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

PLS Graph – Local Website

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

Human Images and Trust

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)

Eye-tracking System

Sample Eye-tracking Data

Sample Eye-tracking Data

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