View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Culture, Trust and Methods
Dianne Cyr, Simon Fraser University
CSCW Workshop, Banff November 4th, 2006
Key Topics
Does trust differ across cultures?
Does localization of websites matter?
What are methods for unraveling trust?
Culture and Website Trust
Cheskin (2000) examined online consumer behavior for U.S., Brazilian, and Latin American consumers; Latin Americans and Brazilians (high uncertainty avoidance cultures) indicated presence of credit card symbols on websites more important than for Americans
Simon (2001) found differences in trust for websites between Asians, Europeans, and North Americans
Cyr et al. (2004, 2005, 2006) examined trust and website design across cultures using different methodologies
Attitudes related to Trust
A. ATTITUDE TOWARDS RISK 1. Generally speaking, it is very important for me to avoid risks. B: ATTITUDE TOWARDS TRANSACTION SECURITY 2. I am concerned about who will have access to my credit card number when I am
shopping online. 3. I am concerned about unauthorized used of my credit card when shopping online 4. I am concerned about security when buying on the Internet. 5. I am concerned about misuse of my credit card when shopping online. C. ATTITUDE TOWARDS PRIVACY 6. I am confident my personal information will not be misused when I am shopping
online.. 7. I am comfortable sharing my personal information with online merchants. C: ATTITUDE TOWARDS REPUTATION 8. I would only trust an Internet store with a well-known reputation. D. ATTITUDE TOWARDS ASSURANCE 9. It is important to me that product ratings from other customers or consumer
publications are provided on the website.
Between Country Differences
Mean Values
Transactions security
3.79 3.26 3.90 4.11
Privacy 3.00 3.4 2.7 2.04 Legitimacy 2.35 2.52 3.03 3.32 Quality Assurance
3.44 3.67 3.7 4.21
Comparisons for Trust
• T-tests (between countries)
CDN/USA CDN/GER CDN/JPN USA/GER USA/JPN GER/JPN Transactions security
- - 1.94* - -1.88* -2.48**
Privacy - 2.48* 5.19*** - 3.12*** 2.4** Legitimacy - -1.75* -2.58** -2.73*** -3.63*** - Quality Assurance
- - -1.93** - -2.73*** -2.1**
* significant at 0.1, ** significant at 0.05, *** significant at .01(2-tailed)
Participant Survey
Note:Items answered by each participant for both the local and foreign Samsung site. Loy2: I would consider purchasing from this website in the future.
Loy1: I would visit this website again.
LOYALTY
Sat3: Using this site/service is satisfactory overall.
Sat2: This website satisfies my particular needs well.
Sat1: The website completely fulfills my needs and expectations.
SATISFACTION
Trust3: I can trust the information presented on the website.
Trust2: The website is credible to me.
Trust1: I can trust the online vendor.
TRUST
Design9: Site product availability and product variety are well explained.
Design8: All product options, product attributes and product information are well designed and presented.
Design7: The organization, sequencing and overall arrangements of the site are understandable and easy to use.
Design6: The website can be easily navigated.
Design5: The screen design on the website (i.e. colors, boxes, menus, navigation tools etc.)is harmonious and well presented.
Design4: The product information provided on the website is presented consistently and logically.
Design3: The website looks professionally designed and well presented.
Design2: I can easily recognize and find where product information is located.
Design1: The user menus are clearly categorized and are well laid out on the screen.
WEBSITE DESIGN
Mean values for website satisfaction, trust,and e-loyalty (India)
3.502.72**E-loyalty
3.853.43**Trust
3.522.94**Satisfaction
LOCAL MEANFOREIGN MEANCONSTRUCT
* p<.05 ** p<.001
Results: Mean Values of Affective WebsiteCharacteristics (India)
2.132.46***Comfortable-Uncomfortable
3.443.07***Boring-Stimulating #
3.953.67***Unreliable-Reliable #
2.272.71***Interesting-Boring
2.022.17*Accurate-Inaccurate
2.562.72**Warm-Cold
3.913.68***Meaningless-Meaningful #
2.732.99***Sensitive-Insensitive
2.242.55***Friendly-Unfriendly
2.092.36***Logical-Illogical
2.993.35***Emotional-Unemotional
3.813.73Ugly-Pretty #
2.101.98Fast-Slow
1.862.08**Professional-Amateur
2.202.61***Successful-Unsuccessful
FOREIGN MEANLOCAL MEANWEBSITE CHARACTERISTICS
* p<.10 ** p<.05 *** p<.001 # indicates items that are reversed
Survey Results
Conditions: human images with facial features, human images but no facial features, no human images
No significant differences for trust between 3 image conditions, but differences for image appeal and social presence (condition with faces perceived most positively)
Average # Fixations on Images
6.1
12.0313.65
10.13
22.44
16.96
8.71
14.7913.61
0
5
10
15
20
25
Canadian German Japanese
Pe
rce
nt
of
To
tal F
ixa
tio
ns
No-Human Medium-Human High-Human
Viewing Time Across Cultures
4.61
9.0210.310.27
20.85
13.74
7.7
11.94
10.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Canadian German Japanese
Pe
rce
nt
of
To
tal V
iew
ing
Tim
e
No-Human Medium-Human High-Human
Interview Analysis (Atlas.ti)
Interview data coded using 2 methods: in vivo (using the participants exact words as the basis for a
code) open coding (using arbitrary labels to code the data)
Categories then developed to identify relationships between codes, followed by the creation of more theoretical entities or concepts
Concepts emerged: Aesthetics, Symbolism, Affective Property, Functional Property with between country differences (Table 3)
Human image condition - Canadians focused on aesthetics;
Germans on functional properties and symbolism (community aspects); and Japanese on affective and symbolism