The U.S. mobile phone market is the second largest in

CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING Volume 18, Number 6, 2015 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0008 RAPID COMMUNICATION ...
Author: Jeremy Turner
5 downloads 0 Views 82KB Size
CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING Volume 18, Number 6, 2015 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0008

RAPID COMMUNICATION

How Culture Influences the ‘‘Social’’ in Social Media: Socializing and Advertising on Smartphones in India and the United States Sidharth Muralidharan, PhD,1 Carrie La Ferle, PhD,1 and Yongjun Sung, PhD 2

Abstract

The importance of the mobile phone is evidenced by predictions that there will be 1.76 billion smartphone users worldwide at the start of 2015. A country that is spearheading this movement toward the digital era is India. To illustrate this, India is expected to surpass the United States in 2015 and record the second highest smartphone sales globally. Despite the rising penetration and adoption of smartphones, there is limited advertising research that sheds light on the Indian smartphone user. The current study aims to fill that void by cross-culturally comparing a national online panel of smartphone users from India (n = 158) with users from the United States (n = 114). Findings reveal that entertainment impacts Indians’ attitudes toward smartphone advertising while informativeness is stronger for the American sample. Collectivism was found to be the driving force behind socializing activities on social networking sites for Indian consumers. Implications are discussed.

Introduction

T

he U.S. mobile phone market is the second largest in the world. According to the Pew Research Internet Project,1 58% of adults in the United States own a smartphone. However, India is home to 900 million mobile phone users2 and is soon expected to surpass the United States in smartphone sales.3 The Indian mobile market, however, differs from the United States due to limited access to Wi-Fi or dedicated broadband in households. This situation has led to the increased adoption of mobile broadband by smartphone users in India, with 76% of users willing to pay more for a better mobile data experience.4 Other advancements include leading Indian telecom providers such as BSNL, MTNL, and Bharati launching Internet Protocol TV (IPTV), which delivers high quality TV channels to mobile devices using Internet protocol.5 These facts, along with existing investments by major multinational companies, a population of 1.23 billion,6 and predictions that the country will be the next emerging market to take flight,7 make it important for advertisers to understand Indian users’ attitudes toward smartphone advertising, their motivations for use, and how mobile activities may vary by cultural orientation. Factors shown to impact attitudes toward mobile advertising are entertainment, informativeness, credibility, and irritation.8 Using the Technology Acceptance Model, Sur5 found perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment to be 1 2

key antecedents for Indians’ intentions to use IPTV. Online advertisements have also been found to impact customer satisfaction positively among online shoppers in India.9 Based on the novel experience of rich media and streaming, as well as more focused placements of smartphone ads, Indian smartphone users could more likely enjoy the entertainment value and informative nature of the messages and find them more credible than their American counterparts. Internet and pre-smartphone studies have demonstrated that some users have feelings of intrusiveness and irritability toward online and mobile marketing initiatives.10,11 Americans typically hold more negative attitudes toward advertising due to its social consequences, such as false or deceptive advertising, materialism, and its influence on their value system.12 The more established U.S. mobile market has been troubled with issues such as information overload, clutter, and intrusiveness, causing more irritation toward mobile ads.11 This negative impact on a smartphone user’s advertising attitude may be stronger among Americans than Indians. No studies to date have compared the potential cultural differences between adult smartphone users from an important emerging market such as India and the United States. Cross-cultural psychology theories and empirical research suggest that culture impacts everything from attitudes to motivations to needs and how to fulfill needs, as well as responses toward advertising.13,14 Cultural differences have

Temerlin Advertising Institute, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas. Department of Psychology, Korea University, Seoul, Korea.

356

SOCIALIZING AND ADVERTISING ON SMARTPHONES

also been shown to exist in media consumption patterns.15,16 With previous research suggesting that people perceive their phones as extensions of themselves17 and culture impacting all aspects of the self,18 differences in attitudes and motivations would be expected between Indian and American smartphone users. These differences are important to assess for advertisers in building strategies around multichannel campaigns and connecting effectively with consumers on a psychological level. Individual motivations are culture bound,19 and recent studies show that the majority of Americans use smartphones for texting, accessing the Internet, and e-mail1, which can be categorized as individualistic pursuits. On the other hand, a few studies in India and other collectivistic cultures have suggested that these consumers use smartphones primarily for social networking and managing daily social relationships.20 Correa et al.21(p248) define social media as ‘‘a mechanism for the audience to connect, communicate, and interact with each other and their mutual friends through instant messaging or social networking sites.’’ In a study examining online uses between American and Korean consumers, American surfers exhibited individualistic tendencies of personal shopping and information seeking, while the Korean collectivistic consumers preferred to go online to make friends, meet new people, and participate in newsgroups.22 Similarly, Park and Lee23 found smartphone use in Korea to be positively related to bonding relations. On conducting interviews with urban Indian smartphone users in Mumbai and Belgaum, Watkins et al.24 found that more than information access, it was the ability to forge intimate relationships that made urbanites’ lives richer, and smartphones have helped expand not only their freedom but also their personal and social space. Hofstede’s25 individualism–collectivism (IC) construct best captures cultural differences. The distinction lies in the importance given to the individual versus the group. People from individualistic societies generally value independence and act according to personal attitudes, whereas people from collectivistic societies value group harmony and act according to the norms set by society.13 Various cultural nuances revolve around the IC construct, particularly emphasis on relationships. Here, individualists focus on completing the task at hand, while collectivists focus on harmonious relationships. Indians have a familial self26 where importance is given to ‘‘family, sense of kinship, and community.’’27(p97) India’s collectivistic nature25 could suggest that Indians are more likely to be motivated to engage in socializing activities and to download and use social networking applications when compared to the individualistic orientation of American consumers. Methods Design and sample

Initially, 362 subjects from India and the United States were recruited by employing a marketing research firm with a presence in both countries. Due to their desirability among advertisers, emphasis was placed on older adults (aged 30 + years) who were educated, had a disposable income, and were more likely to be online. In order to increase generalizability, respondents from each country were selected from the major metros in the north and south. Indian respondents

357

hailed from Delhi, New Delhi, Chennai, and Chandigarh, while respondents from the United States were recruited from Chicago, New York, and Dallas. Only those respondents who owned a smartphone were selected, resulting in a total of 158 for India and 114 for the United States. Respondents were provided with virtual currency incentives for completion of the survey (see Table 1). Measures

In India, collectivistic behavior is typically seen when the ingroup consists of family members and their concerns.28 Collectivism therefore was measured using six items on a 5point Likert scale from Chen and West’s29 ‘‘considering the implications of one’s decisions for others’’ scale. Examples of items included ‘‘When making decisions, it is important for me to—consider the effects that my decisions have on my parents,’’ and ‘‘If I decided to change my job, one of the major concerns would be how this change would affect my parents.’’ The scale was reliable (a = 0.93). Attitude toward smartphone advertising and the factors influencing it were measured using a 5-point Likert scale

Table 1. Descriptives of Smartphone Users by Country India Age (M/SD) Gender Male Female Education Did not finish high school High school Two-year college (associate) Four-year college (bachelor) Masters Doctorate Professional Household income (rupees) < 10,000 10,000–19,999 20,000–29,999 30,000–39,999 40,000–49,999 50,000–59,999 60,000–69,999 70,000–79,999 80,000–89,9999 90,000–99,9999 q1,000,000 Household income ($) < 10,000 15,000–24,999 25,000–34,999 35,000–49,999 50,000–74,999 75,000–99,999 100,000–149,999 150,000–199,999 q200,000

36.54

United States

6.55 44.08

8.78

82 76

51 49

68 46

59.6 40.4

0 2 1 62 62 3 28

0 1.3 0.6 39.2 39.2 1.9 17.7

0 3 10 54 31 7 9

0 0.6 8.8 47.4 27.2 6.1 7.9

10 13 13 21 15 23 11 14 8 12 18

6.5 8.4 8.4 13.3 9.7 14.8 7.1 9.0 5.2 7.7 11.6 8 3 2 13 22 23 22 9 12

7 2.6 1.8 11.4 19.3 20.2 19.3 7.9 10.5

Note: All values are n/% unless otherwise indicated. US$1 = 61.67 Indian rupees.

358

drawn from several relevant attitude studies.8,30,31 Attitude toward smartphone advertising consisted of three items (e.g., ‘‘I like to look at mobile advertising,’’ a = 0.90), attitudes toward the entertainment value of smartphone advertising consisted of three items (e.g., ‘‘I feel that receiving mobile advertisements is enjoyable,’’ a = 0.97), informativeness consisted of three items (e.g., ‘‘Mobile advertising is a good source for timely information,’’ a = 0.95), credibility consisted of three items (e.g., ‘‘I can trust mobile advertisements,’’ a = 0.93), and irritation consisted of three items (e.g., ‘‘I feel that mobile advertising is irritating,’’ a = 0.70). To understand motivations of use and the category of applications frequently used or downloaded better, respondents were asked about what activities they frequently engaged in on their smartphones from things such as socializing to shopping to information seeking.32 Results

In order to test whether Indians had more favorable attitudes toward smartphone advertising, an independent samples t test was conducted. Significant differences were found between the countries for attitude toward smartphone advertising (t = 10.34, p < 0.001), where Indians (M = 3.37) had more favorable attitudes overall than Americans did (M = 2.27). In terms of influencing factors, differences were found for entertainment, with Indians (M = 3.22) finding mobile advertisements more entertaining than Americans did (M = 1.79; t = 11.69, p < 0.001). For informativeness, differences were also found, with Indians (M = 3.52) finding mobile ads to be more informative than Americans did (M = 2.09; t = 11.65, p < 0.001). Finally, differences were seen for credibility, with Indians (M = 3.37) finding mobile ads more credible than Americans did (M = 2.21; t = 9.72, p < 0.001). No differences were found between countries with respect to irritation ( p > 0.05). A linear regression was conducted to evaluate the individual impact of the factors on smartphone advertising attitude. For India, the model contained two predictors (F = 126.48, p < 0.001), and accounted for 76.8% of the variance of smartphone advertising attitude (R2 = 0.77). Based on the standardized coefficients, attitude was primarily predicted by entertainment (t = 6.35, p < 0.001, b = 0.52) and credibility (t = 4.58, p < 0.001, b = 0.37). For the United States, the model was a good fit (F = 44.82, p < 0.001) and accounted for 62.2% of the variance of smartphone advertising attitude (R2 = 0.62). Based on the standardized coefficients, attitude was primarily predicted by informativeness (t = 3.60, p < 0.001, b = 0.42) and entertainment (t = 2.73, p < 0.01, b = 0.29). To test whether Indians were motivated to engage more in socializing activities and use social networking apps on their smartphones, a second independent samples t test was conducted. Results indicated that differences existed between both countries (t = 7.64, p < 0.001) where Indians (M = 4.09) were motivated to use their smartphones more for social networking purposes than Americans were (M = 2.83). There were also differences between the social networking apps they used (t = 7.99, p < 0.001). Indians (M = 4.13) downloaded and used social networking applications more than Americans did (M = 2.82). In order to see if collectivism was the driving force behind motivations to engage in socializing activities and down-

MURALIDHARAN ET AL.

loading social networking apps, a secondary analysis was conducted. For India, bivariate correlations revealed that collectivism did have a significant and positive relationship with socializing activities (r = 0.16, p < 0.05) but not for downloading social networking apps. No significant correlations were found for the United States. Discussion

Stemming from a national sample of adults across India and the United States, the findings indicate that Indian consumers did indeed have more favorable attitudes toward smartphone advertising overall as well as toward the entertainment, informativeness, and credibility value of these ads over American consumers. India’s warm embrace of mobile advertising should motivate local and international brands to broaden their horizons and increase their smartphone ad spending to reach target audiences. Focusing on traditional mass media alone may not be as effective, and ignoring mobile’s potential may prove to be a missed opportunity. The newness of smartphones to India, along with the many new capabilities offered by these phones and the novelty found in multinational advertising, might help to explain why Indian consumers were more favorable. These are certainly areas ripe for future research, but even more interesting is the cultural impact driven by collectivism found to influence motivations for using a smartphone in the current study. The collectivist nature of the Indian culture in comparison to the American individualistic orientation25 had a positive and significant relationship with social activities undertaken on smartphones by Indian consumers. The cultural orientation of consumers in each country further surfaced where entertaining mobile ads were found to be more important for Indian users’ attitudes toward smartphone advertising, in comparison to the informative ads that appealed to American consumers. Clearly, the results of the current study support previous literature suggesting the impact of culture on consumers’ attitudes and behavior.14,18 But the findings extend previous literature to the domain of smartphones in demonstrating how cultural orientation impacts attitudes toward smartphone advertising and motivations for use. This is an important finding for advertisers and shows how collectivistic tendencies can also play out in preferences for advertising content.22 Individualistic minded consumers tend to prefer more direct and information driven communication over more indirect, entertaining, and relationship building communication preferences of collectivistic cultures.13,14 Indians valued entertaining advertisements, which could be attributed to the cultural influence where Indian mobile ads are about building trust and relationships through likable and entertaining ads rather than hard sell/information-based ads.13 According to a report by Ernst and Young,33(p4) India’s media and entertainment industry is growing due to changing consumption patterns, increasing middle-class households with disposable incomes, and rising tendency of consumers to spend on leisure and entertainment. To illustrate this, with hugely popular sporting events such as the recent Cricket World Cup and the Indian Premier League, streamed mobile TV services have become increasingly popular among Indian audiences. India’s film industry is the largest in the world (1,000 films produced annually), and Indian studios are using social media, games, and apps to market their movies. Due to its

SOCIALIZING AND ADVERTISING ON SMARTPHONES

wide reach, Indian radio stations have even deployed mobile apps to target listeners with live radio feeds from stations across their national networks. These examples cite the importance of entertainment in India, and it is not surprising that entertaining mobile ads were most important to the attitudes of Indian users. Furthermore, brands need to focus on the tenets of collectivism with an emphasis on relationships. Dialogues that are interactive and entertaining may not only generate favorable brand attitudes but may also help to gain acceptance to collectivistic consumers’ in-groups, thus forging broader and stronger relationships. However, research indicates that the majority of mobile ads in India have been traditional banners and SMS. Weak creative content and a shallow understanding of smartphone users by digital agencies in India have tended to leave marketers with a view of mobile as a lead generation tool rather than utilizing it as a tool to initiate an interactive dialogue with their consumers.34 Yet, faster mobile broadband connectivity will afford the opportunity for advertisers to introduce ads with rich media,34 enabling advertisers to connect better with consumers and in real time. The findings also support previous suggestions by de Mooij13 that unlike Levitt,35 who predicted technology would lead to a global market with homogenized consumer needs, new technology actually helps to reinforce existing behaviors and culture. For the U.S. sample, contrary to past findings, irritation did not impact their advertising attitudes. Similar findings were observed for another study where no relationship existed between irritation and value of smartphone advertising among U.S. adults.36 This indicates that first and foremost, Americans perceive smartphone advertising as an important source of product information that overshadows its intrusive nature. Thus, favorable attitudes toward mobile ads can be generated in spite of annoyance. For India, however, the recency of smartphone advertising in this emerging market and the newer adoption of smartphones may have helped mitigate the effects of irritation. As mobile ads with rich media gain popularity, perceived interactivity could be a factor that may impact mobile advertising attitudes. Past research has revealed interactivity to have more of an impact on the attitudes of collectivistic Koreans versus individualistic American consumers,37 but future research is required to explore its impact among Indian smartphone users. Also, while the current study used a dichotomous view of cultural orientation (IC),25 which may overlook the diverse within-culture variations that are characteristic of both Indian and American cultures, future research could explore the horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism.38 Finally, future research could further investigate whether social capital39 (i.e., bridging and bonding) and relationship development via smartphones are culturally driven. Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the Temerlin Advertising Institute at Southern Methodist University for providing the necessary funding to complete this study. Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

359 References

1. Pew Research Internet Project. (2014) Mobile technology fact sheet. www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technologyfact-sheet/ (accessed Aug. 27, 2014). 2. Nielsen. (2013) Smartphones keep users in India plugged in. www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2013/smartphoneskeep-users-in-india-plugged-in.html (accessed Aug. 25, 2014). 2. Arthur C. (2014) Smartphone explosion in 2014 will see ownership in India pass US. www.theguardian.com/ technology/2014/jan/13/smartphone-explosion-2014-indiaus-china-firefoxos-android (accessed Aug. 26, 2014). 4. Ericsson Consumer Lab. (2014) Performance shapes smartphone behavior. www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2014/ performance-shapes-smartphone-behavior.pdf (accessed Sep. 23, 2014). 5. Sur S. (2015) Effect of advertising on consumers acceptance level of IPTV in India: a study. http://shodhganga.inflibnet .ac.in/handle/10603/33028 (accessed Apr. 1, 2015). 6. CIA World Fact Book. (2014) www.cia.gov/library/ publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html (accessed Oct. 1, 2014). 7. Smith W. (2011) The changing world of international advertising. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. 8. Chowdhury HK, Parvin N, Weitenberner C, et al. Consumer attitude toward mobile advertising in an emerging market: an empirical study. International Journal of Mobile Marketing 2006; 1:33–41. 9. Sharma D, Chowhan D, Singh S, et al. (2015) Consumer perception on online-business: a marketing strategy for new entrepreneur. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id = 2551389 (accessed Apr. 1, 2015). 10. Edwards S, Li H, Lee JH. Forced exposure and psychological reactance: antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads. Journal of Advertising 2002; 31:83–95. 11. Windham L, Orton K. (2002) The soul of the new consumer: the attitudes, behavior, and preferences of e-customers. New York: Allworth Press. 12. Laroche M, Kalamas M, Cleveland M. ‘‘I’’ versus ‘‘we’’: how individualists and collectivists use information sources to formulate their service expectations. International Marketing Review 2005; 22:279–308. 13. de Mooij M. (2014) Global marketing and advertising: understanding cultural paradoxes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 14. Gudykunst WB. (2003) Bridging differences: effective intergroup communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 15. La Ferle C, Kuber G, Edwards S. Factors impacting responses to cause-related marketing in India and the United States: novelty, altruistic motives, and company origin. Journal of Business Research 2013; 66:364–373. 16. Muk A. Consumers’ intentions to opt in to SMS advertising: a cross-national study of young Americans and Koreans. International Journal of Advertising 2013; 26: 177–198. 17. Grant I, O’Donohoe S. Why young consumers are not open to mobile marketing communications. International Journal of Advertising 2007; 26:223–246. 18. Markus HR, Kitayama S. Cultures and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review 1991; 98:224–253. 19. Church TA, Lonner WJ. The cross-cultural perspective in the study of personality: rational and current research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1998; 29:32–62.

360

20. Singh P. (2012) Smartphone: the emerging gadget of choice for the urban Indian. www.nielsen.com/content/dam/ corporate/india/reports/2012/Featured%20Insights_Smart phone%20The%20Emerging%20Gadget%20of%20Choice .pdf (accessed Aug. 30, 2014). 21. Correa T, Hinsley AW, Zu´n˜iga HG. Who interacts on the web? The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior 2010; 26:247–253. 22. La Ferle C, Kim HJ. Cultural influences on Internet motivations: a comparison of Korean and U.S. consumers. International Journal of Internet Marketing & Advertising 2006; 3:142–157. 23. Park N, Lee H. Social implications of smartphone use: Korean college students’ smartphone use and psychological well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2012; 15:491–497. 24. Watkins J, Kitner KR, Mehta D. Mobile and smartphone use in urban and rural India. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 2012; 26:685–697. 25. Hofstede GH. (1980) Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 26. Chadda RK, Deb KS. Indian family systems, collectivistic society and psychotherapy. Indian Journal of Psychiatry 2013; 55:299–309. 27. Kulkarni SP, Hudson T, Ramamoorthy N, et al. Dimensions of individualism-collectivism: a comparative study of five cultures. Current Issues of Business & Law 2010; 5:93–109. 28. Sinha JBP, Sinha TN, Verma J, et al. Collectivism coexisting with individualism: an Indian scenario. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 2001; 4:133–145. 29. Chen FF, West SG. Measuring individualism and collectivism: the importance of considering different components, reference groups, and measurement invariance. Journal of Research in Personality 2008; 42:259–294. 30. Brackett LK, Carr BN. Cyberspace advertising vs. other media: consumer vs. mature student attitudes. Journal of Advertising Research 2001; 41:23–32. 31. Tsang MM, Ho SS, Liang TP. Consumer attitudes toward mobile advertising: an empirical study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 2004; 8:65–78.

MURALIDHARAN ET AL.

32. Nielsen. (2013) The mobile consumer: a global snapshot. www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/uk/en/documents/ Mobile-Consumer-Report-2013.pdf (accessed Oct. 2, 2014). 33. Ernst and Young. (2014) Spotlight on India’s entertainment economy: seizing new growth opportunities. www.ey.com/ Publication/vwLUAssets/Entertainment_economy_of_India/ $FILE/Indias-Entertainment-Economy_Oct_%202011_.pdf (accessed Apr. 1, 2015). 34. Mobile Marketing Association. (2013) Mobile ad spends— India. www.mmaglobal.com/files/whitepapers/India%20 Adspend%20Report.pdf (accessed Aug. 30, 2014). 35. Lewitt T. (1983) The globalization of markets. https:// hbr.org/1983/05/the-globalization-of-markets (accessed Jan. 2, 2015). 36. Kim YJ, Han JY. Why smartphone advertising attracts customers: a model of web advertising, flow, and personalization. Computers in Human Behavior 2014; 33:256–269. 37. Choi YK, Hwang JS, McMillan SJ. Gearing up for mobile advertising: a cross-cultural examination of key factors that drive mobile messages home to consumers. Psychology & Marketing 2008; 25:756–768. 38. Singelis TM, Triandis HC, Bhawuk DPS, et al. Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: a theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research 1995; 29:240–275. 39. Choi SM, Kim Y, Sung Y, et al. Bridging or bonding? A cross-cultural study of social relationships in social networking sites. Information, Communication & Society 2011; 14:107–129.

Address correspondence to: Dr. Yongjun Sung Department of Psychology Korea University 145, Anam-ro Seongbuk-gu Seoul 136-701 Korea E-mail: [email protected]

Suggest Documents