Title
Seminar.net 2015. (author name) This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
Website Preferences of Finnish
and Mexican University Students: A Cross-Cultural
Study
Miguel Santiago
Department Educational Sciences and Teacher Education, Faculty of
Education, University of Oulu
Email: miguel.santiagobustos@student.oulu.fi
Pirkko Hyvönen
Department Educational Sciences and Teacher Education, Faculty of
Education, University of Oulu and University of Lapland
Email: pirkko.hyvonen@oulu.fi or pirkko.hyvonen@ulapland.fi
Abstract
This paper is focused on understanding Internet use and comparing cross-
cultural differences according to the contents and preferences of the websites
that are most visited by two groups of university students from Finland
(n = 30) and Mexico (n = 30). The following research is an exploratory
qualitative study with some basic statistics. A questionnaire was used in this
study as a data collection instrument. The findings show that in both groups,
university students prefer websites about social networking (Facebook),
sending email (MSN), videos (YouTube), multiplatform applications
(Google), educational sites (University of Oulu), and wikis (Wikipedia).
This demonstrated that both groups have an interest in sharing ideas and
meeting friends. The differences reveal that Finnish students use their
university’s website more regularly than the Mexican student respondents
and that they tend to implement their ideas more often. Furthermore,
this study explored how university students use the Internet and what type of
influence the Internet has on them. The emotional effects suggest that almost
quarter of students reported using the internet to escape negative feelings,
such as depression or nervousness. The findings provide information for
university teachers about students’ habits and prior knowledge regarding
Internet use for educational purposes. The information will be helpful when
designing learning and teaching in multicultural student groups.
Keywords: Internet, websites, Finland, Mexico, contents, cross-cultural
differences
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
mailto:miguel.santiagobustos@student.oulu.fi
mailto:pirkko.hyvonen@oulu.fi
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
236
Introduction
The Internet is a mediator of person-to-person communication
patterns because of the constant interrelations it creates, affecting the people’s
lives both online and offline. People use the Internet to carry out important
developmental tasks, such as identity formation, social interaction, and the
development of autonomy. In addition, the Internet can provide a learning
environment, and people can learn how to transfer their new skills from the
Internet to real-life interactions (Amichai-Hamburger & Furnham, 2007).
Several previous studies have evaluated the positive and negative effects the
Internet has on everyday life. For instance, Stepanikova et al. (2010) found a
positive relationship between Internet use and loneliness and a negative
relationship between Internet use and life satisfaction. In the same
way, several classifications have been performed to categorize the amount of
time that people spend on the Internet (e.g., the addicts and the affiliated) and
the positive and negative consequences this has for quality of life (Amichai-
Hamburger et al., 2007; Meyen, Pfaff-Rüdiger, Dudenhöffer & Huss, 2010;
Weinstein & Lejoyeu, 2010). Also, Huang and Chang (2009) carried out a
study using a database of 101 countries. They evaluated the similarity (e.g.,
language and religion) of websites among countries and found that Internet
users in countries sharing common social norms were likely to visit the same
websites. In general, previous studies have been focused on evaluating a group
of users in a specific country, evaluating the positive and negative
consequences that the Internet has regarding quality of life, and the time that
users spend on the Internet. However, few studies have assessed the type of
information that is published on the Internet, the contents that are consulted
by users on websites, and whether users from different countries access the
same websites.
Therefore, this study makes an effort to fill a gap by determining how students
use the Internet (websites) in formal and informal contexts and what factors
influence this process. This research is focused on the comparison of cross-
cultural factors regarding Internet use between groups of university
students from Finland and Mexico, specifying the characteristics of and
preferences regarding the websites that are most visited by both groups.
Literature Review
Role of the Internet
The Internet influences people’s lives in many ways. McKenna et al. (2002)
mention that the Internet not only provides an opportunity for people to talk
among themselves, but it may also be the preferred place for self-expression
because the Internet environment may be perceived as sufficiently safe for
expressing various aspects of people’s identities. Meyen et al. (2010) have
developed a typology with seven types of Internet users (the virtuosi, the
professionals, the addicts, the aficionados, the companions, the cautious, and
the affiliated). This typology of Internet users shows that access to the Internet
varies widely in terms of the ability to take full advantage of the Internet. This
ability and the relevance of Internet use to daily life are influenced
by the habits of users, for example, socialization, gender, and personal
environment.
Likewise, the Internet can create a safe environment, which has a particular
significance for people with social inhibitions, such as introversion and
neuroticism. The Internet has a positive effect on these individuals because it
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
237
enables them to acquire more information about social anxiety disorder and
provides a medium through which socially inhibited people can acquire social
skills and confidence (Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2007). Additionally, adults
tend to learn new ways of carrying out traditional tasks, e.g., a conference
using Skype rather than a traditional conference call. In the same
sense, for younger generations, the Internet is the “normal way” to perform all
kinds of activities. These people are involved in a world guided by the Internet.
This is an intrinsic and innate part of their lives, and it is not possible for them
complete many tasks without this tool. It includes all kinds of activities, such
as social interactions, study, leisure, playing, etc. The current generation is
clearly the generation of the Internet (Amichai-Hamburger & Barak, 2009).
The magnitude and the abilities of the Internet are part of every aspect of our
lives, both social and professional, and this has only increased over the years
(Amichai-Hamburger, 2002). Moreover, Anderson et al. (2004) have
described how the Web’s capacity building via hyperlinking may be compared
to the way in which human knowledge is stored in mental schema and to the
subsequent development of mental structures.
Now, one of the major changes in communication practices and social
interaction is social networking sites. By using the social networks, an
individual can find others with similar interests for both romantic and social
purposes (Ross, Orr, Sisic, Arseneault, Simmering, & Orr,
2009). The overwhelming success of social networks such as Facebook poses a
number of important questions regarding their impact (Ryan & Xenos, 2011).
Also, Facebook is associated with all generations of Internet users, being a
notable communications tool among the student population and academic
institutions. This means that social networks are frequently involved in the
area of education by connecting current and potential students and delivering
instructional content (Paul, Baker, & Cochran, 2012). Nadkarni et al.
(2012) developed a model suggesting that Facebook use is motivated by two
primary needs. The first is the need to belong, and the second is the need for
self-presentation. Demographic and cultural factors may contribute to the
need to belong. The use of new applications such as social
networks creates new communication patterns in the digital age (Movius,
2010).
Through the Internet, others with similar interests can be
found without difficulty while preserving anonymity. This process allows
people to share aspects of themselves online with far fewer risks (Amichai-
Hamburger et al., 2007). Some people see the Internet as a venue in
which they can express their emotions openly. Also, there are risks associated
with anonymity. For instance, some people obtain benefits by deceit, extortion,
human trafficking, selling drugs, or stealing information from others.
Additionally, as defined by Colley (2008), the impact of the Internet on
different social groups and genders are a significant area of research. Their
study provided an analysis of the impact of the Internet on men’s and women’s
lives. Amichai-Hamburger et al. (2011) have assessed the influence of Internet
use on social interactions in separate life domains (e.g., with family
members, friends, or colleagues). Their investigation has confirmed that
Internet use can enhance the social lives of its users.
In addition, Internet use may have psychological effects. For example,
Johnson et al. (1991) argues that the relationship between Internet use and
psychological well-being may be positive or negative, depending on how
Internet use influences social processes. Robinson et al. (2000) found that the
Internet may reduce stress and provide social support. It may enable the
creation of new supportive social ties that would not otherwise exist,
improving the social integration and psychosocial health of individuals
(Stepanikova et al., 2010). Regarding the risks of Internet use, Yu et al. (2013)
argue in their study that problematic Internet use can be described as an
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
238
excessive preoccupation that has resulted in academic difficulties and physical
health problems for the people involved.
Cultural factors
Culture is defined as the shared cognition and patterns designed by a set of
people for identifying, describing, explaining, and responding to the social
factors around them (Lederach, 1995). Hofstede defines culture as “the
collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one
group or category of people from others” (Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov,
2010). This definition emphasizes that culture is always learned; it is not
inherited. It is derived from one’s social environment, not from one’s genes. In
addition, it explains that culture is a collective action that is perceived as a
dynamic process rather than a passive one and supports individual and group
identity formation (Hofstede et al., 2010). Culture is shared and is factor in an
individual’s social interactions. Therefore, people in human societies generally
perceive that their society is distinct from other societies in terms of shared
traditions and expectations. Moreover, in contemporary culture, identity is
connected much more loosely to group membership. People have a place
within a multitude of cultures, and their identities are different in each
one. However, in many cases, an identity is only partial or temporary (Curtis &
Pettigrew, 2009). Today, globally influential factors have effects on societies
and their cultures because these norms determine a set of values and beliefs
that are largely shared around the world (Castells, 2009).
Cross-cultural differences manifest themselves in several forms: they
provide the basic value orientations, beliefs, and worldviews that are prevalent
in a given context. However, these differences can be understood by
recognizing and describing cultures according to a series of
dimensions (Markus & Hamedani, 2007). Hofstede (2010)
describes how every person belongs to a number of different groups and
categories. Consequently, individuals unavoidably contain several
layers corresponding to the various levels of their cultures. Cross-cultural
differences relate to country (where there is a dominant culture
regarding practices and values throughout a nation), region (some minorities
are at the crossroads between the dominant culture of the nation and their
own traditional group culture), religion (the result of previously existing
cultural value patterns), gender (how cultural groups understand and relate to
members of the opposite sex; in many cultures, there are different rules for
men and women), generation (this separates grandparents from parents and
parents from children; there are differences in practices and values between
generations), and social classes (this is associated with educational
opportunities and a person’s occupation, profession, and
income). Because cross-cultural differences are related to race, gender,
physical and mental abilities, and religion, this has an impact on cultural
orientations. It is hard to identify any person using a single cultural label.
Learning is considered a cultural activity. The human capacity to learn
is universal, and learning has performed a historically important role in
constructing communities within specific cultures (Curtis et al., 2009). Some
people view learning as the transmission of knowledge from experts to
novices. Other people base their view of learning on a learning approach in
which beginners learn by collaborating and interacting with people who are
more experienced. Although the effectiveness of collaborative learning -
particularly computer-supported collaborative learning - is substantiated by
scientific evidence, its success depends entirely on certain conditions in which
students interact actively (Dillenbourg, Järvelä, & Fisher, 2009). Today,
learning is seen as a social activity in which students set goals for their
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
239
learning, monitor them, and make changes that are needed to achieve their
goals. During the process, students regulate their emotions, motivation,
behaviour, and cognition (Zimmerman, 1989). Learning involves an awareness
of how people think, understand, and learn about language, culture,
knowledge, and how these are related. It also includes concepts such as
identity, experiences, diversity, and individuals’ own cultural thoughts and
feelings (Scarino & Liddicoat, 2009).
The Internet has a significant effect on cultures.
The implementation of new technology makes us think that societies will
become more and increasingly similar and connected. People use the Internet
to carry out important developmental tasks, such as identity formation, social
interaction, and the development of autonomy. The impact of the Internet on
people is increasingly exponentially (Mesch, 2009). In addition, Internet
use can, unfortunately, be associated with problems, such as a lack of
technological skills, the consumption of time (Internet addiction), and making
poor use of time.
Cross-cultural differences have varying influences on people due to race and
ethnicity, gender, physical and mental abilities, and religious and other beliefs;
these influence cultural orientations. It is therefore important to
identify the effects the Internet has on different groups of people.
Method
Aim and Research Questions
The aim of this study was to know, compare, and describe the contents
(characteristics) and preferences of websites that are most frequently visited
by groups of university students from Finland and Mexico (whose
cultures are different). Additionally, this paper is focused on determining the
cross-cultural differences between participants in both countries regarding
Internet use.
This research project attempts to answer four questions:
1. What do university students in Mexico and Finland use the Internet for?
2. What are the most visited websites by respondents in both countries?
3. What characteristics do these websites have?
4. Are there cross-cultural differences in Internet use among Mexican and
Finnish students?
Research Context
The research context is higher education in Finland and Mexico. Finland is
located in Europe’s north-eastern region, and it shares a border with Russia to
the east, the Gulf of Finland and Estonia to the south, the Gulf of Bothnia and
Sweden to the west, and Norway to the north and northwest. The Finnish
education system is comprised of the following: 1) one year of voluntary pre-
primary education, 2) a nine-year basic education (comprehensive school), 3)
upper secondary education, comprised of general education and
vocational, and 4) higher education provided by universities and
polytechnic colleges (bachelors, masters, and doctoral studies). The entire
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
240
educational system is provided free of charge by the state (Ministry of
Education and Culture of Finland et al., 2014).
Mexico is located in North America, and it shares a border with the United
States to the north, Guatemala and Belize to the south-east, the Gulf of Mexico
and Caribbean Sea to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The Mexican
educational system is comprised of the following: 1) two years of pre-primary
education, 2) six years of basic education (primary), and 3) three years of
secondary education. Pre-primary, primary and secondary are denominated as
basic education, which is compulsory; this education is provided for free by the
state. In addition, 4) upper secondary education is provided after secondary
education (high school), and 5) higher education consists of four types of
institutions: universities, technical institutes, colleges, and technical
universities (bachelors, masters, and doctoral studies) (Secretariat of Public
Education, 2014).
Internet penetration
The population of Finland is about 5.4 million people; in Finland, 92.4
individuals per 100 people can access the Internet via some device type
(computer or mobile) and connection, according to the statistics of the World
Bank in 2014. In the case of Mexico, its population was about 123 million
people in 2014. In Mexico, 44.4 individuals have access to the Internet per 100
people. In summary, there is a notable difference between both countries in
terms of access to the Internet; in Finland, the number of people who
can access the Internet is quite high, while in Mexico, less than half of
population can access the Internet (The World Bank, 2014).
Participants
Volunteer university students (n = 60) took part in this study. The Finnish
student participants (n = 30) were from the Faculty of Education (University
of Oulu, Finland). Questionnaires were handed out to students at
the University of Oulu. In Mexico, the surveys were conducted in the Faculty of
Agriculture (Department of Biology) at the Autonomous University of
Nayarit; student population (n = 30). In Finland, 73.3% of participants were
between 20 and 29 years old. Only 26.7% of respondents were between
30 and 44 years old. In Mexico, 96.7% of respondents were aged between
19 and 27 years old. Only one respondent was between 28 and 31 years old. In
this research, 73.3% of Finnish students were female, and 26.7% were male.
Also, 56.7 % of Mexican students were male, and 43.3 % were female.
Questionnaire
Questionnaires are a major tool of inquiry for teachers, sociologists, and other
social scientists. They can provide information about people’s attributes, such
as their age, gender, social characteristics, etc. (Buckingham & Saunders,
2004). In order to find answers to the research questions of this study, a
questionnaire was developed that consisted of questions to enable the students
to provide information. University student volunteers were requested to
complete these questionnaires. There were a total of twelve questions, and the
questionnaires were written in English. In addition, we added some comment
boxes so that the respondents could provide personal responses to any specific
question. The main idea of these questionnaires was to identify and describe
Internet use by students in Finland and Mexico. The individual questionnaires
contained the following questions: (1) How often do you access the Internet?
(2) How many hours do you spend surfing the Internet per day? (3) Where do
you use the Internet most often? (4) How often do you use the Internet to
http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Yhteystiedot_ja_asiointi?lang=en
http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Yhteystiedot_ja_asiointi?lang=en
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
241
escape feelings of depression, moodiness, or nervousness? (5) When you
access the Internet where do you prefer to be? (6) Do you prefer having online
friends to real friends? (7) What do you use the Internet for? 8) What kind of
Internet sources do you use? (9) What browser do you use? (10) What search
engine do you use? (11) What are the websites you most often visit? (12) What
are the characteristics of these websites? (See Appendix A for more
information on the questionnaires).
Data analysis
Based on the questionnaires, as a next step, we have conducted this
research project using descriptive methods, measuring
and obtaining frequencies and percentages from the answers to the
survey questions. These analyses were conducted with IBM
SPSS Statistics 22. This process enables us to examine and describe Internet
use in accordance with the most-visited websites and contents
for Finnish respondents and Mexican students. The research findings from the
analysis of the questionnaires are presented and interpreted in the following
section.
Results
Table 1 presents the frequencies and percentages of the answers of
respondents (Finland and Mexico) to questions (1), (2), and (3).
Table 1: Descriptive methods (access to the Internet, daily Internet usage, and the
location of Internet access)
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
242
As expected, there are some similarities and differences between the answers
of the Finnish respondents and Mexican students. For instance, 33.3% of
Finnish respondents answered that they spent ‘more than 8 hours’ using the
Internet per day, while in Mexico, the most-mentioned amount of time spent
on the Internet was between ‘2 and 5 hours’ per day (46.7%). The results
indicate that Finnish people use the Internet more per day.
Additionally, 83.3% of Finnish students indicated that they prefer to access the
Internet at home. The results in Mexico were very similar (76.6 %). This shows
that people in both countries prefer to access the Internet at home. In
addition, it was very clear that all respondents from both countries accessed
the Internet every day.
Table 2 shows the results regarding respondents’ feelings about using the
Internet to escape feelings of depression, moodiness, or nervousness (question
4).
Table 2 Results regarding escaping feelings of depression, moodiness, or nervousness
(frequencies and percentages)
The Finnish and Mexican respondents indicated that they rarely used the
Internet to escape such feelings. It is notable that 23 percent of students in
both countries reported escaping such feelings occasionally or often. There
was some degree of similarity within the results for this category.
Table 3 illustrates the findings regarding preferences in accessing the Internet
and having online friends or real friends (questions 5 and 6).
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
243
Table 3 Results regarding preferences in Internet access and having online friends or
real friends (frequencies and percentages)
Ninety percent of Finnish respondents said that they prefer to be ‘sometimes
alone, sometimes with friends’ when they visit the Internet; no one answered
‘always with friends,’ and few people responded with ‘always alone.’ The
Mexican students mostly indicated they preferred to use the Internet
‘sometimes alone, sometimes with friends’; the second most frequent response
was ‘always alone,’ and no one answered ‘always with friends.’ According to
the survey, the results are very similar to those of Finnish students. The
difference is that Mexican students responded with ‘always alone’ more often.
Also, the majority of people in both groups ‘always prefer to have real friends
over online friends.’
Table 4 indicates the results for question (7).
Table 4 Findings regarding Internet use by participants in this study
Finnish students mentioned that they often preferred to use the Internet to
obtain information (literature, news, etc.), send or receive emails, study, and
engage in social networking. The respondents indicated that they sometimes
accessed the Internet for online shopping; work/business; downloading or
watching movies, music, etc.; and checking the weather. They never reported,
as the main answer, using the Internet for playing games. Some people
indicated that they visit the Internet to do other things. The Mexican
respondents reported that they often access the Internet to obtain information,
study, and engage in social networking. These students commented that they
sometimes use the Internet for sending or receiving emails, playing games,
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
244
and downloading and watching movies. They do not use the Internet for
work/business, online shopping, checking the weather, etc. According to the
data, there are some similarities regarding Internet use, such as obtaining
information, sending or receiving emails, studying, and social networking. The
differences were mainly in the areas of online shopping, work/business,
checking the weather, playing games, and the ‘other’ category.
Table 5 Shows student perceptions about Internet use to access Internet
sources (question 8).
Table 5 Findings for studying on the Internet (Internet sources)
The following category relates to Internet use for study. The Finnish
respondents mentioned that they ‘often’ use learning resources, such as wikis,
blogs, etc., and ‘sometimes’ use online courses, online dictionaries, and
databases. The Mexican respondents reported that they ‘often’ use wikis,
blogs, etc. and ‘sometimes’ use databases and online dictionaries for study
purposes. The main response was ‘never’ regarding online courses. This
indicates that there is a similarity regarding the use of wikis, blogs, online
courses, and online dictionaries. The major difference was related to the
category of online courses; the two groups of respondents provided opposite
answers.
Table 6 presents the findings regarding the most-used web browsers
and search engines for Finnish and Mexican students (questions 9 and 10).
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
245
Table 6 Results for web browser and search engines
We found some similarities and differences between the responses of the
Finnish and Mexican students. It is important to establish respondent
preferences for web browsers and search engines because these applications
enable students to search for content on the Internet. In response to the
question about web browsers, Finnish student respondents reported that
36.7% used Firefox to search for information on the Internet. Google Chrome
was the second most preferred option, followed by Safari and Internet
Explorer (one student preferred Opera). In the case of the Mexican student
respondents, the most popular browser was Google Chrome (60%), followed
by Firefox and Internet Explorer with the same number of mentions. No
additional browsers were mentioned by Mexican students. This indicates that
the Finnish student respondents tended to use more web browsers than the
Mexican student participants. In addition, in both countries, the popular web
browsers are the same; only the orders of preference are slightly different.
According to the questionnaire results regarding search engines, the majority
of students from Finland use Google, and only three people mentioned Bing as
their preferred option. The Mexican findings show that 93.3% of students said
that Google was the best option for them, and Ask and Metacrawler were
mentioned only once. This shows that Google was preferred as the best option
for students in both countries; this result is clear and concise.
Table 7 indicates the websites that were most frequently accessed by
respondents in both countries (question 11).
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
246
Table 7 Frequency and percentages for the websites visited most frequently by
respondents
These websites are the most preferred websites according to the students; we
mention the responses per country and their content. In Finland, Facebook
was the most preferred (17.1%). The second was the University of Oulu’s site
(15.5%), followed by Google (14.7%), MSN (7%), and HS and YouTube with
4.7%. According to the results from the Mexican student participants,
Facebook was the most popular (26%). The second most popular was YouTube
(22.1%), followed by Google (12.5%), MSN (11.5%), and Wikipedia (6.7%). This
shows that the most preferred website is the same in both countries
(Facebook). This is a social networking website. The second most popular
website in Finland was that of the University of Oulu, which is related to
student studies. In the case of the Mexican student participants, the second
most popular site was YouTube, which is the most popular website in the
world and shows various types of videos. In Finland and Mexico, the next
option was the same, Google, which is a website with multiplatform
applications, such as Google Drive. The fourth most popular website was MSN
in both countries. This website is used for sending and receiving emails and
checking information such as news and gossip, among other things. The next
most popular sites in Finland were HS and YouTube. The first is a newspaper,
and the second was mentioned above. In the case of Mexico, the next most
popular site was Wikipedia. It is a popular website which is used to search for
all types of information.
Regarding the characteristics of these websites, as seen in the responses to
question (12), websites about social networking (Facebook) were the most
popular, with percentages of 17.1% (Finland) and 26% (Mexico). Sending and
receiving emails, gossip and news (e.g., MSN), videos (YouTube),
multiplatform applications (e.g., Google), educational content and universities
(e.g., University of Oulu), and blogs and wikis (e.g., Blogilista and Wikipedia)
were the most frequently accessed websites in terms of content characteristics.
There are many similarities between both countries. In addition, most people
seldom visit websites related to sports or playing games. Additionally, almost
no one visited websites related to religion.
There were, however, notable differences, such as the fact that some people in
Finland visited websites reporting the weather (Ilmatieteenlaitos). In Mexico,
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
247
no one mentioned a similar site. The Finnish student participants said that
they visit newspapers whereas this was not the case for Mexican student
participants. Students from Mexico visited websites related to Japanese anime,
while Finnish student participants did not. Similarly, Mexican student
participants visited online shopping sites (e.g., Mercado libre), while in
Finland, this was not as common. The Mexican student respondents accessed
websites such as Skype and websites for watching or downloading movies and
TV series more frequently than those in Finland. The final observation was
that accessing the website of the respondent’s home university was common
among Finnish respondents, while in Mexico, the university website was used,
but not frequently. In addition, websites with blogs and wikis are very popular
in Finland, while in Mexico, the respondents showed a preference for
Wikipedia.
Discussion
This study has identified cultural similarities regarding websites accessed by
students from Finland and Mexico; Facebook is the most popular website
visited by students in both countries. This means that they prefer, and have an
interest in, sharing ideas, information, pictures, and social interactions (social
networking). This is in accordance with Ross et al. (2009), who indicates that
by using social networks, individuals may find others with similar interests for
both romantic and social purposes. In the typology developed by Meyen et al.
(2010), the respondents belong to “companions” category, because they have
favourite websites such as Facebook, where the students interact socially. In
addition, these findings are related to the work of Movius et al. (2010), in
which he describes how social networks have a significant impact on
communication patterns in contemporary society.
Websites containing videos, such as YouTube, are very popular, as well as
websites devoted to gossip, news, and sending emails, such as MSN; websites
containing blogs, such as Blogilista; and websites of multiplatform
applications, such as Google. This demonstrates the global influence of
Internet use, which may even represent a form of cultural imperialism
(Castells et al., 2009). Some of these applications have useful functions, such
as Google (a set of applications); share scientific or positive information within
groups or blogs, such as on Facebook or wikis; or contain tutorials or guides in
videos, such as YouTube. The cultural approach of the respondents with
regard to religion was clear. These people do not visit these types of websites
or those dedicated to sport. We also found that participants had a very positive
attitude towards learning through Internet use (study reasons) using all types
of available resources.
Interestingly, almost one-quarter of the students reported escaping feelings
such as depression or nervousness by using the Internet. This suggests that
these students find a safe environment by accessing the Internet, which affects
them positively. This is because the Internet may provide a medium that
allows freedom, reduces stress, increases social support and social integration,
improves the mental and psychological well-being of individuals, and creates
new ties and strong feelings that otherwise would not exist (Amichai-
Hamburger et al., 2007; Stepanikova et al. (2010).
Common interests may develop due to social networks such as Facebook.
These social networks are notable communication tools within the student
population and academic institutions, as described by Paul et al. (2012).
Finland and Mexico are countries with high Internet penetration and similar
social norms. Therefore, as was cited by Huang (2009), people in countries
with similar social norms access similar websites. In addition, for example, the
respondents in this study accessed the Internet for all types of activities (e.g.,
studies, social interactions, etc.). Today, Internet use is particularly relevant to
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
248
every aspect of their lives, both professionally and socially (Amichai-
Hamburger et al., 2009; Amichai-Hamburger et al. (2002).
Some cross-cultural differences were identified by comparing the
characteristics of the most-visited websites and Internet use by participants
from Finland and Mexico. This study found that the respondents from Finland
tended to perform new processes or implement their ideas more often
(innovation). For example, in the case of the use of web browsers, the students
from Finland use a variety of browsers, while participants from Mexico use
only a few. As another example, Finnish students visit and use websites where
they interact and develop creative applications more often (e.g., the University
of Helsinki and wikis). In the case of Mexico, these processes are used
infrequently and with some restrictions. Other differences that we have
identified include the use of media in the form of newspapers and weather
channels. This was identified in the students from Finland. The Mexican
respondents indicated that they did not check this sort of material frequently.
Conclusion
This research project has examined in detail the effects that the Internet has
on various groups of people. As researchers, our intention is to ensure the
implementation of improvement measures for Internet use among students
according to their needs. Therefore, this study suggests that the Internet
should be used as a learning environment in the educational and learning
processes and that emphasis should be placed on developing University
websites that provide multifaceted interaction. In addition, it is important that
we understand that the Internet is a technological tool that should enable us to
grow as people and societies. Individuals must be able to identify and use its
features properly. The tool facilitates the acquisition of considerable
knowledge (e.g., science), access job opportunities, and information that is
hidden or censored regarding political issues, among other things. We also
recommend that future studies should consider how the Internet impacts
students of all ages (e.g., their feelings and emotions) and focus on sensitizing
parents to monitoring the content that their children are exposed to on the
Internet. In addition, this study should be repeated in order to determine
whether the trends it has found remain constant or change.
We would like to mention some potential limitations that may have influenced
the study results. First, the respondents in this research project were from
different faculties; in Mexico, the respondents were from the Faculty of
Agriculture, while the participants from Finland were from the Faculty of
Education. This could have impacted the research findings, due to differences
in the participants’ chosen interests given their respective backgrounds.
However, our chief concern in this research project was to involve students
from one university in Mexico and from another in Finland, without giving
undue weight to (considering) whether these students were from different
faculties.
Second, the rather small number of respondents in this research project may
suggest results that cannot be generalized. This exploratory study only can
provide some interesting preliminary cross-cultural differences. Third, the
possibility that some students felt that not all website content was culturally
acceptable in their society cannot be ruled out, and this in turn may account
for their decision to access only commercial and traditional websites rather
than others.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the Autonomous University of Nayarit and Dr.
Rocío Vega-Frutis for practical support in carrying out this research in Mexico.
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
249
References
Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2002). Internet and personality. Computers in Human
Behavior, 18 (1), 1-10.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Furnham, A. (2007). The Positive Net. Computers in
Human Behavior, 23 (2), 1033-1045.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Barak, A. (2009). Internet and well-being. In Y. Amichai-
Hamburger (Ed.), Technology and Psychological well-being (pp. 34–76).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Hayat, Z. (2011). The impact of the Internet on the social
lives of users: A representative sample from 13 countries. Computers in
Human Behavior, 27 (1), 585-589.
Anderson, T., & Elloumi, F. (2004). Toward a Theory of Online Learning. In T.
Anderson (Ed.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 33–60).
Athabasca, Canada: Athabasca University Press.
Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. New York: Oxford University Press.
Colley, A., & Maltby, J. (2008). Impact of the Internet on our lives: Male and female
personal perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (5), 2005-2013.
Curtis, W., & Pettigrew, A. (2009). Learning in contemporary culture: Perspectives in
Education Studies. Exeter, UK: Learning Matters.
Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fisher (2009). The evolution of research on computer-
supported collaborative learning: From design to orchestration. In N.
Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen & T. De Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.),
Technology-Enhanced Learning: Principles and Products (pp. 3–19).
Amsterdam: Springer.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkow, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations:
Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for
Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Huang, C. Y., & Chang, S. S. (2009). Commonality of Web site visiting among
countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 60(6), 1168–1177.
Johnson, T. P. (1991). Mental health, social relations, and social selection: A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 32(4), 408-423.
Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Markus, H. R., & Hamedani, M. G. (2007). Sociocultural Psychology: The dynamic
interdependence among self-systems and social systems. In S. Kitayama & D.
Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Psychology (pp. 3-39). New York, NY:
Guilford.
McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on
the Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58 (1), 9-31.
Mesch, G. (2009). The Internet and youth culture. The Hedgehog Review, 11(1), 50-
60.
Meyen, M., Pfaff-Rüdiger, S., Dudenhöffer, K., & Huss, J. (2010). The Internet in
everyday life: A typology of Internet users. Media, Culture & Society, 32 (8),
73-882.
Ministry of Education and Culture of Finland (2014). Religious communities.
Retrieved from
http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Kirkollisasat/uskonnollisetyhdyskunnat/?lang=e
n.
Movius, L. (2010). Cultural globalisation and challenges to traditional communication
theories. Journal of Media and Communication, 2(1), 6-18.
Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and
Individual Differences, 52 (3), 243–249.
Paul, J. A., Baker, H. M., & Cochran, J. D. (2012). Effect of online social networking on
student academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (6),
2117–2127.
http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Kirkollisasat/uskonnollisetyhdyskunnat/?lang=en
http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Kirkollisasat/uskonnollisetyhdyskunnat/?lang=en
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
250
Prasad, A., & Prasad, P. (2006). Global transitions: The emerging new world order and
its implications for business and management. Business Renaissance
Quarterly, 1(3), 91–113.
Robinson, J. P., Kestnbaum, M., Neustadtl, A., & Alvarez, A. (2000). Mass media and
social life among Internet users. Social Science Computer Review, 18(4), 490-
501.
Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009).
Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in
Human Behavior, 25(2), 578-586.
Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the
relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and
Facebook usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (1), 1658-1664.
Scarino, A., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2009). Teaching and learning languages: A Guide.
Melbourne, Australia: Australian Government Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations.
Secretariat of Public Education (2014). Structure of the education system in Mexico.
Retrieved from
http://www.sep.gob.mx/work/models/sep1/Resource/1447/1/images/sistema
edumex09_01.pdf
Stepanikova, I., Nie, N., & He, X. (2010). Time on the Internet at home, loneliness, and
life satisfaction: Evidence from panel time-diary data. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26 (3), 329-338.
The World Bank (2014). Internet users. Retrieved from
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.P2.
Weinstein, A., & Lejoyeux, M. (2010). Internet addiction or excessive Internet use. The
American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 36 (5), 277-283.
Yu, J. J., Kim, H., & Hay, I. (2013). Understanding adolescents’ problematic Internet
use from a social/cognitive and addiction research framework. Computers in
Human Behavior, 29 (6), 2682-2689.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-339.
Appendix A
Contents of websites (Internet) questionnaire
Please complete the survey, mark your responses “x” (close questions) and
write your responses into the box (open questions)
1) How often do you access the Internet?
Once a week Several times a week Every day
2) How many hours do you spend surfing the Internet per day?
Less than two
hours
2 - 5 hours 5 - 8 hours More than 8
hours
3) Where do you use the Internet most often?
Home School Library
http://www.sep.gob.mx/work/models/sep1/Resource/1447/1/images/sistemaedumex09_01.pdf
http://www.sep.gob.mx/work/models/sep1/Resource/1447/1/images/sistemaedumex09_01.pdf
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.P2
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
251
Other (please specify)
4) How often do you use the Internet to escape feelings of depression,
moodiness or nervousness?
Never Rarely Occasionally Often
5) When you access the Internet where do you prefer to be?
Always alone Sometimes alone, sometimes with
friends
Always with friends
6) Do you prefer having online friends to real friends?
Yes Sometimes Never
7) What do you use the Internet for?
Often Sometimes Never
Get information (literature,
news, science etc.)
Send or receive email
Online Shopping
Work / Business
Studies
Playing games
Downloading music, video,
films etc.
Use a social networking,
chatting
Check the weather
Other activities
If you use the Internet for “other activities” in the last question, please specify
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
252
8) What kind of Internet sources do you use?
Often Sometimes Never
Databases
Online courses
Online encyclopedias,
dictionaries etc.
Wikis, blogs
Others
If you use other sources, please specify
9) What browser do you use? (E.g., Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer)
10) What search engine do you use (E.g., Google, and Yahoo)
11) What are the websites you most often visit? (Please list your top five
websites)
12) What are the characteristics of these websites?
Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning
Vol. 11 – Issue 3 – 2015
253
Website Preferences of Finnish and Mexican University Students: A Cross-Cultural Study
Abstract
Introduction
Literature Review
Role of the Internet
Cultural factors
Method
Aim and Research Questions
Research Context
Participants
Questionnaire
Data analysis
Results
Table 5 Findings for studying on the Internet (Internet sources)