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.
Published in Chapter:
Cultural Motives in Information Systems Acceptance and Use
Manuel J. Sanchez-Franco (University of Seville, Spain) and Francisco José Martínez López (University of Granada, Spain)
Copyright: © 2009
|Pages: 8
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-026-4.ch140
Abstract
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.