Culture & biometrics: regional differences in the perception of biometric authentication technologies

Previous research has identified user concerns about biometric authentication technology, but most of this research has been conducted in European contexts. There is a lack of research that has investigated attitudes towards biometric technology in other cultures. To address this issue, data from India, South Africa and the United Kingdom were collected and compared. Cross-cultural attitudinal differences were seen, with Indian respondents viewing biometrics most positively while respondents from the United Kingdom were the least likely to have a positive opinion about biometrics. Multiple barriers to the acceptance of biometric technology were identified with data security and health and safety fears having the greatest overall impact on respondents’ attitudes towards biometrics. The results of this investigation are discussed with reference to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and theories of technology acceptance. It is argued that contextual issues specific to each country provide a better explanation of the results than existing theories based on Hofstede’s model. We conclude that cultural differences have an impact on the way biometric systems will be used and argue that these factors should be taken into account during the design and implementation of biometric systems.

[1]  Huatong Sun.  Exploring cultural usability , 2002, Proceedings. IEEE International Professional Communication Conference.

[2]  Noam Tractinsky,et al.  Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues , 1997, CHI.

[3]  Amanda G. Chetwynd.  A degree of concern? UK first degrees in science, technology and mathematics. , 2006 .

[4]  Tonya L. Smith-Jackson,et al.  Comparison of mobile phone user interface design preferences: perspectives from nationality and disability culture , 2007, Mobility '07.

[5]  Antonella De Angeli,et al.  Globalisation vs. localisation in e-commerce: cultural-aware interaction design , 2006, AVI '06.

[6]  Antonella De Angeli,et al.  Honest, it’s me! Self-service verification , 2003 .

[7]  K. Watkins.  Human Development Report 2006 - Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis , 2006 .

[8]  Maryam Aziz,et al.  Usability Challenges in Emerging Markets , 2008, ICEIS.

[9]  Antonella De Angeli,et al.  Biometric Verification at a Self Service Interface , 2004 .

[10]  S. Sundqvist,et al.  The effects of country characteristics, cultural similarity and adoption timing on the diffusion of wireless communications , 2005 .

[11]  Ricardo Fuentes,et al.  Human Development Report 2006 , 2006 .

[12]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[13]  Sharath Pankanti,et al.  BIOMETRIC IDENTIFICATION , 2000 .

[14]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three country study , 1997, Inf. Manag..

[15]  A. Alterman,et al.  ``A piece of yourself'': Ethical issues in biometric identification , 2003, Ethics and Information Technology.

[16]  G. Hofstede.  Culture′s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations , 2001 .

[17]  Steven John Simon,et al.  The impact of culture and gender on web sites: an empirical study , 2000, DATB.

[18]  Doug Mahar,et al.  Perceived acceptability of biometric security systems , 1995, Comput. Secur..

[19]  Phil Turner,et al.  Designing Interactive Systems. , 2005 .

[20]  Adam N. Joinson,et al.  Watching me, watching you: privacy attitudes and reactions to identity card implementation scenarios in the United Kingdom , 2006, Journal of information science.

[21]  Luis A. Hernández Gómez,et al.  Usability evaluation of multi-modal biometric verification systems , 2006, Interact. Comput..

[22]  Songmei Han.  Effects of alphanumerical display formatting on search time among Chinese and American users , 2006, CHI EA '06.

[23]  S. Jong,et al.  Cross-country differences in ICT adoption: A consequence of Culture? , 2006 .

[24]  Alvin Yeo Wee.  Global-software development lifecycle: an exploratory study , 2001 .

[25]  Mikael Søndergaard,et al.  Research Note: Hofstede's Consequences: A Study of Reviews, Citations and Replications , 1994 .

[26]  Akhilesh Chandra,et al.  Challenges and constraints to the diffusion of biometrics in information systems , 2005, CACM.

[27]  Robert M. Davison,et al.  GSS for presentation support , 2000, CACM.

[28]  B. McSweeney.  Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and their Consequences: A Triumph of Faith - a Failure of Analysis , 2002 .

[29]  E. Waarts,et al.  The Effect of National Culture on the Adoption of Innovations , 2003 .

[30]  D. Torgerson,et al.  The effect of a direct payment or a lottery on questionnaire response rates: a randomised controlled trial , 2000, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[31]  Ma Sasse,et al.  Usability and Trust in Information Systems , 2005 .

[32]  Stefan Linnhoff,et al.  The Emergence of Biometrics and Its Effect on Consumers , 2005 .

[33]  Markku Tukiainen,et al.  The expanding focus of HCI: case culture , 2006, NordiCHI '06.

[34]  Julian Ashbourn,et al.  Biometrics: Advanced Identity Verification , 2000, Springer London.

[35]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[36]  Michael Jones,et al.  Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology the Cultural Impact of Information Systems – through the Eyes of Hofstede – a Critical Journey , 2022 .

[37]  Said S. Al-gahtani.  Extending the Technology Acceptance Model Beyond Its Country of Origin: A Cultural Test in Western Europe , 2002 .