
Fischer, K. (2011, July 22). Use of Paid Agents to Recruit International Students Sparks Lively Debate at Forum. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved August 6, 2011, from http://chronicle.com/article/Use-of-Paid-Agents-to-Recruit/127980/
Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions. (1987, 2009). itim International. Retrieved July 29, 2011, from http://www.geert-hofstede.com/
Gevorgyan, G., & Porter, L. V. (2008). One Size Does not Fit All: Culture and Perceived Importance of Web Design Features. Journal of Website Promotion, 3(1/2), 25-38. doi:10.1080/15533610802052589
Goebel-Lundholm, M., & Reid, C. (2011). Constructing Culturally Competent Website for International Business Programs. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 12(2), 142-150.
Gonzales-Trejo, E. S. (2010). Do Mexican Companies Culturally Adapt their Websites? Journal of Promotion Management, (16), 480-493. doi:10.1080/1049641003604031
Halliburton, C., & Ziegfeld, A. (2009). How do major European companies communicate their corporate identity across countries? - An empirical investigation of corporate internet communications. Journal of Marketing Management, 25(9-10), 909-925. doi:10.1362/026725709X479291
Institute of International Education. (2011). International Student Enrollments Rose Modestly in 2009/10, Led by Strong Increase in Students from China. Institute of International Education. Retrieved August 2, 2011, from http://www.iie.org/en/Who-We-Are/News-and-Events/Press-Center/Press-Releases/2010/2010-11-15-Open-Doors-International-Students-In-The-US
Kim, H., Coyle, J. R., & Gould, S. J. (2009). Collectivist and Individualist Influences on Website Design in South Korea and the U.S.: a Cross-Cultural Content Analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, (14), 581-601. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01454.x
Kim, I., & Kuljis, J. (2010). Manifestations of Culture in Website Design. Journal of Computing and Information Technology, 18(2), 125-132. doi:10.2498/cit.1001806
Liao, H., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2008). Content Preparation for Cross-Cultural E-Commerce: a Review and a Model. Behaviour and Information Technology, 27(1), 43-61. doi:10.1080/01449290601088424
Liao, H., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Chinese and U.S. Online Consumers’ Online Preferences for Content of E-commerce Websites: a Survey. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 10(1), 19-42. doi:10.1080/14639220801936588
Majority of Chinese Undergraduates in the United States Use Agents, Study Suggests. (2011, July 14). The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved August 6, 2011, from http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/majority-of-chinese-undergraduates-in-united-states-use-agents-study-suggests/34631
Marriott, J., du Plessis, A. J., & Pu, M. (2010). Export Education: How Do International Students Experience New Zealand’s Service to Them? Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(8), 29-41.
Mazzarol, T. W., & Soutar, G. N. (2008). Australian Educational Institutions’ International Markets: A Correspondence Analysis. International Journal of Educational Management, 22(3), 229-238. doi:10.1108/09513540810861865
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why. New York: The Free Press.
Shin, W., & Hu, J. (2009). Multinational Corporate Website Strategies and Influencing Factors: a Comparison of U.S. and Korean Corporate Websites. Journal of Marketing Communications, 15(5), 287-310. doi:10.1080/13527260802481207
Singh, N., Baack, D. W., Pereira, A., & Baack, D. (2008). Culturally Customizing Websites for U.S. Hispanic Online Consumers. Journal of Advertising Research, (June), 224-234. doi:DOI: 10.2501/S0021849908080264
Turner, Y., & Robson, S. (2007). Competitive and cooperative impulses to internationalization: reflecting on the interplay between management intentions and the experience of academics in a British university. Education, Knowledge, & Economy, 1(1), 65-82. doi:10.1080/17496890601128241
Vyncke, F., & Brengman, M. (2010). Are Culturally Congruent Websites More Effective? An Overview of a Decade of Empirical Evidence. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 11(1), 14-29.
Zhao, W., Massey, B., Murphy, J., & Fang, L. (2003). Cultural Dimensions of Website Design and Content. Prometheus, 21(1), 75-84. doi:10.1080/0810902032000051027
Zhu, P., & Wang, J. (2011). Cultural Values Carried in International Business Homepages that Fail to Accommodate the Needs of Cross-Cultural Audiences. Journal for Global Business Education, 11, 45-60.