1624
Social Implications of E-Mentoring
sonal relationships to develop, especially when
e-mentoring dyad members use knowledge-
building experiences, perceive similarities in
attitudes, values, and communication schema, and
appreciate their self-monitoring and CA behaviors.
Also, the propositions suggest that given certain
HQYLURQPHQWDOFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVWKHVRFLDOLQÀX-
ences received from peers, supervisors and the
organization’s culture, as well as geographic and
time differences, e-mentoring may act as a suit-
able proxy for traditional mentoring relationships.
By taking the time necessary to learn about each
partner, e-mentoring relationships can be long-
term, healthy relationships, regardless of their
&0&IRUPDW5HSRUWHG¿QGLQJVIURP0HQWRUQHW
(2004), a formal e-mentoring program for college
women designed to assist them with remaining
LQWKHVFLHQFH¿HOGIRXQGWKDW
• Fifty percent of respondents reported that
W K HH PH QW R U L Q JS U RJ U D P ¿ OO H GD J DS L Q W KH L U 
support system.
 0RUHWKDQUHSRUWHGJUHDWHUFRQ¿GHQFH
in their chosen area of study and felt they
would succeed in their careers.
• Close to 40% of respondents said they would
be applying at the e-mentor’s company for
a job after graduation.
• No differences were found in relationship
satisfaction for same-race versus cross-race

pairings.
• Some women of color reported increased
VHOIFRQ¿GHQFH GXH WR WKHLU HPHQWRULQJ
relationship.
Clearly, this anecdotal data suggests that e-
mentoring is working. Most of the data we have
today about the effectiveness of e-mentoring
is anecdotal in nature. Figure 1 articulates the
relationship between all the variables of inter-
est discussed in this chapter. The model and
propositions noted herein need empirical testing,
as do future propositions and hypotheses about
potential variables. In order to understand how
e-mentoring affects employees and what social
implications it creates, researchers need to in-
vestigate the processes inherent in e-mentoring
relationships. Differences between formal and
informal e-mentoring relationships, the time and
distance effect of CMC on e-mentoring, and the
Environmental Conditions
•
Social Influences
•
Peer/Supervisor
•
Organization Culture
•
Geographic/Time Differences
Personal Characteristics
•

Knowledge-building experiences
•
Communication schema alignment
•
Perceived similarity
•
Self-monitoring
•
Communication apprehension
Media
Selection
& Use
E-mentoring
Functions
Received:
•
Career
development
•
Role Modeling
•
Psychosocial
Media
Characteristics
•
Social Presence
•
Richness
E-Mentoring
Outcomes:

•
Satisfaction
•
Relationship
effectiveness
•
Career
Progression
•
Self-efficacy
2
7
Figure 1. Antecedents and outcomes of e-mentoring relationships
1625
Social Implications of E-Mentoring
personal characteristics of who will be success-
ful in e-mentoring relationships are burgeoning
research opportunities. Further investigation is
necessary so that we might understand the nuances
associated with the antecedents and outcomes of
e-mentoring functions provided.
Ensher, Heun, and Blanchard (2003) state that
while the majority of research on e-mentoring
relationships focuses on formal programs, such
as MentorNet, there is evidence that spontane-
ous relationships are blossoming through use
of CMC technology. Ensher et al. suggest that
researchers examine the similarities and differ-
ences of e-mentoring when comparing formal and
informal relationships. The traditional mentoring

literature has investigated formal and informal
programs and found informal programs to be more
advantageous for dyad members (Wanberg et al.,
2003). However, while looking at similarities and
differences in formal and informal relationships
will inform the literature, it will be a challenge
for researchers to investigate (and gather data on)
informal e-mentoring relationships due to their
casual nature and virtual format. In the mean-
time, there are many opportunities to examine
formal programs and to understand how long
WKHVHUHODWLRQVKLSVODVWZKDWW\SHRILQÀXHQFHV
participants feel in formal programs, how men-
toring functions are received, and what outcomes
occur for dyad members and their organizations.
The literature will be greatly informed should
researchers gather data from all parties—the e-
mentor, e-protégé and their employers. Agreement
on variables of interest has been found to provide
greater insight and reduces reporting biases by
respondents (Godshalk & Sosik, 2000; Sosik &
Godshalk, 2004).
The social implications of CMC on e-men
-
toring relationships needs to be investigated as
we move further away from having a majority of
traditional, FtF relationships and towards having
a majority of relationships based on use of CMC
technology. Early researchers were emphatic
that FtF relationships could not be adequately

replicated through the use of technology (Con-
nolly et al., 1990; Daft et al., 1987; Rice & Love,
1987; Short et al., 1976). Because of today’s
VRFLDOLQÀXHQFHVRQHPSOR\HHVWKHJHRJUDSKLF
and time differences that must be overcome to
complete assigned tasks, and the commonplace
use of communication technology, employees are
forging relationship through use of CMC with
some success (Carlson & Zmud, 1999; Walther,
1992, 1996). E-mentoring researchers need to
empirically examine how mentoring functions are
received in an online format and what outcomes
occur for both protégés and mentors. Also, the
effects of time and distance should be analyzed.
'RHPHQWRULQJUHODWLRQVKLSVÀRXULVKEHFDXVH
of, or in spite of, time and distance constraints?
How long can such relationships last without FtF
interactions? Can audio and video technologies be
adequate surrogates for FtF e-mentoring interac-
tions?
Finally, our model posits certain personal
characteristics that would make individuals more
likely to use CMC and, therefore, to become
more actively engaged in e-mentoring relation-
ships. There may be other individual difference
variables that should be considered to understand
who might participate in e-mentoring programs.
Quantitative surveys of e-mentoring program
participants will provide such data. Such inves-
tigations will inform organizations who plan to

offer formal e-mentoring programs. It may be that
certain individuals are predisposed for success in
an e-mentoring environment, while others may
be less interested and engaged.
CONCLUSION
This chapter has offered a model and various
propositions to investigate whether or not CMC
technology will allow for the development of e-
PHQWRULQJUHODWLRQVKLSV6SHFL¿FHQYLURQPHQWDO
FRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVWKHVRFLDOLQÀXHQFHVRISHHUV
supervisors and the organization’s culture, as
1626
Social Implications of E-Mentoring
well as personal characteristics, are posited as
antecedents of an individual’s choice of CMC use
and subsequent engagement in an e-mentoring
relationship.
E-mentoring is clearly a new tool individuals
may use to enhance their careers, yet the social
implications of this phenomenon are still under
investigation. The real challenges surrounding
e-mentoring involve what effect, if any, the lack
of FtF interaction has on dyad members, their or-
ganization and their career progression. Given our
technology-driven environment, understanding
who might adopt, pursue and gain from e-men-
toring relationships is a new research direction
WKDWZLOOPDNHDVLJQL¿FDQWFRQWULEXWLRQWRRXU
literature. It is hoped that future empirical explora-
tion will shed some light, for both researchers and

practitioners, on how e-mentoring will positively
affect careers in the 21
st
century.
REFERENCES
Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., Poteet, M.L., Lentz, E., &
/LPD/&DUHHUEHQH¿WVDVVRFLDWHGZLWK
mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127-136.
Baugh, S. G., & Scandura, T. A. (1999). The effects
of multiple mentors on protégé attitudes toward
the work setting. Journal of Social Behavior &
Personality, 14(4), 503-521.
Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction:
Uncertainty, understanding and the development
of interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles & R.
St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology
(pp. 89-102). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel
expansion theory and the experiential nature of
media richness perceptions. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 42(2), 153-170.
Chicoat, Y., & DeWine, S. (1985). Teleconferenc-
ing and interpersonal communication perception.
Journal of Applied Communication Research,
18, 14-32.
Connolly, T., Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S.
(1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone
on idea generation in computer-mediated groups.
Management Science, 36, 97-120.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational
information requirements, media richness and
structural design. Management Science, 32(5),
554-571.
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987).
Message equivocality, media selection, and man-
ager performance: Implications for information
systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 355-366.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., &
Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of
the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27,
307-336.
Dimmick, J., Kline, S., & Stafford, L. (2000).
7KHJUDWL¿FDWLRQQLFKHVRISHUVRQDOHPDLODQG
the telephone. Communication Research, 27(2),
227-248.
Dreher, G. F., & Cox, T. H., Jr. (1996). Race,
gender and opportunity: A study of compensation
attainment and the establishment of mentoring
relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, 297-308.
Eby, L. T., & McManus, S. E. (2004). The protégé’s
role in negative mentoring experiences. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 65(2), 255-275.
Ensher, E. A., de Janasz, S. C., & Heun, C. (2004).
E-mentoring: Virtual relationships and real ben-
H¿WV Paper presented at the Academy of Manage-
ment Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
Ensher, E. A., Heun, C., & Blanchard, A. (2003).
Online mentoring and computer-mediated com-

munication: New directions for research. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 63, 264-288.
1627
Social Implications of E-Mentoring
Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. E. (2005). How suc-
cessful mentors and protégés get the most out of
their relationships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Eurostat.(2005). Statistics in focus: Industry,
trade and services—population and social con-
ditions—science and technology, 25. Retrieved
April 29, 2006, from .
eu.int/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-NP-05-025/EN/
KS-NP-05-025-EN.PDF
Flanagin, A. J., & Waldeck, J. H. (2004). Technol-
ogy use and organizational newcomer socializa-
tion. Journal of Business Communication, 41(2),
137-165.
Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of commu-
nication technology. Academy of Management
Journal, 36(5), 921-950.
Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., & Steinfeld, C. W. (1990).
$VRFLDOLQÀXHQFHPRGHORIWHFKQRORJ\XVH,Q
J. Fulk & C. W. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organizations
and communication technology (pp. 117-140).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gephart, R. P. (2002). Introduction to the brave
new workplace: Organizational behavior in the
electronic age. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, 23, 327-344.
Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2000). Does

mentor-protégé agreement on mentor leadership
EHKDYLRULQÀXHQFHWKHTXDOLW\RIPHQWRULQJUHOD-
tionships? Group & Organization Management,
25, 291-317.
Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2003). Aiming
for success: The role of learning goal orientation
in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 63, 417-437.
Hamilton, B. A., & Scandura, T. A. (2003). E-men-
toring: Implications for organizational learning
and development in a wired world. Organizational
Dynamics, 31(4), 388-402.
Hammer, M., & Mangurian, G. E. (1987). The
changing value of communications technology.
Sloan Management Review, 28(2), 65-72.
Harris Interactive. (2004, September 8). 156 mil-
lion (73%) adults in U.S. are now online; 44% of
them have broadband (press release). Retrieved
February 13, 2006 from risinter-
active.com
Higgins, M. (2004). Developmental network
questionnaire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Busi-
ness School Publishing.
Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Recon-
ceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental
network perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 26, 264-288.
Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986).
Experiments in group decision making: Com-
munication process and outcome in face-to-face

versus computerized conferences. Human Com-
munication Research, 13, 225-252.
Hinds, P., & Kiesler, S. (1995). Communication
across boundaries: Work, structure, and use of
communication technologies in a large organiza-
tion. Organization Science, 6, 373-393.
Huber, G. P. (1990). A theory of the effects of
advanced information technologies on organiza-
tional design, intelligence, and decision making.
In J. Fulk & C. W. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organizations
and communication technology (pp. 237-274).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kock, N. (2004). The psychobiological model:
Towards a new theory of computer-mediated
communication based on Darwinian evolution.
Organization Science, 15(3), 327-348.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work. Glenview,
IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Lee, A. S. (1994). Electronic mail as a medium for
rich communications: An empirical investigation
1628
Social Implications of E-Mentoring
using hermeneutic interpretation. MIS Quarterly,
18(2), 143-157.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social
structure and action. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Markus, M. L. (1994). Electronic mail as the
medium of managerial choice. Organizational
Science, 5, 502-527.

McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Willingness to com-
municate, communication apprehension, and
self-perceived communication competence:
Conceptualizations and perspectives. In J. A.
Daly, J. C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf & D. M.
Ayres (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness,
reticence, and communication apprehension (pp.
75-108). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Mentornet, (2003). 2002-2003 program evaluation
highlights. Retrieved on January, 26, 2006, from

Ngwenyama, O. K., & Lee, A. S. (1997). Com-
munication richness in electronic mail: Critical
social theory and the contextuality of meaning.
MIS Quarterly, 21(2), 145-167.
Nie, N. H., & Ebring, L. (2000). Internet and soci-
ety: A preliminary report. Stanford, CA: Institute
for the Quantitative Study of Society.
Postmes, T. T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2001). Com-
munication and commitment in organizations:
A social identity approach. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 4(3), 227-246.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community:
Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Read-
ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rice, R. E., & Gattiker, U. E. (2001). New media
and organizational structuring. In F. M. Jablin
& L. L Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of
organizational communication (pp. 544-581).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rice, R. E. & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion:
Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated
network. Communication Research, 14, 85-108.
Richmond, V. P. (1997). Quietness in contempo-
rary society: Conclusions and generalizations of
the research. In J. A. Daly, J. C. McCroskey, J.
Ayres, T. Hopf & D. M. Ayres (Eds.), Avoiding
communication: Shyness, reticence, and commu-
nication apprehension (pp. 257-268). Cresskill,
NJ: Hampton.
Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career
mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 13, 169-174.
Scandura, T. A. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring
relationships and outcomes. Journal of Manage-
ment, 24(3), 449-468.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976).
The social psychology of telecommunications.
London: Wiley.
Single, P. B., & Muller, C. B. (2001). When e-
mail and mentoring unite: The implementation
of nationwide electronic mentoring program.
In L. Stromei (Ed.), Implementing successful
coaching and mentoring programs (pp. 107-122).
Cambridge, MA: American Society for Training
and Development.
Single, P. B., & Single, R. (2005). E-mentoring
for social equity: Review of research to inform
program development. Mentoring & Tutoring,
13(2), 301-320.

Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances/private
realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New
York: W. H. Freeman.
Snyder, M., & Coupland, J. (1989). Self-monitor-
ing processes in organizational settings. In R.
A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression
management in the organization (pp. 7-20). Hill-
sdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
1629
Social Implications of E-Mentoring
Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2004). Self-other
rating agreement in mentoring: Meeting protégé
expectations for development and career advance-
ment. Group & Organization Management, 29(4),
442-469.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1999). Computers,
networks and work. 6FLHQWL¿F$PHULFDQ(3),
116-123.
Sypher, B. D., & Sypher, H. E. (1983). Self monitor-
ing and perceptions of communication ability in
an organizational setting. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 9, 297-304.
Tan, B. C., Watson, R. T., & Wei, K. (1995). Na-
tional culture and group support systems: Filtering
communication to dampen power differentials.
European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2),
82-92.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in
computer-mediated interaction: A relational per-
spective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated com-
munication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and
hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Re-
search, 23, 3-43.
Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A.
(2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic
process model. Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management, 22, 39-124.
Weisband, S. P., Schneider, S. K., & Connolly, T.
(1995). Computer mediated communication and
social information: Status salience and status
differences. Academy of Management Journal,
38(4), 1124-1151.
Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Net surfers don’t
ride alone: Virtual community as community. In
B. Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the global village
(pp. 331-367). Boulder, CO: Westview.
This work was previously published in Social Implications and Challenges of E-Business, edited by F. Li, pp. 1-14, copyright
2007 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).
1630
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Chapter 5.16
An Exploratory Study of the
Design Preferences of U.S. and
Chinese Virtual Communities
Felix B. Tan
Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
Helen J. Lin
University of Auckland, New Zealand
Cathy Urquhart

University of Auckland, New Zealand
ABSTRACT
With the increasing popularity of electronic com-
merce, businesses are starting to recognise that
developing a good virtual community can help to
JHQHUDWHPRUHSUR¿WV9LUWXDOFRPPXQLWLHVFDQ
be an instrument for building relationships with
customers, and retaining customers’ loyalty. Of
interest are the similarities and differences in the
design preferences of virtual communities across
cultural groups. This paper, therefore, examined
the design preferences of virtual communities
in two cultural groups. The design preferences
studied are Web design, tools used, and types of
virtual communities preferred. Content analysis
was employed to study 20 of the most popular
Chinese and U.S. virtual communities. The study
found that there are differences in the preference
for the type of virtual communities and the tools
XVHGE\&KLQHVHDQG86FRPPXQLWLHV7KH¿QG-
ings challenge aspects of Web site design across
these cultural groups thought to be dissimilar
based on prior research, indicating that designers
of virtual communities must treat cultural differ-
ences with caution. Implications for research and
practice are also discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Over 100 million non-English speakers are now
accessing the Internet from all corners of the
1631

An Exploratory Study of the Design Preferences of U.S. and Chinese Virtual Communities
world. In the near future, the number of non-
U.S. users is expected to outnumber the U.S
(Robbins & Stylianou, 2001). Global businesses
are beginning to recognise that developing good
virtual communities to meet customers’ multiple
social and commercial needs can lead to customer
OR\DOW\DQGKHQFHJUHDWHUSUR¿WV$UPVWURQJ
Hagel, 1996). In order to attract customers from
different cultural groups, virtual communities
should be designed to accommodate their varied
preferences. It is therefore important to study how
virtual communities can be better designed to suit
the different cultural groups of customers.
Prior research into virtual communities has
focused on the community types (Armstrong &
Hagel, 1996; Chaudhury, Mallick, & Rao, 2001),
tools used (Chaudhury et al., 2001; Preece, 2000)
and Web site design (Preece, 2000). However,
there has been little work into cultural preferences
in the choice of tools and types of communities
preferred. Although many have suggested that
Web sites (in general) should be designed to suit
different cultural preferences (Chen, 2002; Fink
& Laupase, 2000), our understanding of the
cultural preferences in virtual community Web
site design remain limited. The aim of this study
is, therefore, to explore the design preferences of
U.S. and Chinese virtual communities in hope
RI ¿OOLQJ WKLV JDS LQ RXU NQRZOHGJH ,Q WHUPV

RISUDFWLFHWKH¿QGLQJVRIWKLVVWXG\FDQKHOS
virtual community designers better understand
design choices across cultures and hence develop
virtual communities that can attract and sustain
membership.
In the next section, we review prior research
with a focus on the culture issue relating to vir-
tual community Web site design, as well as tools
used and community types. The methodology
employed is then discussed. Result and analysis
is then presented. Discussion and conclusion
follow.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Concept of Virtual Communities
7KHUH DUH D QXPEHU RI GH¿QLWLRQV RI WKH WHUP
virtual communities in the literature. Toomey,
Mark, Tang, and Adams (1998) describe virtual
communities as spatially distributed people who
are able to meet each other, form relationships,
and pool their resources through computer-
PHGLDWHG VXSSRUW ,JEDULD¶V  GH¿QLWLRQ
of virtual communities is focused more on the
communication side of the communities, where
YLUWXDOFRPPXQLW\LV³DWHUPQRUPDOO\XVHGWR
describe various forms of computer-mediated
communication, particularly long-term, textually
mediated conversations among large groups.”
Virtual communities are considered different
IURPWUDGLWLRQDOFRPPXQLWLHVDVWKH\DUH³PRUH
active and discerning, less accessible to one-on-

one processes and provide a wealth of valuable
cultural information” (Evans, Wedande, Ralston,
+XO7KLVSDSHUWKHUHIRUHGH¿QHVYLUWXDO
communities as communities formed by people
who can be from a different space/time zone
and culture, interact together, share resources
and interest, and build-up relationships through
computer-mediated communication.
The Culture Issue
Yap (2002)suggests that each virtual community
has its own culture, as it provides a virtual space
for people who have the same belief and interest
to group together, and also share their knowledge.
However, people in the virtual communities may
be from different places around the world, shar-
ing different real-world cultures. For instance,
a virtual community can be formed by people
from North America and Asia, who have different
beliefs and behaviour patterns (Fink & Laupase,
2000). It can be assumed that over time, people
1632
An Exploratory Study of the Design Preferences of U.S. and Chinese Virtual Communities
staying in the same virtual community will even-
tually develop a set of cultures to share within the
group, but initially, a bridge between the types of
interactions in the real and virtual worlds must be
provided (Schwartz, Bricker, Campbell, Furness,
Inkpen, Matheson, et al., 1998). In order to better
understand the cultural preferences in the design
RIYLUWXDOFRPPXQLWLHVZHQHHGWR¿UVWFRQVLGHU

WKHGH¿QLWLRQRIFXOWXUHDQGLWVGLPHQVLRQV
Culture is the integrated pattern of human
knowledge, belief, and behaviour that depends
upon man’s capacity for learning and transmit-
ting knowledge to succeeding generations” (Yap,
LWLV³DVKDUHGVHWRIYDOXHVWKDWLQÀXHQFH
societal perceptions, attitudes, preferences, and
responses” (Robbins & Stylianou, 2001), and
³ZKDWHYHU\SHUVRQFDUULHVZLWKLQKLPRUKHUVHOI
patterns of thinking, feeling and potential acting
which were learned throughout their lifetime”
(Simon, 2001).
0RGHOVRIFXOWXUHFDQEHFODVVL¿HGLQWRVLQJOH
dimension, historical-social dimensions, and
multiple dimensions (Myers & Tan, 2002; Singh,
2003). Single-dimension models contain dyadic
characterisation of culture: examples are high
context-low context; monochromic-polychromic;
high trust-low trust; ideocentric-allocentric;
and monochromic-polymorphic (Singh, 2003).
:LWKLQWKHKLVWRULFDOVRFLDOFXOWXUHLVFODVVL¿HG
DWWKH³UHJLRQDOOHYHOURRWHGLQWKHVKDUHGVRFLDO
heritage and similarity of historical evolution”
(Singh, 2003). Examples are the Euro manage-
ment model and the South East Asian manage-
ment model. Multiple-dimensions models tend
to abstract cultural elements into more cultural
facets, such as Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars’
seven dimensions (Singh, 2003) and Hofstede’s
¿YHGLPHQVLRQV+RIVWHGH

+RIVWHGH¶V¿YHGLPHQVLRQVKDYHEHHQXVHG
in many studies in information systems (Myers
 7DQ  7KH ¿YH GLPHQVLRQV DUH SRZHU
distance, uncertainty avoidance, individual-
ism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, and
long/short-term orientation (i.e., past-oriented or
future-oriented). Believing that cultural values
and cultural differences between countries have
existed for a long time, are stable, and are based
on cultural commonalities and similar histories,
+RIVWHGH VXJJHVWHG FRXQWULHV FDQ EHFODVVL¿HG
into six clusters: the Anglo cluster, Nordic cluster,
German cluster, Latin cluster, Asian cluster, and
Japan (Robbins & Stylianou, 2001).
Virtual Community Types
A number of studies have attempted to classify
virtual communities. For instance, Armstrong
DQG+DJHOLGHQWL¿HGIRXUJURXSVEDVHG
on how communities meet different types of
consumer needs. The four types of communities
are communities of transaction, communities of
interest, communities of fantasy, and communities
of relationship. Communities of transaction aim
to assist the selling and purchasing of products
and services, information related to those transac-
tions is also provided. Communities of interest
involve more active interactions between members
RQVSHFL¿FWRSLFV7KHGHJUHHRILQWHUSHUVRQDO
communication is much higher compared to the
communities of transaction. Communities of

fantasy, as the name shows, enable members to
create new stories in new environments, or even
play imaginary characters. The heart of these
kinds of communities is interaction with others.
Communities of relationship are for people who
want to form some deep personal connections.
$ U P V W U RQ J D Q G+ D JHO¶V FO D V V L ¿F D W LR QK D V EH H Q 
widely used in many later studies. In contrast,
Chaudhury et al. (2001) proposed that virtual
communities can be divided into three types:
³\RX´³WKH\´DQG³LW´7KLVFDWHJRULVDWLRQZDV
developed based on the member’s relationship
types (one to one, one to many, or many to many)
and organised form (e.g., formal or informal).
1633
An Exploratory Study of the Design Preferences of U.S. and Chinese Virtual Communities
Members in each community have their own
XQLTXH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV 0HPEHUV LQ WKH ³\RX´
based community are strongly attached to each
other, and relationship is therefore their main
IRFXV7KHJRDORISHRSOHZKRMRLQWKH³WKH\´
based community is to engage with several other
members, to exchange opinions, jokes, and so
IRUWKDQGWRVKDUHLQWHUHVW0HPEHUVLQWKH³LW´
based community are mostly task driven, and
more interested in getting information or advice
that serves their goal.
%DVHGRQWKHVHWZRFODVVL¿FDWLRQPHWKRGVD
FODVVL¿FDWLRQPRGHOFDQEHGHYHORSHGWRGH¿QH
each type of community. Figure 1 shows how

PHPEHUVFDQEHFODVVL¿HGLQWRHDFKJURXSEDVHG
on the degree of their physical requirements (e.g.,
requirement for service, transaction, information,
etc.) from the communities, and the degree of their
interactions with other members (high or low).
Web Site Design
Web usability is important, as Web sites play an
important role in virtual communities; in addition,
users view the Web site and the virtual community
D V W KH VD P H H Q W LW \D Q GH D FK RI W KH P L Q À XH Q F H V W KH 
user’s impression of the other (Preece, 2000).
Several methods to assess the usability of Web
sites can be found in the literature. Agarwal and
Venkatesh (2002) present the Microsoft usability
guidelines (MUG), which states that design ele-
ments can be categorised into (1) content, (2) ease
of use, (3) promotion, (4) made-for-the-medium,
and (5) emotion. In another study, categories
LGHQWL¿HGE\1LHOVHQ¶VUHVHDUFKDUHXVHG7KH\DUH
(1) navigation, (2) response time, (3) credibility,
(4) and content. In addition, this study added
in an extra element, namely (5) media richness
(Palmer, 2002). Similarly, content, navigation,
)LJXUH&ODVVL¿FDWLRQPRGHO
Physical
Re
q
uirements
Low
High

High
Communities for Transaction &
“It” based Communities
C
ommun
i
t
i
es
f
or
I
nterest
&

“They” Based Communities
Communities for Relationship &
“You” Based Communities
Interaction
C
ommun
i
t
i
es
f
or
F
antasy