A Study of Search User Interface Design based on

Hofstede’s Six Cultural Dimensions

Karen Chessum

, Haiming Liu

and Ingo Frommholz

School of Computer Science and Technology, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, U.K.

School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, U.K.

School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematical Sciences, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, U.K.

Keywords: Cross-cultural Information Retrieval, Cross-cultural Theory, Website Design, Human-Computer Information

Retrieval (HCIR), Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions, Human-Computer Interaction (HCI).

Abstract: An information seeker’s cultural background could influence their preference for search user interface (UI)

design. To study cultural influences Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions have been applied to website design

for a number of years. In this paper, we examine if Hofstede’s six cultural dimension can be applied to inform

the design of search engine user interfaces. The culturally designed search user interfaces have been evaluated

in a study with 148 participants of different cultural backgrounds. The results have been analysed to determine

if Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are appropriate for understanding users’ preferences on search user interface

design. Whilst the key findings from the study suggest Hofstede cross-cultural dimensions can be used to

model users’ preferences on search interface design, further work is still needed for particular cultural

dimensions to reinforce the conclusions.

1 INTRODUCTION

A user’s cultural orientation could influence their

preferences on user interface (UI) design, as noted by

(Reinecke et al., 2010). Contemporary search engines

such as Google, Bing, and Yahoo!, do not

differentiate between different user types or the

cultural backgrounds of their users. Research

conducted by Slone (2002, p 1166 ) states, “Both

motivation and experience, elements of goals and

mental models, played equally strong roles in this

result. In fact, goals and mental models work in

tandem to determine overall searching behaviour”. A

user’s cultural background influences their mental

model formation.

One means of defining culture is mental

programming. Mental programming can be thought

of as patterns of thinking, feeling and actions, based

upon what we have learned throughout our lifetime.

Hofstede (1991, p 4) writes, “Much of it has been

acquired in early childhood”. Thinking patterns,

feelings and actions which have been learned over

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2980-8746

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0390-3657

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5622-5132

one’s lifetime, once learned have to be unlearned

before new patterns can be absorbed. Hofstede,

(1991, p 5) also noted, “Culture is learned not

inherited”. Culture is different from human nature on

one hand and from personality on the other hand.

Culture as described by Hofstede (1991, p 5) is “the

collective programming of the mind which

distinguishes the members of one group or category

of people from another”.

In our work, we examine cross-cultural aspects in

search UI design. The overall aim of our research is

to study the potential differences and different

preferences between cultures when it comes to search

UI. Due to the reported importance of Hofstede’s

work in international communication, (Wardrobe,

2005) international management, (Bing, 2004)

international marketing, (Mooij and Hofstede, 2010)

and use in website design, (Marcus and Gould, 2000:

Liu, 2021), we base our considerations on Hofstede’s

model.

Our contribution is as follows: firstly, we discuss

how we have used Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions

Chessum, K., Liu, H. and Frommholz, I.

A Study of Search User Interface Design based on Hofstede’s Six Cultural Dimensions.

DOI: 10.5220/0011528700003323

In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications (CHIRA 2022), pages 145-154

ISBN: 978-989-758-609-5; ISSN: 2184-3244

145

to inform our prototype search UI design. Secondly,

in our study we use the prototype UIs we designed

based on Hofstede’s dimensions to determine if

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and index scores for

different countries match the user preference of the

search UI design. For example, if Hofstede’s cultural

dimensions Index scores indicate a country’s culture

is towards the high end of the Masculinity dimension,

do users from this cultural background actually prefer

a search UI designed with high Masculinity in mind?

To accomplish our aims, the remainder of the

paper is structured as follows: to justify our choice of

applying Hofstede’s dimensions, we briefly review

different cultural models in the next section.

Subsequently, we discuss by example how

Hofstede’s dimensions informed the design of our

prototype UIs. Next, we present our study and its

results to answer the question of whether Hofstede’s

index scores can be used to indicate the search UI

preferences of users from different cultural

backgrounds. Finally, we offer our conclusion.

2 CULTURAL MODELS

Several cultural models have been critically reviewed

for the suitability of this research, which is to

effectively model different cultures and be able to

inform the design of cross-cultural search UIs. Below

are the details on what they are and why we decide to

continue our investigation with Hofstede’s model.

2.1 Hall

Edward Hall, an anthropologist, was a pioneer in

cross-cultural business communication. Hall (1976)

defined culture as using ‘high context’ (HC) and ‘low

context‘(LC). A high context communication, as

noted by Smith et al., (2004) is where, “little has to be

said or written because most of the information is

either in the physical environment or within the

person, while very little is in the coded, explicit part

of the message”. Liu (2021) notes ‘people from high-

context cultures prefer face-to-face communication’

and continues by saying high-context cultures ‘look

for both less-direct verbal and subtler nonverbal cues

during the communication’.

This high-low context for cultures refers to how

information is stored and flows. Whereas in a ‘low

context’ culture the information contained in the

message is explicit, little is hidden.

Hall identified the Primary Message Systems

(PMS). These systems are non-lingual ways in which

humans communicate with one another. Hall

identified 10 PMS each relating to a facet of human

activity, (Hall, 1990). However, it is Hall’s ‘high-

context’ and ‘low-context’ work that is most cited

within a Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)

perspective.

2.2 Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner also looked at

culture from a dimension level and defined seven

cultural dimensions. They took Parson’s five

relational orientations, Parsons (1951) as a starting

point.

These dimensions are units that can be used to

make comparisons and are as follows: Universalism vs

Particularism, Individualism vs Communitarianism,

Specific vs Diffuse, Neutral vs Emotional,

Achievement vs Ascription, Sequential time vs

Synchronous time and Internal direction vs Outer

direction.

2.3 Nisbett

Nisbett, a social psychologist, examines the

differences between Eastern and Western cultures. As

noted by Oshlyansky (2007), Nisbett looks at the

“processes of thought, perception, attention,

organisation of knowledge, understanding” and other

mental processes. He uses ‘holistic’ and ‘analytic’

thought patterns or mental processes to distinguish

between Eastern and Western cultures, with the West

on the analytics side and East/Asian on the holistic

side. Nisbett and Miyamoto, (2005) says, “the

evidence indicates that people in Western cultures

focus on salient objects and use rules and

categorization for purposes of organizing the

environment. By contrast, people in East Asian

cultures focus more holistically on relationships and

similarities among objects when organizing the

environment.”

2.4 Hofstede

Geert Hofstede, a Dutch anthropologist, carried out

in-depth interviews with hundreds of IBM employees

in 53 countries. He identified four cultural

dimensions and published his research at the end of

the 1970s. The fifth dimension Long-term Time

Orientation (LTO) was added in 1991 from work

carried out by Michael Harris Bond, supported by

Hofstede. An additional sixth dimension, Indulgence

versus Restraint (IND) added in 2010 is described in

Hofstede et al., (2010) following the analysis of the

World Values Survey data (from the World Values

CHIRA 2022 - 6th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

146

Survey Organisation) from 93 countries by Michael

Minkov. Hofstede et al., (2010) contains details of all

six dimensions.

2.5 Why Hofstede?

Geert Hofstede’s cultural research is probably one of

the most well-known cultural models and as noted by

Ghemawat and Reiche, (2011) the most widely used.

Hofstede created six dimensions by which cultures

can be compared, (Reid, 2015). Hofstede’s work has

been used in a number of disciplines, examples of

which are global branding and advertising’, (Mooij

and Hofstede, 2010), consumer behaviour, (Milner et

al., 1993), management control systems, (Chatterjee,

2014), cross-cultural psychology, (Hofstede, 2011)

and cross-cultural HCI research (Smith et al., 2004).

As noted by Oshlyansky (2007) when discussing

cultural models used in HCI states, “By far the most

popular of these models is Hofstede’s”. Smith et al.,

(2004) also state, “Hofstede’s (1991) dimensions of

culture that are the most often quoted theories in

relation to cross-cultural usability”. Mooij and

Hofstede (2010) assert “People perform information-

seeking tasks faster when using web content created

by designers from their own culture”. Mooij and

Hofstede (2010) go on to say, culturally adapted

websites are more usable, and users are more likely to

have a more positive outlook toward them.

3 HOFSTEDE’S CROSS

CULTURAL THEORY

Examples of how Hofstede’s work has been used in

HCI, are shown by Marcus and Gould (2000), who

used Hofstede’s five-dimensional model to develop a

set of website design guidelines and Smith et al.,

2004) who incorporated Hofstede’s dimensions in

their process model. Research undertaken by

Chessum et al., (2014) looked at Hofstede’s five

dimensions to group users for cross-cultural

information retrieval. However, since then, Hofstede

has added a sixth dimension, called ‘Indulgence v

Restraint’ (IND), to his cultural model.

This work examines whether Hofstede’s

dimensions can be used in the design of search UIs.

The attributes of Hofstede’s six dimensions have been

researched extensively in relation to HCI by the

authors of this paper. We considered the following

interpretations of the six dimensions (user interface

Examples of UI 1 to UI 12 can be seen at

https://github.com/ifromm/cross-cultural-ui-designs/

designs UI 1 to UI 12

) applicable to Human-

Computer Interaction (HCI) design.

There has been generally less research conducted

regarding Hofstede’s most recent, sixth dimension,

Indulgence v Restraint (IND). Many works conducted

did not include this last dimension. Examples are

(Marcus and Gould, 2000), (Smith et al., 2004),

(Chessum et al., 2014) and (Karreman et al., 2016).

Hofstede’s additional sixth dimension is included in

this research and the descriptions and references

given below (Sections 3.1 to 3.6).

3.1 Power Distance (PD)

Power Distance is the amount of unequal power

within a culture that members of that culture are

prepared to accept or expect. User interface designs

for UI 1 and UI 2 are given below:

3.1.1 UI 1 High (PD)

 Images of Experts, official buildings, official

logos, prominence given to security and

restrictions (Marcus and Gould 2000).

 Structured website design (Burgmann et al.

2006).

 “Older people are both respected and feared” use

images of older people for wisdom and

credibility (Hofstede 2011).

3.1.2 UI 2 Low (PD)

 Status is displayed to leaders rather than the

population, staff or consumers. Information

hierarchy is shallow (Marcus and Gould, 2000).

 Use a looser structure to allow users to explore

your site for themselves (Nahai, 2013), (Marcus

and Gould, 2000).

 Use earned evaluations e.g. ratings, testimonials,

likes, to promote your goods or services (Nahai,

2013).

 “Older people are neither respected nor feared”

Show images of younger or youthful people

(Hofstede, 2011).

3.2 Individualism (IDV)

Individualism within a culture is where the individual

is expected only to take care of themselves and their

immediate family. There is no expectation for them to

take care of anyone else, as opposed to a collectivist

society, where members take care of extended

A Study of Search User Interface Design based on Hofstede’s Six Cultural Dimensions

147

families and other group members. User interface

designs for UI 3 and UI 4 are given below:

3.2.1 UI 3 High (IDV)

 “High text-to-image ratio”. Avoid cluttered

graphics. Show positive images of goal

achievement (Gould et al., 2000).

 “Create competitions and challenges to engage

your customers”. “Give visitors a sense of

personal achievement to motivate actions”.

Have content that has ‘novelty’ and ‘difference’

in order to ‘attract attention’ (Nahai, 2013).

 Have their own personal goals. Follow their likes

and dislikes (Sinha, 2014).

 “Speaking one's mind is healthy” (Hofstede

2011).

3.2.2 UI 4 Low (IDV)

 “High image-to-text ratio” (Gould et al., 2000).

 Transparency, give users full disclosure, for

example how their data would be used. “Show

that you respect privacy and security of personal

info”. “Engage the community – ‘we’ not ‘me’”

(Nahai, 2013).

 Emphasis on social and organisational goals.

 An individual’s goals are less important (Gould

et al., 2000).

 Members of a collective society, aspire to

achieve their in-groups’ goals (Sinha, 2014).

 “Harmony should always be maintained’

(Hofstede, 2011).

3.3 Masculinity (MAS)

With this dimension, Hofstede refers to gender roles

rather than to physical gender. Masculine roles

consist of assertiveness, toughness and competition.

Masculine work objectives incorporate “earnings,

recognition, advancements and challenge”, as noted

by Marcus (2002). While feminine roles are

traditionally ones with an emphasis on caring for the

home, family/children, people and tenderness are

considered prevalent. User interface designs for UI 5

and UI 6 are given below:

3.3.1 UI 5 High (MAS)

 User attention obtained by games and

competitions. Work tasks, roles, and skills, quick

results obtained for limited actions. Navigation

focused on exploring but also on control (Marcus

and Gould, 2000).

 Masculine societies are competitive. Motivated

by achievement, heroism, assertiveness, and

materialism (Idler, 2013).

 “Admiration for the strong” (Hofstede 2011).

 Bright contrasting colours (Voehringer-Kuhnt,

2002), (Dormann and Chisalita, 2002).

3.3.2 UI 6 Low (MAS)

 User attention is obtained by the use of poetry,

aesthetics, and appealing to uniting values

(Marcus and Gould, 2000).

 Provide contact information and be prepared for

feedback and questions. “This group is very

cooperative and if they want to give feedback,

they don’t hesitate to get in contact with you”.

 “Feminine societies are consensus-oriented”.

With a preference for values, corresponding to

cooperation, modesty, care for the weak, and

quality of life (Idler, 2013).

 “Sympathy for the weak” (Hofstede, 2011).

 Pastel colours, low saturation (Voehringer-

Kuhnt, 2002, (Dormann and Chisalita, 2002).

3.4 Uncertainty Avoidance (UA)

Uncertainty avoidance relates to the extent a culture

is either comfortable or uncomfortable with

uncertainty or unknown situations. User interface

designs for UI 7 and UI 8 are given below:

3.4.1 UI 7 High (UA)

 Tries to show/predict the results or effects of

actions before the user acts. Navigation

structures are designed to help prevent users

from becoming lost. Any ambiguity can be

decreased by the use of “Redundant cues”, e.g.

design, sound visual aids (Burgmann et al.,

2006).

 Simplicity, with clear metaphors, restricted

options, and limited volume of data (Marcus and

Gould, 2000).

 “The uncertainty inherent in life is felt as a

continuous threat that must be fought”. “Need for

clarity and structure” (Hofstede, 2011).

3.4.2 UI 8 Low (UA)

 Information is maximised by the use of colour

coding, typeface, font, and sound. Use multiple

links but not redundant cueing. Limited control

over navigation e.g. Links could open content in

new windows that lead away from the original

webpage(s). Complexity with maximum content

CHIRA 2022 - 6th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

148

and options. Acceptance of exploring and risk

(can even be encouraged), with a stigma on

“over- protection.” (Marcus and Gould, 2000).

 “The uncertainty inherent in life is accepted and

each day is taken as it comes”, “Comfortable

with ambiguity and chaos” (Hofstede, 2011).

3.5 Long-term Time Orientation (LTO)

Also known as, Long-term Orientation versus Short-

term Normative Orientation (LTO). This dimension

was identified later by Hofstede and Bond (1984),

where Bond had a questionnaire re-designed, with a

Chinese culture bias. This he called the Chinese value

survey, (CVS). LTO is a Confucian philosophy,

where members value long-term gain over short-term

gain. User interface designs for UI 9 and UI 10 are

given below:

3.5.1 UI 9 High (LTO)

 Offer ways for the user to save browsing history,

e.g., wish lists. Together with means of sharing

on social media. Persons with long-term

orientation decisions are comprehensive and

grounded “for the future” (Idler, 2013).

 Patience shown in attaining results and reaching

goals. “Relationships as a source of information

and credibility” (Marcus and Gould, 2000).

 “Perseverance in achieving results” (Makkonen,

2012).

 “Thrift and perseverance are important goals”.

“Large savings quota, funds available for

Investment” (Hofstede, 2011).

3.5.2 UI 10 Low (LTO)

 Users require quick results that are consistent

with known values and traditions. Persons with a

short-term orientation would appear “to live

more in the past and in the present than in the

future” (Idler, 2013).

 Persons from a very short-term oriented culture

e.g. Spain have a tendency “to live in the

moment” (Nahai, 2013).

 A wish for instant results and achieving goals.

“Rules as a source of information and

credibility” (Marcus and Gould, 2000).

 “Focus on achieving quick results” (Makkonen,

2012).

 “Service to others is an important goal”. “Social

spending and consumption” (Hofstede, 2011).

3.6 Indulgence vs Restraint (IND)

The additional sixth dimension, relates to happiness,

freedom of expression and feeling in control of your

own life, (Hofstede, 2011). User interface designs for

UI 11 and UI 12 are given below:

3.6.1 UI 11 High (IND)

 Use and encourage user-generated content.

“Make interactions fun”. “Reflect loose gender

roles by using a range of models” (Nahai, 2013).

 People from an Indulgent culture have a

tendency to put an emphasis on individual

happiness and wellbeing. Their leisure time is

more significant and people experience more

freedom and “personal control” (MacLachlan,

2013).

 Maintaining order in the nation is not given a

high priority. A perception of personal life

control. Freedom of speech is seen as important

(Hofstede, 2011).

3.6.2 UI 12 Low (IND)

 Frugal, show how they can save money.

“Emphasise how you serve the community”.

“Strict, cultured gender roles” (Nahai, 2013).

 People from a restrained culture do not display

positive emotions as easily, with freedom,

happiness and leisure time not assigned the same

significance (MacLachlan, 2013).

 Higher number of police officers per 100,000

population. A perception of helplessness: what

happens to me is not my own doing. Freedom of

speech is not a primary concern (Hofstede,

2011).

4 SEARCH INTERFACE DESIGN

As discussed above, the characteristics of Hofstede’s

six cultural dimensions have been used to create

twelve prototype UIs. These consist of two UIs

created for each dimension, with one interface set for

the lower end and one for the higher end of each

dimension. (e.g., “high masculinity”, “low

masculinity”).

A Study of Search User Interface Design based on Hofstede’s Six Cultural Dimensions

149

Figure 1: Prototype High Masculinity (MAS) UI 5.

Here we offer two examples of how Hofstede’s

Masculinity dimension, both, high MAS shown in

Figure 1 and low MAS shown in Figure 2, have been

applied to the search user UI design

. The prototype

UI design was constructed using the design features

described in 3.3 above. How the design features are

implemented are shown below in tables 1 and 2

respectively.

Table 1: High Masculinity.

High (MAS) HCI Design

Feature

HCI Design Feature

Implementation UI 5

User attention obtained by

games and competitions.

(Marcus and Gould, 2000)

This has been achieved by,

showing text links for

‘Competitions’ and ‘Latest

Games’

Work tasks, roles, and

skills, quick results

obtained for limited

actions.

(Marcus and Goul

, 2000)

‘Quick’ search textual

links are provided,

offering quick results for

popular searches.

Navigation focused on

exploring but also control.

(Marcus and Gould, 2000)

‘Quick’ searches and

search links to ‘Web’,

‘Images’, ‘Video’ and

‘News’

Masculine societies are

competitive. Motivated by

achievement, heroism,

assertiveness, and

materialism.

(Idler, 2013)

A non-cluttered interface

with textual links to News,

Weather and Latest

movies. Also, textual links

for ‘Competitions’ and

‘Latest Games’.

Only graphical image

icons are for ‘YouTube’,

‘Twitter’ and ‘Facebook’,

allowing faster access to

these social media

anisations.

Admiration for the strong”

(

Hofstede, 2011

)

A general masculine ‘look

and feel’.

Bright contrasting colours.

(Voehringe

-Kuhnt, 2002),

Bold colours such as red,

lue, dark

lue and black

Examples of UI 1 to UI 12 can be seen at

https://github.com/ifromm/cross-cultural-ui-designs/

(Dormann and Chisalita,

2002)

have been used for

‘Quick’ search textual

links. With a contrasting

white for ‘About Us’,

‘Sign up’ and ‘Log In’.

With black textual links

for ‘Privacy’, ‘Terms’ and

‘Settin

s’.

Figure 2: Prototype Low Masculinity (MAS) UI 6.

Table 2: Low Masculinity.

Low (MAS) HCI Design

Feature

HCI Design Feature

lementation UI 6

User attention is obtained

by the use of poetry,

aesthetics, and appealing

to uniting values.

(

Marcus an

Goul

. 2000

)

A general ‘softer’

appearance with more and

larger images and icons.

Provide contact

information and be

prepared for feedback and

questions.

(Idler, 2013)

Two ‘About Us’ links and

a ‘Feedback’ link.

“Feminine societies are

consensus-oriented”. With

a preference for values,

corresponding to

cooperation, modesty, care

of the weak, and quality of

life.

(

Idler, 2013

)

A ‘Community Matters’

link and imagery showing

multicultural inclusion.

‘Family’ link and imagery.

“Sympathy for the weak”

(Hofstede, 2011)

A general softer, less

masculine aesthetic ‘look

and feel’

Pastel colours, low

saturation.

(Voehringer-Kuhnt, 2002),

(Dormann and Chisalita,

2002)

The use of pastel colours

for background, ‘Weather’

icon, ‘News’ icon, Logo,

and textual system links,

such as ‘About Us’, ‘Sign

up’, ‘Log in’, ‘Feedback’,

‘Privacy’, ‘Terms’ and

‘Settin

s’

CHIRA 2022 - 6th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

150

This paper examines the data obtained from the

research of the twelve prototype search UIs, designed

using Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions.

5 USER EVALUATION

Participants of this survey have been taken mostly

from the staff, the current student base and the alumni

of the University of Bedfordshire, England. However,

this survey was also promoted internationally via

social media by a number of University staff. The

survey was completely anonymous. The data for this

study was collected via an online survey. Our survey

was constructed using the following two sections.

5.1 Survey Section One

This section consists of potentially seven questions

depending upon the user’s responses. This collected

general background information about the participant

and consisted of closed questions relating to gender,

age, occupation, and culture most identified with. In

addition, there were several questions relating to

languages spoken and place of residence.

5.2 Survey Section Two

In this section of the survey, the participant/user is

exposed to the twelve prototype UIs, these consisting

of two for each of the six dimensions and are

sequentially numbered User Interface (UI) 1 to User

Interface (UI) 12.

The users were asked to pick their preferences

from the twelve UIs designed using the above design

features (Sections 3.1 to 3.6). The search UI’S were

paired for each of the six dimensions, with one UI

being the low-end design and the other UI being the

high-end design for all six dimensions, i.e. two UIs

per dimension making twelve in total. The user could

only pick one for each pair, as the responses are

mutually exclusive. This paper is based upon the

findings from this section together with the

participant’s nationality and the index scores for

Hofstede’s six dimensions.

5.3 Hypothesis

Our six hypotheses have been developed from both

the low and high aspects of Hofstede dimensions and

are detailed below:

H1: Higher PD Countries will show a preference for

UI 1 and Lower PD Countries for UI 2.

H2: Higher IDV Countries will show a preference for

UI 3 and Lower IDV Countries for UI 4.

H3: Higher MAS Countries will show a preference

for UI 5 and Lower MAS Countries for UI 6.

H4: Higher UA Countries will show a preference for

UI 7 and Lower UA Countries for UI 8.

H5: Higher LTO Countries will show a preference for

UI 9 and Lower LTO Countries for UI 10.

H6: Higher IND Countries will show a preference for

UI 11 and Lower IND Countries UI 12.

5.4 Data Analysis

The data was collected via our survey as described in

5.2 where the user was asked to select a preference

for one of the UI pairs. The participant’s nationality

is collected in section one of the survey as described

in 5.1 above. Hofstede’s country index scores have

been applied to participants who identify with the

matching nationality. These index scores are applied

for each nationality for all six dimensions.

Once the data had been collected, a quantitative

data analysis tool has been to analyse the data.

6 EVALUATION RESULTS

We had 148 participants who completed our survey,

made up of 101 participants who at present are

residing in the UK and 47 who are residing overseas.

We had 97 male and 51 female participants.

The 148 participants are from 33 countries.

Unfortunately, many of the countries only had 1 to 2

respondents and as such we have not included their

results. Likewise, several countries not having an

Index score calculated by Hofstede, have also been

excluded. The countries and cultures results analysed

are as follows, the number of participants given in

brackets. U.K. (Great Britain) (51) Germany (21),

Poland (3), Pakistan (10), Nigeria (5), Bangladesh

(3), Ethiopia (3), China (6), Nepal (5), Sri Lanka (3)

and India (7), with 117 participants in total.

6.1 Analysis of Preferences for Each

User’s Culture

6.1.1 Hypothesis 1 Power Distance

Both Germany and the UK are considered to be low

PD countries (both Hofstede’s country’s Index scores

35), which means a culture that supports the concept

that inequalities in their society be kept to a

minimum. Therefore, the expectation for H1 (Section

5.3) would be that such countries prefer search UI 2.

A Study of Search User Interface Design based on Hofstede’s Six Cultural Dimensions

151

This was not found in our data, with only 12% (UK)

resp. 14% (Germany) prefer UI 2.

Pakistan would be considered close to the central

point for a PD country with an Index score of 55.

Here, H1 (Section 5.3) has been partially supported

with 80% of users showing a preference for UI 1 and

20% for UI 2.

From the countries with a high PD according to

their Index score, our data confirmed the expected

preference for UI 1 for Poland, Nigeria, Ethiopia,

China, Nepal, Sri Lanka and India.

Against their expected preference, participants

from Bangladesh seem to not prefer UI 1. However,

we have to note that we only had a few participants

from these countries.

6.1.2 Hypothesis 2 Individualism

UK, Germany, and Poland are considered countries

with a high IDV score, which, according to our

hypothesis H2 in 5.3, means UI 3 would be preferred.

While this is supported in the case of Poland, we

observe this is not the case for the UK and Germany.

India would be considered close to the central

point for an IDV country with an index score of 48.

H2 has not been supported with 86% of users showing

a preference for UI 4 and 14% for UI 3.

Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, China,

Nepal, and Sri Lanka are low IDV countries

according to Hofstede’s Index scores, accordingly we

would expect a preference for UI 4. This is confirmed,

except for Bangladesh and Ethiopia.

6.1.3 Hypothesis 3 Masculinity

Hypothesis H3 (Section 5.3), suggests that higher

MAS Countries will show a preference for UI 5 and

lower MAS Countries will show a preference for UI

According to Hofstede’s Index score, the UK,

Germany, Poland, Nigeria, Ethiopia and China are

considered high masculine countries – we would

expect a preference for search UI 5 for these

countries. This is confirmed for the UK, Germany and

Ethiopia, whereas preferences are mixed for China

and India and not confirmed for Nigeria.

Pakistan, Bangladesh and India are considered

close to the central point for a MAS country. Indeed,

no clear preference for either of the two search UIs

could be determined by our data as would be

expected.

Nepal and Sri Lanka are countries with a low

MAS index score. While the data does not allow for

determining a clear preference, there is a slight

tendency towards the (expected) search UI 6.

6.1.4 Hypothesis 4 Uncertainty Avoidance

Hypothesis H4 in 5.3, says that higher UA Countries

will show a preference for UI 7 while lower UA

Countries will show a preference for UI 8.

Poland, Pakistan, Germany and Bangladesh are

considered countries with high uncertainty

avoidance. Participants from these countries indeed

exhibited a preference for UI 7, as expected.

Sri Lanka, Nigeria and Ethiopia are countries

considered to be in the middle range when it comes to

the UA score. We would not expect any clear

preference for any of the two UIs. However, this has

not been confirmed in the case of Nigeria whose

participants exhibit a preference for UI 8. However,

Ethiopia with an index score of 55, did show a

preference for UI 7.

The UK, China, Nepal and India are countries

with a low UA score. Except in the case of Nepal, our

data disagrees with the expected preference for UI 8.

6.1.5 Hypothesis 5 Long-term Time

Orientation

Long-term time orientation cultures value virtuous

behaviour, perseverance and patience for achieving

goals and results. Hypothesis H5 suggests that higher

LTO Countries will show a preference for UI 9 and

lower LTO countries will exhibit a preference for UI

design 10.

Germany and China are considered countries with

a high long-term orientation, according to Hofstede’s

Index score. However, our data do not confirm the

expected preference for search UI 9.

Countries in the middle range when it comes to

LTO are the UK, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Sri

Lanka. We can argue the expectation of no clear

preference for either UIs is confirmed (though

Pakistan shows a slight tendency for UI 9).

Countries with a low LTO score are Poland and

Nigeria, both exhibiting the expected preference for

UI 10.

There is no LTO index score reported by Hofstede

for Ethiopia and Nepal.

6.1.6 Hypothesis 6 Indulgence

For the Indulgence (IND) dimension, our hypothesis

H6 states that higher IND countries will show a

preference for UI 11 while lower IND countries will

show a preference for search UI 12.

Nigeria and the UK are both considered high

indulgence countries. Based on our data, we regard

H6 to be confirmed due to the preference for UI 11.

CHIRA 2022 - 6th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

152

Germany, Bangladesh, India and China have a

low IND score according to Hofstede’s Index.

Preferences for these countries are rather mixed, so

H6 is not confirmed in these cases. However, it has

been confirmed for Poland, also considered a low

IND county. There is no IND index score reported by

Hofstede for Ethiopia, Nepal and Sri Lanka.

7 DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSION

Overall, we have found 33 out of the possible 61

results that support Hofstede’s Index scores. A further

12 results were difficult to fully categorise but

partially support the hypothesis. 16 results do not

support the respective hypothesis.

Firstly, Hofstede’s Index scores do not address

search UIs but had a different focus originally. One

of our contributions is exactly to verify to what degree

these scores can be applied to search UIs. It seems,

from our data, that Hofstede’s Index scores show the

potential to inform search UIs, but they also show

further research needs to be carried out to shed some

light on the reasons why we get at times inconclusive

results and how we can better inform culturally aware

search UI design. We consider our study as an

important contribution to triggering this discussion.

Secondly, we had a limited number of participants

from some countries, although our study attracted

many participants in particular from the UK (51),

Germany (21) and Pakistan (10). However, looking at

the data, it would seem the most supported dimension

across the countries reported in this study is Long-

term Time Orientation, with 7 from 9 countries (2

countries did not have Hofstede Index scores for this

dimension) being confirmed. With Power Distance

having 6 confirmations and 2 partially confirmed and

Masculinity having 5 confirmations with 4 partially

confirmed. It indicates there is a stronger link

between specific cultural dimensions and search UI

design. This aspect requires further research, possibly

using the 3 most popular dimensions and more

participants.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank all the participants for

contributing to this user study.

REFERENCES

Bing, J.W. (2004) Hofstede's consequences: The impact of

his work on consulting and business practices, An

Executive Commentary by John W. Bing, Academy of

Management Executive, February 2004, Vol. 18, No. 1.

Burgmann, I., Kitchen, P., and Williams, R. (2006) Does

Culture Matter on the Web? Marketing Intelligence &

Planning (24:1), 62-73.

Chatterjee, D. (2014) Management Control Systems and

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions: An Empirical Study

of Innovators and Low Innovators. Global Business

Review. 15(3) 565–582.

Chessum, K., Liu, H., and Frommholz, I. (2014) Applying

Cross-cultural theory to understand users’ preferences

on interactive information retrieval platform design. In

Proceedings euroHCIR.

Dormann, C., and Chisalita, C. (2002) Cultural Values in

Web Site Design, in Proceedings of the 11th European

Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, Catania, Italy,

September 8-11.

Ghemawat, P., and Reiche, S. (2011) National Cultural

Differences and Multinational Business, Globalization

Note Series.

Gould, E., Zakaria, N., and Yusof, S. (2000) Applying

Culture to Website Design: A Comparison of

Malaysian and US Websites. Paper Presented at the

Proceedings of IEEE Professional Communication

Society International Professional Communication

Conference and Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM

International Conference on Computer Documentation.

Technology and Teamwork 162-171.

Hall, E.T. (1976) Beyond Culture. Doubleday, Garden City,

New York.

Hall, E.T., (1990) The Silent Language. New York: Anchor

Books.

Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organization: Software

of the Mind, Paperback Edition published 1994,

HarperCollinsBusiness, An imprint of

HarperCollinsPublishers, 77 - 85 Fulham Palace Road,

Hammersmith, London W6 8JB.

Hofstede, G. (2011) Dimensionalizing Cultures: The

Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in

Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/

2307-0919.1014

Hofstede, G., and Bond, M. (1984) The Need for synergy

among Cross-cultural Studies. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology 15. (4), 417-433 December 1984.

Hofstede, G., and Minkov, M. (2013) Value Survey Module

2013 Manual. https://geerthofstede.com/wp-content/

uploads/2016/07/Manual-VSM-2013.pdf

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., and Minkov, M. (2010)

Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind:

intercultural cooperation and its importance for

survival. The McGraw Hill Companies. USA.

Idler, S. (2013) How to Design for a Cross-Cultural User

Experience (part 2/2) 23 April 2013. https://usabilla.

com/blog/designing-for-a-cross-cultural-user-experien

ce-part2/

A Study of Search User Interface Design based on Hofstede’s Six Cultural Dimensions

153

Ingwersen, P., and Järvelin, K. (2005). The turn:

integration of information seeking and retrieval in

context. Secaucus, NJ, USA: Springer-Verlag New

York, Inc.

Karreman, J., Romeo, P., Li, Q. (2016) Cross-Cultural HCI

and UX Design: A Comparison of Chinese and Western

User Interfaces working paper 2016.

Liu, F. (2021) Modify Your Design for Global Audiences:

Crosscultural UX Design. Nielson Norman Group.

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/crosscultural-design/

MacLachlan, M. (2013) Indulgence vs. Restraint – the 6th

Dimension. https://www.communicaid.com/cross-cul

tural-training/blog/indulgence-vs-restraint-6th-dimens

ion/

Makkonen, E. (2012) Cultural differences and localization

in user interfaces. Thesis for Bachelor of Engineering

(B.E.), Media technology. Central Ostrobothnia

University of Applied Sciences.

Marcus, A., and Gould, E. (2000) Crosscurrents Cultural

Dimensions and Global Web User-Interface Design.

Interactions, (7) 4, 32-46. DOI= http://dl.acm.org/

citation.cfm?doid=345190.345238.

Milner, L., Fodness, D., and Speece, M. (1993) Hofstede's

Research on Cross-Cultural Work-Related Values:

Implications For Consumer Behavior. European

Advances in Consumer Research, 1, 70-76. http://acrwe

bsite.org/volumes/11610/volumes/e01/E-01

Mooij, M., and Hofstede, G. (2010) The Hofstede model

Applications to global branding and advertising

strategy and research. International journal of

advertising 29(1), 85-110.

Nahai, N. (2013) How to Sell Online to Individualist vs

Collectivist Cultures. Psychology Today. https://www.

psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/webs-influence/201307

/how-sell-online-individualist-vs-collectivist-cultures

Nahai, N. (2013) How to Sell Online to Indulgent vs

Restrained Cultures. Psychology Today. https://www.

psychologytoday.com/us/blog/webs-influence/201308

/how-sell-online-indulgent-vs-restrained-cultures

Nahai, N. (2013) How to Sell Online to Short vs Long-Term

Cultures. Psychology Today. https://www.psychology

today.com/gb/blog/webs-influence/201308/how-sell-

online-short-vs-long-term-cultures

Nahai, N. (2013), How to Sell Online to Different Cultures:

Power Distance. Psychology Today. https://www.

psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/webs-influence/201306

/how-sell-online-different-cultures-power-distance

Nisbett, R.E., and Miyamoto, Y. (2005) The influence of

culture: holistic versus analytic perception. Department

of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, M1

48109-1109 Trends in Cognitive sciences Vol 9 No 10.

October 2005.

Oshlyansky, L. (2007) Cultural Models in HCI: Hofstede,

Affordance and Technology Acceptance. PhD Thesis,

Swansea University.

Parsons, T. (1951) The Social System. New York: The Free

Press, 1951.

Pixabay (2021). Stunning free images & royalty free stock.

Available at: https://pixabay.com/

Reid, L. (2015) The Importance of Hofstede’s Dimensions

of Culture. https://sites.psu.edu/global/2015/04/25/the-

importance-of-hofstedes-dimensions-of-culture/

Reinecke, K., Schenkel, S. and Bernstein, A. (2010).

Modeling a User’s Culture. The Handbook of Research

in Culturally-Aware Information Technology:

Perspectives and Models.

Sinha, J.B.P. (2014) Psycho-Social Analysis of the Indian

Mindset, 2, Springer India 2014 27. DOI: 10.1007/978-

81-322-1804-3.

Slone, D. J. (2002). The influence of mental models and

goals on search patterns during web interaction. Journal

of the American Society for Information Science and

Technology, 53(13), pp. 1152–1169.

Smith, A., French, T., Dunckley, L., Minocha, S., and

Chang, Y. (2004). A Process Model for developing

Usable cross-cultural websites, Interacting with

Computers: Special Edition – Global human-computer

systems cultural determinants of usability. 16, 1 (Feb

2004), 63-91.

Trompenaars, F., and Hampden-Turner, C. (1998) Riding

the Waves of Culture. Understanding Cultural Diversity

in Business. (2nd.Ed.) Nicholas Brealey Publishing

Limited, 36 John Street, London. WC1N 2AT.

Voehringer-Kuhnt, T. (2002) Kulturelle Einflüsse auf die

Gestaltung von Mensch-Maschine Systemen, Munich:

GRIN Verlag.

Wardrobe, W. (2005). Beyond Hofstede: Cultural

applications for communication with Latin American,

Association for Business Communication Annual

Convention.

CHIRA 2022 - 6th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications

154