Cross-cultural Differences in Social Networking:An Examination of the Global Web Index Behavior Types. John Girard and Andy Bertsch's presentation at 15th Cross Cultural Research Conference, Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort, Kona, Hawaii

1. Cross-cultural Differences in Social Networking: Girard & Bertsch
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
An
Examina<on
of
the
Global
Web
Index
Behaviour
Types
1
John
Girard
john.girard@minotstateu.edu
Andy
Bertsch
andy.bertch@minotstateu.edu
Overview
2
— Third
phase
in
a
research
project
— Aim
to
understanding
rela<onships
that
exist
between
social
media
usage
and
societal
cultural
differences
— In
this
phase:
GLOBE
Societal
Value
scores
and
social
networking
data
as
reported
by
the
Global
Web
Index
— Employs
an
exploratory
research
design
aimed
at
exploring
the
rela<onships
between
cultural
values
dimension
variables
(IV)
and
a
country’s
placement
on
social
media
scales
(DV)
— We
opted
to
use
correla<on
and
regression
techniques
to
explore
these
rela<onships
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
1

2. Cross-cultural Differences in Social Networking: Girard & Bertsch
Background:
Social
Technology
3
“A
social
trend
in
which
people
use
technologies
to
get
the
things
they
need
from
each
other,
rather
than
from
tradi<onal
ins<tu<ons
like
corpora<ons.”
groundswell.forrester.com
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
The
Social
Technographics™
Ladder
4
Creators
Creators
make
social
content
go.
They
write
blogs
or
upload
Cri%cs
respond
to
content
from
video,
music,
or
text.
others.
They
post
reviews,
Cri%cs
comment
on
blogs,
par<cipate
in
forums,
and
edit
wiki
ar<cles.
Collectors
organize
content
for
Collectors
themselves
or
others
using
RSS
feeds,
tags,
and
vo<ng
sites
like
Digg.com
Joiners
connect
in
social
Joiners
networks
like
MySpace
and
Facebook
Spectators
consume
social
Spectators
content
including
blogs,
user-­‐
generated
video,
podcasts,
Inac%ves
neither
create
nor
forums,
or
reviews
consume
social
content
of
any
Inac%ves
kind
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
2

3. Cross-cultural Differences in Social Networking: Girard & Bertsch
The
Social
Technographics™
Ladder
US
Adults
5
2007
2010
Creators
US
18-­‐24
US
35-­‐44
US
55+
18%
24%
46%
23%
12%
Cri%cs
25%
37%
50%
34%
28%
Collectors
12%
21%
38%
20%
12%
Joiners
25%
51%
85%
54%
26%
Spectators
48%
73%
89%
73%
64%
Inac%ves
44%
18%
3%
17%
30%
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
The
Social
Technographics™
Ladder
South
Korea
Adults
Japanese
Adults
6
2007
2009
Creators
2007
2009
38%
49%
22%
34%
Cri%cs
27%
46%
36%
30%
Collectors
14%
19%
6%
11%
Joiners
41%
48%
22%
26%
Spectators
39%
76%
70%
69%
Inac%ves
36%
9%
26%
23%
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
3

4. Cross-cultural Differences in Social Networking: Girard & Bertsch
The
Knowledge
Pyramid
7
InformaHon
to
Knowledge
· Compare
· Consequences
· Connects
Knowledge
· Conversa<on
Data
to
InformaHon
InformaHon
· Context
· Categorize
· Calculate
· Correct
· Condense
Data
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
Social Technographics Dimensions
Adapted from Li and Bernoff (2008)
8
Dimension
Knowledge
Sharing
Ac%vity
Creators
Creators
produce
and
share
informa<on
and
knowledge
that
is
freely
available
to
other
users,
the
quintessence
of
need-­‐to-­‐share.
Cri%cs
Cri<cs
add
value
to
the
data,
informa<on
and
knowledge
shared
by
creators.
Their
feedback,
comments,
and
correc<ons
oeen
facilitate
the
metamorphosis
of
data
to
informa<on
or
informa<on
to
knowledge
thorough
conversa<on,
connec<ons,
and
comparison.
Collectors
Collectors
provide
access
and
provide
the
opportunity
for
other
users
to
compare
and
connect
informa<on.
Joiners
Online
communi<es
facilitate
conversa<on.
Spectators
Spectators
consume
the
informa<on
and
knowledge
created
by
others.
Inac%ves
Inac<ves
do
not
create
or
exchange
social
knowledge
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
4

5. Cross-cultural Differences in Social Networking: Girard & Bertsch
Hostede’s
Cultural
Dimension
9
hgp://www.geert-­‐hofstede.com/hofstede_united_states.shtml
hgp://www.geert-­‐hofstede.com/hofstede_japan.shtml
Dimension Con%nuum
Power
Distance
Index
(PDI) Low
Power
Distance
vs.
High
Power
Distance
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Index
(UAI) Low
Uncertainty
Avoidance
vs.
High
Uncertainty
Avoidance
Individualism
(IDV) Individualism
vs.
Collec<vism
Masculinity
(MAS) Masculinity
vs.
Femininity
Long-­‐Term
Time
Orienta%on
(LTO) Long-­‐term
orienta<on
vs.
Short-­‐term
orienta<on
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
Methodology
10
— Scager
Diagrams.
Produce
scager
diagrams
to
visually
explore
possible
rela<onships.
— Pearson’s
Coefficient
of
Correla<on.
If
appropriately
linear,
Pearson’s
r
will
be
used
to
determine
the
strength
of
rela<onship.
Cau<on
will
be
in
order
as
correla<on
is
not
the
same
as
causa<on
— Test
for
significance
of
Pearson’s
r.
— Regression
analysis
in
order
to
determine
the
reasonableness
of
predic<ng
a
country’s
placement
along
the
Forrester
scale.
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
5

6. Cross-cultural Differences in Social Networking: Girard & Bertsch
Phase
1:
Country
Scores
(13)
11
Country Creators Cri%cs Collectors Joiners Spectators Inac%ves PDI UAI IDV MAS
US 24 37 21 51 73 18 40 46 91 62
Canada 18 29 17 57 64 21 39 48 80 52
UK 15 21 6 38 50 37 35 35 89 66
France 12 19 6 24 51 40 68 86 71 43
Germany 9 12 4 21 38 52 35 65 67 66
Italy 29 25 7 33 52 36 50 76 70 75
Metro
China 44 46 37 32 79 17 80 20 66 30
Japan 34 30 11 26 69 23 54 92 46 95
South
Korea 49 46 19 48 76 9 60 18 39 85
Australia 23 31 14 50 64 22 36 51 90 61
Spain 15 21 8 24 56 38 57 86 51 42
Netherlands 20 20 8 38 64 27 38 53 80 14
Sweden 14 21 8 37 59 32 31 29 71 5
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
Scager
Diagrams
12
PDI
and
Creators
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
6

7. Cross-cultural Differences in Social Networking: Girard & Bertsch
Phase
1
Results
13
Creators Cri%cs Collectors Joiners Spectators Inac%ves
0.5736
0.4994
0.5276
-­‐0.3520
0.3928
-­‐0.2520
PDI t
=
2.32
t
=
1.91
t
=
2.06
t
=
-­‐1.25
t
=
1.42
t
=
-­‐0.86
R2
=
0.33
R2
=
0.25
R2
=
0.28
R2
=
0.12
R2
=
0.15
R2
=
0.06
SE
=
11 SE
=
9 SE
=
8 SE
=
11 SE
=
11 SE
=
12
-­‐0.3907
-­‐0.5423
-­‐0.5646
-­‐0.5728
-­‐0.4645
0.5264
UAI t
=
-­‐1.41
t
=
-­‐2.14
t
=
-­‐2.27
t
=
-­‐2.32
t
=
-­‐1.74
t
=
2.05
R2
=
0.15
R2
=
0.29
R2
=
0.32
R2
=
0.33
R2
=
0.22
R2
=
0.28
SE
=
12 SE
=
9 SE
=
8 SE
=
10 SE
=
11 SE
=
10
-­‐0.4827
-­‐0.2245
-­‐0.0435
0.4311
-­‐0.1771
0.1135
IDV t
=
-­‐1.83
t
=
-­‐0.76
t
=
-­‐0.14
t
=
1.58
t
=
-­‐0.60
t
=
0.38
R2
=
0.23
R2
=
0.05
R2
=
0.00
R2
=
0.19
R2
=
0.03
R2
=
0.01
SE
=
11 SE
=
11 SE
=
9 SE
=
11 SE
=
12 SE
=
12
0.3622
0.2444
-­‐0.0511
0.0452
0.0065
-­‐0.1283
MAS t
=
1.29
t
=
0.84
t
=
-­‐0.17
t
=
0.15
t
=
0.02
t
=
-­‐0.43
R2
=0.13
R2
=
0.06
R2
=
0.00
R2
=
0.00
R2
=
0.00
R2
=
0.02
SE
=
12 SE
=
11 SE
=
9 SE
=
12 SE
=
12 SE
=
12
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
Phase
1
Conclusion
14
Although
the
authors
believe
that
culture
influences
behaviours,
this
study
did
not
reveal
any
reasonable
rela%onships
between
culture
and
placement
along
the
Social
Technographics.
However,
it
is
possible
that
there
exists
problems
in
the
Hofstede
scales.
The
Hofstede
scales
have
been
highly
cri<cized
in
the
literature
(for
an
example
of
such
cri<cism,
see
McSweeny
(2002)
and
Sivakumar
&
Nakata
(2001)).
It
may
be
that
other
cross-­‐
cultural
models
such
as
GLOBE,
Schwartz,
Triandis,
or
others
may
yield
different
results.
In
this
regard,
further
research
is
necessary.
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
7

8. Cross-cultural Differences in Social Networking: Girard & Bertsch
Phase
2
15
— Hofstede’s
culture
scores
/
GLOBE
Societal
Values
scores
— Analysis
included
running
correla<on
coefficients
(Peasson’s
r)
for
each
rela<onship,
tes<ng
for
significance
of
each
respec<ve
Pearson’s
r,
and
conduc<ng
regression
analyses
on
each
rela<onship.
— The
results
were
mixed.
There
were
several
sta<s<cally
significant
correla<ons
between
the
GLOBE
Societal
Values
scales
and
the
Social
Technographics
scores
— Only
one
rela<onship
passed
the
R-­‐square
test:
Gender
Egalitarianism
Values
and
a
society’s
placement
on
the
Creator
rung
of
the
Forrester
ladder.
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
Phase
3:
GLOBE
and
Global
Web
Index
8

9. Cross-cultural Differences in Social Networking: Girard & Bertsch
17
hgp://www.globalwebindex.net
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
Global
Web
Index
Consumer
Behaviour
Dimensions
Adapted
from
(Smith,
T
(2011))
18
Dimension
Global
Web
Index
Defini%on
Messengers
and
Emailed
/
sent
messages
to
friends
OR
Makers
(MM)
Instant
messaged
with
friends
OR
Wrigen
a
status
update
Content
Sharers
(CS)
Share
a
news
story
OR
Share
content
from
a
brand/product
OR
Uploaded
and
shared
videos
on
your
profile
OR
Uploaded
and
shared
videos
on
your
profile
Joiners
and
Creators
Joined
a
group
OR
of
Groups
(JC)
Started
a
group
OR
Joined
a
group
affiliated
/
connected
with
a
brand
or
product
OR
Joined
a
group
from
a
musician
/
ar<st
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
9

10. Cross-cultural Differences in Social Networking: Girard & Bertsch
GLOBE's
Dimensions
of
Societal
Culture
Defini<ons
adopted
by
GLOBE
(Chhokar,
Brodbeck
and
House,
2008)
19
Dimension
Defini%on
Performance
The
extent
to
which
high
level
members
of
organiza<ons
and
socie<es,
encourage
and
Orienta%on
(PO)
reward
group
members
for
performance
improvement
and
excellence.
Future
Orienta%on
The
degree
to
which
individuals
in
organiza<ons
or
socie<es
engage
in
future-­‐oriented
(FO)
behaviors
such
as
planning,
inves<ng
in
the
future,
and
delaying
individual
or
collec<ve
gra<fica<on.
Gender
Egalitarianism
The
extent
to
which
an
organiza<on
or
a
society
minimizes
gender
role
differences
while
(GE)
promo<ng
gender
equity
and
equality
of
genders.
Asser%veness
(A)
The
degree
to
which
individuals
in
organiza<ons
or
socie<es
are
asser<ve,
confronta<onal,
and
aggressive
in
social
rela<onships.
Ins%tu%onal
The
degree
to
which
organiza<onal
and
societal
ins<tu<onal
prac<ces
encourage
and
reward
Collec%vism
(IC)
collec<ve
distribu<on
of
resources
and
collec<ve
ac<on.
In-­‐Group
Collec%vism
The
degree
to
which
individuals
express
pride,
loyalty,
and
cohesiveness
in
their
(GC)
organiza<ons,
families,
circle
of
close
friends,
or
other
such
small
groups.
Power
Distance
(PD)
The
degree
to
which
members
of
an
organiza<on
and
society
encourage
and
reward
unequal
distribu<on
of
power
with
greater
power
at
higher
levels.
Humane
Orienta%on
The
degree
to
which
individuals
in
organiza<ons
or
socie<es
encourage
and
reward
(HO)
individuals
for
being
fair,
altruis<c,
friendly,
generous,
caring,
kind
to
others,
and
exhibi<ng
and
promo<ng
altruis<c
ideals.
Uncertainty
The
extent
to
which
members
of
an
organiza<on
or
society
strive
to
avoid
uncertainty
by
Avoidance
(UA)
relying
on
established
social
norms,
rituals,
and
bureaucra<c
prac<ces
to
decrease
the
probability
of
unpredictable
future
events
that
could
adversely
affect
the
opera<on
of
an
organiza<on
or
society,
and
also
to
remedy
the
poten<al
adverse
effects
of
such
unpredictable
future
events.
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
Country
Scores
for
Global
Web
Index
and
GLOBE
Societal
Values
Scales
20
Global
Web
Index
Behavior
Country
GLOBE
Societal
Values
Scales
Types
MM
CS
JC
PO
FO
GE
A
IC
GC
PD
HO
UA
US
51
51
20
6.14
5.31
5.06
4.32
4.17
5.77
2.85
5.53
4.00
Canada
54
43
26
6.15
5.35
5.11
4.15
4.17
597
2.70
5.64
3.75
UK
44
40
28
5.90
5.06
5.17
3.70
4.32
5.55
2.80
5.43
4.11
France
57
45
28
5.65
4.96
4.40
3.38
4.86
5.42
2.76
5.67
4.26
Germany
47
38
32
6.01
4.85
4.89
3.09
4.82
5.18
2.54
5.46
3.94
Italy
38
49
36
6.07
5.91
4.88
3.82
5.13
5.72
2.47
5.58
4.47
China
47
53
34
5.67
4.73
3.68
5.44
4.56
5.09
3.10
5.32
5.28
Japan
16
16
8
5.17
5.25
4.33
5.56
3.99
5.26
2.86
5.41
4.33
South
Korea
23
33
11
5.25
5.69
4.22
3.75
3.9
5.41
2.55
5.60
4.67
Australia
50
48
27
5.89
5.15
5.02
3.81
4.40
5.76
2.78
5.58
3.98
Spain
47
45
36
5.80
5.63
4.82
4.00
5.20
5.79
2.26
5.69
4.76
Netherlands
45
42
18
5.49
5.07
4.99
3.02
4.55
5.17
2.45
5.20
3.24
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
10

11. Cross-cultural Differences in Social Networking: Girard & Bertsch
Correla<on
Coefficients
(r)
with
t-­‐Scores,
R2
values
21
MM
CS
JC
r
=
0.7163
r
=
0.6734
r
=
0.6720
t
=
3.24
t
=
2.88
t=
2.86
PO
-­‐
Values
r2
=
0.51
r2
=
0.45
r2
=
0.45
SE
=
8.92
SE
=
7.69
SE
=
7.22
r
=
0.8183
t
=
4.50
*(p<0.05)
IC
-­‐
Values
r2
=
0.67
SE
=
5.61
Hair,
et
al.
(2006)
suggests
that
R2
values
less
than
0.50
result
in
less
than
acceptable
models.
When
a
model
yields
an
R2
value
that
is
less
than
0.50,
more
than
0.50
of
the
variance
in
the
dependent
variable
is
agributed
to
spurious
variables
or
error
(Joseph
F.
Hair,
Jr.,
et
al.,
2006).
This
phase
of
this
mul%-­‐phased
research
project
yielded
sta%s%cally
significant
results.
In
par%cular,
GLOBE’s
Performance
Orienta%on
Societal
Values
scores
can
be
used
to
place
a
society
along
the
MM
con%nuum
of
the
Global
Web
Index.
Similarly,
GLOBE’s
Ins%tu%onal
Collec%vism
Societal
Values
scores
can
be
used
to
place
a
society
along
the
JC
con%nuum
of
the
Global
Web
Index.
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
More
Data
Coming
Soon
>30
Countries
22
hgp://www.globalwebindex.net
Cross-­‐cultural
Differences
in
Social
Networking:
Girard
&
Bertsch
11