Introduction
Understanding the moderating factors that influence user technology acceptance and adoption in different contexts continues to be a focal interest in information systems (hereafter, IS) research. Moderating factors may account for both the limited explanatory power and the inconsistencies between studies (Sun & Zhang, 2006). Accordingly, based on a careful literature review, we believe that culture, defined as mental concepts influencing the relationships with other people, the environment and the concept of time (see Hof-stede, 1991; Hall, 1989; Trompenaar, 1995), is an important moderating-factor; that is, culture constitutes "the broadest influence on many dimensions of human behaviour" (Soares, Farhangmehr, & Shoham, 2007).
Particularly, culture is a factor that has been shown to be significant but underresearched in recent studies of information-accessing behaviour. Nevertheless, there is increasing interest in the IS research literature in the impact of cultural differences on the development and use of information technologies (hereafter, IT) and IS. For example, the following authors identified cultural values as one of the influential factors on adoption of information and communication technology (hereafter, ICT): Bagchi, Cerveny, Hart, and Peterson (2003), Johns, Smith, and Strand (2003), Maitland and Bauer (2001) and S0rnes, Stephens, Saetre, and Browning (2004). Straub (1994) has used the uncertainty avoidance dimension to explain why the diffusion of information technologies differed in the USA and Japan. Watson, Ho, and Raman (1994) have also used the individualism-collectivism dimension to account for differences in the way Group Support Systems (GSS) affected group decisions in the USA and Singapore. Findings from Chau et al. (2002) illustrate how users from different countries differ in their perception of the purpose of Internet and, consequently, exhibit differences in their behaviours and general attitudes toward the Internet. Marcus and Gould (2000) examine a number of cultural dimensions and their possible impact on user-interface design (see also Barber & Badre, 2001; Del Galdo & Nielsen, 1996). Other authors, for example, explore cultural influences on technology development and innovation (Herbig, 1994), cultural influences on technology adoption (Straub, 1994), and culture as a factor in the diffusion of the Internet (Cronin, 1996; Goodman, Press, Ruth, & Rutkowski, 1994; Maitland, 1999). Finally, Veiga, Floyd, and Dechant (2001) suggest that perceptions of a technology's ease-of-use and usefulness are connected to an individual's broader system of belief, including culturally-sensitive beliefs.
Therefore, because of an anticipated large number of IS users from multiple cultures, research may systematically examine the acceptance and usage models and other models related to cross-cultural motives and beliefs. As Sun and Zhang (2006) suggest, these models have traditionally presented two limitations: (1) the relatively low explanatory power; and (2) inconsistent influences of the cross-study factors. Research may (1) focus on identifying the major cultural dimensions and their corresponding relationships with IS acceptance; and (2) examine the potential moderating effects that may overcome these limitations.
To sum up, culture's role within acceptance and usage model has been only recently investigated. Little research has systematically examined IS preferences of users related to cross-cultural design characteristics. Some researchers have done work in the area of culture and design, but results have been either inconclusive or unrelated to developing loyal users. In this sense, we deem it necessary to highlight several main starting questions. This would add to the few studies that take into account the individual and contextual factors in technology acceptance; specifically, a better understanding of how cultural differences could affect users' evaluations of IS can uncover ways of localising a global interface. While user-interfaces targeted to different cultures may not need to be completely different from each other, there might be some features that allow the targeted audience to feel at home.
background
In view of academic and theoretical perspective, the effects of culture on IS acceptance have been studied by researchers mostly based on Hofstede's (1980) cultural construct. It has also been shown to be stable and useful for numerous studies across many disciplines. First, Hofstede's dimensions assume culture falls along national boundaries and that the cultures are viewed as static over time. Second, Hofstede (1980) asserts that central tendencies in a nation are replicated in their institutions through the behaviour or practices of individuals. And, third, Hofstede's framework explicitly links national cultural values to communication practices; i.e., communication practices using ICT are central to our study (see Merchant, 2002; Samovar, Porter, & Jain, 1981; Stohl, 2001). Furthermore, Hofstede's model was important because it (a) organised cultural differences into overarching patterns, and (b) conducted the most comprehensive study of how values in the workplace are influenced by culture, which (c) facilitated comparative research and launched a rapidly-expanding body of cultural and cross-cultural research in the ensuing 20 years. Hofstede's (1980) cultural dimensions serve as the most influential culture theory among social science research, and has received strong empirical support. Hofstede, therefore, contributed the influential work in cross-cultural research.
Hofstede (1984, p. 51) defines culture as "the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group from another"; and (b) proposes a series of four dimensions (a fifth was added later; that is, Confucian dynamism) that distinguishes between work-related values. The cultural dimensions are individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity-femininity. Hofstede and Bond (1988) found an additional dimension, which is particularly relevant to Asian culture, Confucian dynamism (i.e., often referred to as long/short term orientation). These value dimensions, which distinguish national value systems, also affect individuals and organizations.
The present study, however, does not intend to examine the whole range of cultural dimensions influencing IS adoption. This article aims to restrict its focus on individualism and uncertainty avoidance. First, according to Hofstede's model, of the four dimensions, individualism vs. collectivism is the most common dimension used by researchers to understand the differences between two or more given cultures (see also Cohen & Avrahami, 2006). Furthermore, Hofstede's proposition confirms that an individualistic culture is also likely to be a low power-distance culture. Individualism is inversely related to the power distance dimension, which is -0.64 in Hofstede's original study, and -0.70 in the sample of teachers and -0.75 in that of students used in Schwartz's cross-cultural study (Schwartz, 1994; see also Gouveia & Ros, 2000). Power distance shows a pattern of correlations almost opposite to Hofstede's individualism (Hofstede, 1984). At least at a cultural level, individualism is the opposite of the acceptance of hierarchy and of ascribed social inequality. Therefore, we propose power distance index is dropped from explicit consideration here.
Second, with regard to the topic of this study, cultures have a different attitude toward uncertain or unknown matters (specifically, IS acceptance and usage by users from diverse cultures). The tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty is expressed through the extent to which a culture resorts to written or unwritten rules to maintain predictability; for instance, the absence of physical contact with online partners emphasizes the role of perceived risk. Users in countries with a high score on uncertainty avoidance will thus be more risk-adverse and will not like making changes. For instance, Yeniyurt and Townsend (2003) found the uncertainty avoidance dimension, among other dimensions, to be negatively correlated with the adoption of ICT-based services such as Internet and PCs. In fact, uncertainty avoidance has the most direct bearing on preference for and use of communications media
Third, Bagchi et al. (2003) argued that «IT promote more cooperation at work, better quality of life and these values are espoused in nations with low MF (i.e., masculinity/femininity) index». However, as comment, «it could be argued equally well that in a country with high masculinity there would also be a positive attitude toward implementing ICT if these technologies improve performance, increase the chance of success and support competition, which are all key factors of a masculine culture». In this sense, Johns et al. (2003) included the individualism/collectivism and uncertainty avoidance dimensions only; these authors felt that achievement orientation (masculinity/femininity dimension) has a mixed impact on the use of technology. The masculinity/femininity dimension could thus have at least at the conceptual level a mixed impact on the ICT (see Kovacic, 2005). In this research, we also propose that masculinity/femininity dimensions are also dropped from explicit consideration.
individualism and uncertainty avoidance dimensions
individualism/collectivism
Individualism/collectivism focuses on the degree the society reinforces individual or collective achievement and interpersonal relationships. Hofstede (1980) argued that cultures high on individualism tend to promote individual decision-making over group consensus. Research has shown that individualistic users support individual identity, and they think that they should be self-sufficient; that is, they resist influence attempts by higher-status individuals. In other words, status influence is likely to be low. Thus, the task and objectives is more important for them than the relationship.
In contrast, in societies emphasizing collectivism, the group becomes the primary source of an individual's identity and individuals seek approval, status and support through group affiliation. Collectivistic users are more group-oriented, and support the group identity over the individual identity (Chau, 1996). The relationships for the collectivistic users are more essential than the task to be completed. Concerns with respect to group welfare are emphasised, as aggregate interests tend to prevail over autonomous, individualistic ones (Hofstede & Bond, 1988).
Given these shortcomings, several studies have thus found that individualistic users show a greater degree of instrumental motivational orientation in comparison to col-lectivistic users. Individualism implies that social behaviour is established by personal goals and does not overlie the goals of the collective, while in collectivism the group is more important than the individual and the people in the group are ready to cooperate. Individualistic users (a) are motivated by achievement needs and (b) tend to exhibit more of certain values such as assertiveness, competitiveness and rationality. The core element of individualism is the assumption that individuals are independent of one another. In an individualistic culture, people therefore seem to be more innovative and trusting in exchange relationships with external parties (Veiga, Yanouzas, & Buchholz, 1993). On the contrary, the core element of collectivism is the assumption that groups bind and mutually obligate individuals.
Therefore, individualistic users could view the different IS as tools for performing tasks, whereas collectivistic users could view them as tools for socialization. In highly-individualistic societies, perceptions about the usefulness of the IS are likely to be based on beliefs about how they affect the individual's job performance. Because they believe in personal control and individual achievement, users in individualistic cultures accept task accomplishment as their personal responsibility. Beliefs about the usefulness are thus made based on the extent to which the IS are seen to enhance the task performance of individuals.
Individualistic users will try the different IS, even if they do not have a positive attitude toward using them, because they may provide productivity enhancement (i.e., usefulness). Consequently, individualistic users need to perceive them as being useful or they will not attempt to use it. It is expected that individualistic users' IS perceived usefulness may exert a more intense influence on determining the intention to use the Web. On the contrary, collectivistic users (related to lower instrumental usage) would tend to underestimate the perceived usefulness of the IS. Collectivistic users, as opposed to individualistic users, would not perceive them as being relatively useful.
Finally, when individualistic users engage in instrumental behaviour, they are motivated to perform their activities in an efficient, focused and timely manner, and with a minimum of irritation (adapted from Babin, William, & Griffinn, 1994). Accordingly, individualistic users do not want to be distracted from their tasks. IS that are easy to understand and use can thus be associated withbeing able to save effort and irritation. As we commented above, perceived ease-of-use influences individual attitudes through two mechanisms: self-efficacy and instrumentality. IS that save effort are correlated with increasing utility. Over time—that is, increasing self-efficacy as a basic determinant of perceived ease-of-use—the indirect effect of perceived ease-of-use (through perceived usefulness) becomes stronger (Watson et al., 1994). Therefore, perceived ease-of-use—as a factor facilitating task-performance and utility—will likely be weighted more strongly by individualistic and weak uncertainty avoidance users.
uncertainty Avoidance
Hofstede (1991, p. 113) defines Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) as "the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations." UAI focuses on the level of tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity within the society, that is, unstructured situations. In a culture high on uncertainty avoidance, individuals are more likely to avoid acceptance and use new technologies because of the uncertainty and ambiguity involved. Moreover, IT may be considered inherently risky (Herbig, 1994). Individuals from high uncertainty avoidance societies attempt to reduce personal risk. For instance, empirical research in 11 European countries by Steenkamp, Ter Hofstede, and Dulton (1999) revealed that uncertainty avoidance scores, among other dimensions, is a strong cultural influence on user's innovativeness in general. It has been found that cultural uncertainty avoidance has a negative impact on users' in-novativeness. Specifically, with regard to the topic of this study, cultures have a different attitude towards uncertain or unknown matters. The tolerance for ambiguity is expressed through the extent to which a culture resorts to written or unwritten rules to maintain predictability.
In strong uncertainty-avoidance societies, their members are encouraged to anticipate the future, create institutions establishing and reinforcing security and stability, and avoid or manage risk. Those members tend to "take time" for action until they acquire enough knowledge and information to reduce and resolve unclear and unstructured situations. Organizational members in strong uncertainty avoidance countries have a feeling of anxiety when encountering unfamiliar risks, deviant ideas, or conflicts in their work place. Moreover, in a culture high on uncertainty avoidance, individuals could be "comprehensive processors" who attempt to assimilate all available information before rendering judgment, while in a culture low on uncertainty avoidance individuals could be "selective processors" who often rely on a subset of highly available and salient cues in place of detailed message elaboration (see also Meyers-Levy & Maheswaran, 1991; Meyers-Levy & Sternthal, 1991; Morris & Venkatesh, 2000). In contrast, in a weak uncertainty-avoidance society, members are encouraged to tolerate uncertainty, take risks, take each day as it comes; perhaps have low expectations and a fatalistic outlook. Members in weak uncertainty-avoidance countries tend to feel less uncomfortable in unclear and unstructured circumstances and are more likely to take risks in unfamiliar situations where encountering deviant and innovative ideas and behaviour with no rules. Achievement functions as a great motivational factor and it encourages those members to take actions in either familiar or unfamiliar situations.
Uncertainty avoidance societies could thus (a) hold lower perceptions of self-efficacy; (b) show more concern about the risks associated with technologies; and (c) experience higher levels of anxiety and more negative feelings; that is, the average risk propensity of an entire population of people tends to be higher for low uncertainty-avoidance cultures and lower for high uncertainty-avoidance cultures. The uncertainty inherent in life is felt as a continuous threat which must be fought. Hence, given the lower levels of perceived self-efficacy among uncertainty avoidance societies, users (a) could perceive greater risks, so (b) they will be more IS-usage averse. As Keil, Beranek, and Konsynski (2000) comment, decision makers tend to exhibit risk-averse behaviour when risk perception is high and risk-seeking behaviour when risk perception is low (Steenkamp et al., 1999) (e.g., Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981).
Hofstede (1980) argued that uncertainty avoidance is related to anxiety that could be the feeling-output when confronted with problems or challenges. The extent to which this occurs might negatively influence willingness to IS usage. That is to say, these societies-more risk averse and with a lower self-confidence-(a) will not engage in behaviours without previously adjusting their attitudes, and (b) will take more time to decide to try the different IS. Expanding the previous reasoning, attitude toward using IS will, therefore, be a relevant mediator between perceptions and intention to use them among uncertainty avoidance cultures.
Also, in general, once collectivist societies establish a positive attitude toward something, they tend to internalise it and take it into their in-group circle (Rice & Love, 1987; Pavlou & Chai, 2002). Thus, we would expect that members of a collectivist culture would want to maintain harmonious "IS<->user" relationships.
Furthermore, the high perceived risk associated with the IS-usage significantly reduces the weak uncertainty-avoidance societies' perception about (a) their self-efficacy in using it, (b) its perceived usefulness, and (c) its ease-of-use. These low evaluations of perceptions among weak uncertainty- avoidance societies can cause an increase in the salience of them in determining attitudes toward using the IS (adapted from Venkatesh & Morris 2000). Weak uncertainty-avoidance cultures may not be willing to accept a difficult and annoying interface.
To sum up, individuals from high uncertainty avoidance societies attempt to reduce personal risk, while being more likely to resist innovative ideas and conform to the rules. On the other hand, these individuals seek to avoid ambiguity and thus create rules for most possible situations. Members of a low uncertainty avoidance culture might be more broad-minded, without a lot of need for social approval, more prone to risk taking, with tolerance toward deviant behaviour and acceptance of innovative ideas.
future trends
This study has future implications both in practice and in theory. It shows that cultural variables are relevant to IS acceptance and usage. Individualistic and weak uncertainty-avoidance scripts should thus focus on the following user-interface and design elements. On the one hand, work tasks, roles, and mastery, with quick results for limited tasks (aspects traditionally related to goal-directed activities); and, on the other hand, navigation-oriented to control and attention gained through games and competitions.
Likewise, in an attempt to develop positive attitudes among collectivistic and high uncertainty-avoidance cultures toward the IS, researchers and professionals might suggest and introduce courses and programs to gain more experience and self-efficacy and, in turn, higher optimal experiences; also, the creation of technical support programs which combine user service with precise, simple, understandable technical information, avoiding the use of jargon (i.e., clarity and courtesy). These policies (a) strengthen the user's perception of trustworthiness based on IS design, and (b) promote the progressive reduction of risk and technological anxiety, showing a determined willingness to understand and comprehend user's needs. The theoretical background provides evidence for culturally differentiated IS acceptance and usage.
Therefore, the study has an implication for diffusion theory, or adoption of IS; that is, findings may be taken as an operational basis for more intensive cultural adaptations of the IS. Our proposals justify the inclusion of moderating cultural-variables. These suggestions range from changes in pedagogy and perspective to making the computer a tool of collaboration between pairs or groups of users rather than individuals (adapted from Bryson & de Castell 1995; Littleton & Bannert 1999); and to giving collectivistic cultures a context in the IS-based experience. Therefore, while it seems that these differences are perhaps more enduring than expected, they could certainly be controlled and rendered reasonable by the appropriate use of training-sessions.
conclusion
Information systems offer unprecedented opportunities for world-wide access to information resources. Accordingly, the theoretical proposals presented in this article analyse the moderating effect of national culture (specifically, individualism and uncertainty avoidance dimensions) on the use of the IS. Differences among cultures in the ways in which they approach and interact with the IS are highly relevant to understanding how users use them in all settings.
Culture is one of the most relevant aspects of a user's personal and social context. Findings suggest that attitude formation is influenced by the objective characteristics of the IS, the extent of use, and individual and social users' differences. Studies continuously report that users are not always rational in selecting and using media and technologies, but attitudes toward and use of media and technologies are influenced by culture, norms, social contexts, or salient others (adapted from Fulk, Schmitz, & Schwartz, 1992; Rice & Love, 1987). Cultural differences (1) would be thus potentially critical to our understanding of IS acceptance and use; and (2) would play an important moderating role in determining how individuals make their decisions about adopting and using IS.
Cultural aspects need to be taken into account when developing IS that are especially to be used by a global audience. For instance, as Hermeking (2005) suggests, "a culturally well designed Web site may be defined as communicating the right information at the right place with the right layout in the right manner and in the right time according to the culture of each of its users."
Like any research, our study also has certain limitations. On the one hand, findings represent only preliminary tendencies. One of the main reasons for this is the high complexity and contingency of influences on IS design beyond cultural values and communication styles. On the other hand, Hofst-ede's method could thus be a significantly useful framework used in IS design. However, critics question the applicability of the dimensions to all cultures, emphasizing that "one can conjuncture that other types of samples might yield different dimensions and order ofnations" (see Schwartz, 1994; Erez & Early, 1993; Soares et al., 2007). Most frequently, researchers question Hofstede's methodology and sample (e.g., Myers & Tan, 2002). Beyond age-based critiques, researchers also criticise Hofstede's dimensions for being data driven and not having a strong enough base in theory (e.g., Smith & Schwartz, 1997). Lastly, as Baack and Singh (2007, p. 182) summarise, "scholars point out that Hofstede's survey is specific to work values and may not apply to marketing research." Straub et al. (2002) argued that individuals may or may not identify with the national culture and they can show different cultural orientation even though they are in the same country. The social identity theory enables IS researchers to have a theoretical framework for studying at an individual level with a complimentary research perspective.
KEY TERMS
Culture: Refers to the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group from another.
Individualism (IDV): The degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onward are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.
Masculinity (MAS): Refers to the distribution of roles between the genders which is another fundamental issue for any society to which a range of solutions are found.
Perceived Ease-of-Use (PEOU): Defined as the degree to which a person believes that using a particular IS would be free of effort.
Perceived Usefulness (PU): Defined as the degree to which a person believes that a singular IS would enhance his/her job performance.
Power Distance Index (PDI): The extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally.
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI): Deals with a society's tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; it ultimately refers to man's search for Truth. It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations.