Cultural Differences in Conceptual Models of Ride Comfort for High-Speed Trains

Insoo Chung (KORAIL, Daejeon, Korea); Myunghwan Yun(Department of industrial Eng in Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea) Abstract This study focuses on an analysis of the difference in cultural experiences for similar services, analyzing the difference in conceptual models of ride comfort for passengers between KTX (Korea Train eXpress) and TGV (Train a Grand Vitesse), which are operating with identical platforms. For developing conceptual models of ride comfort, this study surveyed 200 KTX passengers in Seoul: Busan line, and surveyed 150 France TGV passengers in Paris: Marseilles line. In the results of the study, though there were differences in body size and culture, the models of ride comfort for both countries shared critical factors. However, there were significant differences in loading values of ride comfort for these critical factors. In particular, there were differences of 1.5-2 times between the two models regarding the sub-factors seat factor and human fatigue factor. In conclusion, this study elicits that experience factor is the most influential on ride comfort, and cultural factors are applied as essential variables in ride comfort improvement. 1. Introduction This study focuses on analyzing cultural differences that affect the loading values of critical factors among local passengers of high-speed trains (Korea Train eXpress: KTX and Train a Grande Vitesse: TGV, which share a platform) by comparing concept models of ride comfort. KTX and TGV as high-speed trains have the same mechanical properties and design engineering variables, and provide a similar compartment environment for passengers. However, in KTX, complaints about ride comfort have increased because of the large number of tunnels, noises, and backward-directional seats (KRRI, 2003). Objectively, KTX provides a better ride quality than TGV based on compartment environment alone, but a general and institutional analysis of the differences in passenger satisfaction and models of ride comfort for each country is needed in order to analyze the cognitive differences of ride comfort (Linda et al., 2004). In this study, we intended to understand the effect of local cultural characteristics on ride comfort, comparing ride comfort of KTX with that of TGV. A boarding experiment involving local passengers was conducted with an affective evaluation questionnaire of ride comfort, codeveloped by Seoul National University in Korea and AIX-Marseille University in France. As a

result, based on the collected data, the loading value in critical factors of the conceptual model for ride comfort was analyzed by the verified structural equation model (Kim et al., 2006). 2. Related research Due to the globalization of services, services focusing on multinational markets should reflect on the market properties of each sales country to meet the needs in foreign markets as well as in the domestic market. Also, it should not be assumed that the reported service properties in the service markets of other countries are contemporary, and service properties that can be elicited through experimental evaluation for each country should be analyzed (Thomas, 1986). In the case of high-speed trains, the introduction of a new high-speed train is considered only in its mechanical aspect, despite the importance of cultural aspects like ride comfort. The main reason for this is the difficulty in exactly defining and measuring the concept of culture. There have been studies concerning the ride comfort of general vehicles that consider cultural aspects (Allaman and Tardiff, 1982; Andersson et al., 1995). However, attention to locality has only been shown in visual and physical aspects under the assumption that there is no difference in need and demand in every country (Ashleigh and Daniel, 2004). In order to address these limits, this study has prepared a boarding experiment that carries out a pre-examination of the cultural variables of ergonomics and ride comfort related to trains (high-speed trains). 2.1 Cultural variables in ergonomics studies Cultural differences will occur according to cultural preferences formed essentially by cultural practices, which make a distinction among nations (Hofstede, 1996). The differences in cultural preferences must be considered when making decisions regarding boarding, taking into account the image of high-speed trains and subjects satisfaction (Penaloza and Gilly, 1999; Birgelen et al., 2001). Especially in the case of trains, ride comfort is determined directly by affective state and perceived performance, and it has been revealed that cultural effect is deeply involved with affective state (Kuhlthau et al., 1980). In the study of Spreng and Page (2001), it was claimed that there is a possibility of indicating different ride comfort levels according to the difference in perceived performance and affective state, influenced by cultural differences. Hofstede (1996) defined culture and members of a group as a collective mental programming in a particular environment making it distinct from members of another group, and explains that cultural meaning can be divided into three human mental models: individual, collective, and general level. Also, many researchers have attempted to understand human behavior in a cultural dimension (Ford et al., 2003; Nakata and Sivakumar, 1996; Marc, 1991). In the ergonomics field, a comparative study was conducted on globalizing services and products like mobile interface, car interior design, and web user interface (Choong and Salvendy, 1998; Hoft, 1996; Khaslavsky,

1998; Singh et al., 2003). Cultural dimensions in cross-cultural studies can provide variables that are effective in analyzing users activity. This study selected cultural variables involved in ride comfort, and made the distinction of analyzing cultural dimensions suggested by Hofstede(1996) and Ford (2003) for creating the questionnaire. it is recognized that a model for cultural dimension has the largest meaning even in the study of customer behavior (Viren and Martin, 2005; Hendon et al., 1999; Deci et al., 2001). Table 1 shows the content of arrangement and analysis of their cultural dimensions, and is used for the questionnaire development in this research. Table 1: Cultural variables in ergonomics studies (amended model) Cultural variables in ergonomics Uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1996) Individualism and collectivism (Ford et al., 2003) Context (Hofstede, 1996) Specification People of a culture who have a strong tendency of uncertainty avoidance would hesitate to face uncertain situations and avoid uncertain situations through danger avoidance. On the other hand, people of a culture who have a weak tendency of that would accept more uncertainty and danger. Individualism is the tendency to think that the profits of an individual cannot be sacrificed by the profits of a group, and collectivism is the tendency to believe that the profits of the individual can be sacrificed for the profits of the group. It classified the orient cultures, including Korea, China and Japan, as high context, the European culture as low context, and it claimed that communication in high context cultures has implicate, internal and indirect characteristics. It suggested the result that through subject tests of the developers of China having high context and of U.S.A having low context, American subjects in the modes of compounding letter and number, and Chinese subjects in the modes of icon-basis, indicated better results in performing tasks (Choong and Salvendy, 1998). It classified time perception in a culture as pluralism and unit. In a pluralism culture defined as concurrent, the culture deals with various works at the same time and shows a non-intentional tendency. On the other hand, a unit culture defined as sequential or linear does one task at one time, and acts intentionally and in order.

Time perception (Ford et al., 2003)

Kerstin (2004) analyzed that there is cultural information within two categories of cultural mentalities and cultural environments for developing services centered on cultural aspects. The cultural mentalities that are especially important for service issues are shown in Figure 1. It is determined by the cultural environments, which, in turn, determine the services.

Figure 1: An approach to culture-specific machine design (Kerstin, 2004) Helen (2004) showed that the cultural lens model provides a framework for understanding the concept and origins of national culture. Figure 2 shows the cultural lens model. The model assumes that members of a national group, having grown up in similar ecological and social contexts, have shared experiences. The dimensions provide a lens through which each member of a national group sees the world. The lens filters, organizes incoming information, focuses sense making, structures planning and adaptation activities, and frames interactions and communication.

Figure 2: The Cultural Lens Model (Helen, 2004) 2.2 Ride comfort studies in railroads (or high-speed trains) Railroad companies and organizations such as the UIC former ORE (Office for Research and Experiments of the International Union of Railways UIC), and now the ERRI (European Rail Research Institute) have carried out ride comfort research. The CEN (European Committee for Standardization) published a draft standard based on the research of the ORE/ERRI and there

have been some publications from the members of the committee. Although the ISO is responsible for ride comfort evaluation for not only railroad vehicles, but also for all kinds of motion environments, a number of specific ISO standards for railroad applications have recently been published. In particular ride comfort disturbances on high-speed trains (Andersson and Nilstam, 1984). Japan has done extensive work on comfort and nausea for both very highspeed trains and tilting trains (Koyanagi, 1985; Suzuki, 1996). Concerning motion sickness, research to reach a fair understanding of the problem is still needed (Ohno, 1996). In Europe where high-speed trains are advanced, the study for ride comfort of high-speed trains, which were introduced to the EU focusing on England, Sweden, France, Germany, etc. is ongoing (Cleon, 1986; Flink and Hulten, 1993; Forstberg, 1996; Persson, 1989; Whitelegg et al., 1993). Korea was the first in the world to use the structural equation model for ride comfort of highspeed trains (Yun et al., 2005). Table 2 shows the different comfort standards applicable for different conditions on railroad environments. Table 2: Some international standards for evaluation of ride comfort (CEN, ISO) Types Average comfort Comfort disturbances Motion sickness Non-tilting trains NMV, NVA, ISO 2631, Ride index PDE (Discrete events) MSDVZ Same trains Same trains Same trains Tilting trains as as as non-tilting non-tilting non-tilting High-speed trains N/A N/A N/A

It has been found in the results of related studies that a wide range of non-visual aspects of culture should be considered. However, because theories that can measure or explain cultural effects related to the localization of high-speed train service are not sufficient, it has been concluded that verified models supporting these are needed at this time. 3. Method 3.1 Experiment This study analyzed the factors affecting ride comfort of KTX and TGV passengers, and processed in the manner demonstrated in Figure 3 for comparing its main effect, respectively.

Figure 3: The process of this study Development of questionnaire In paragraph 2.1, using classified cultural dimensions, questionnaires that were suitable to the environment of high-speed train passengers were developed. In order to confirm whether each questions were suitable to the ride comfort of high-speed train passengers, and to reduce

language mistranslation between France and Korea, we performed a cross-translation (Korean French, French Korean) and interviewed professional experts. The final questionnaire was validated through the review of ergonomics, medical, and related high-speed train professionals.

Figure 4: Upper: applied 9 point likert-scaling, lower: Modified magnitude estimation scaling for ride comfort evaluation Factors were developed as 49 questions and organized with 8 dependent variables: boarding time, motion sickness, visual fatigue, physical fatigue, seat comfort, collective ride comfort, fare satisfaction and overall satisfaction. Design of experiment Researchers conducted a boarding experiment and interviewed passengers of KTX and TGV under the given experimental design. The testing was carried out under the condition of forward and backward seats, respectively. In order to minimize the difference of ride comfort results among boarding time, this study executed the boarding experiment 5 times for 30 minutes (30, 60, 90, 120, and 150 minutes). Table 3 shows the schedule and conditions of the boarding experiment. Table 3: Introduction to experiment Title KTX experiment (K-TGV) Date 2004. 9. 18-10. 17 (4 weeks) Subjects 200 persons A boarding interview experiment Method Seoul-Busan (400km), 2hrs 30min (every 30 minutes) Seoul National University, South Administrator of Korea, 10 persons 3.2 Analysis method In anthropometry, the statistical method is hardly used in analyzing and presenting data (Julia and Michael, 1992). This is because anthropometry uses reciprocal qualitative data acquired

TGV experiment (TGV ID-Duplex) 2005. 1. 31-2. 5 (1 week) 150 persons A boarding interview experiment Paris-Marseille (420km), 2 hrs 40min (every 30 minutes) AIX-Marseille University, France, 6 persons

only through local grassroots observation and investigation, rather than the quantitative measurement method of anthropology, which leads in the use of statistical methods in social science. Regression analysis and the structural equation model are commonly used as methods for understanding the effect of factors through users activity in order to analyze the degree of cultural effect (Hoogland and Boomsma, 1998). The conceptual models of ride comfort in both countries were compared by analyzing the similarities and effects of the path between factors of the model inside ride comfort using the structural equation model. The covariance matrix was used as input data after transforming it into a normal scale for analysis of the structural equation model (Joreskog and Sordom, 1993). Data in the structural equation model is satisfied with assumed demand by inputting and converting the data into a formal score, and by securing univariate normality and multivariate normality of each measuring variable. This produces a more accurate result estimating the parameters of the model of ride comfort. Also, it can compare factor loading values between endogenous variables of multi-group analyses. These analyze the model of KTX ride comfort and of TGV ride comfort, which is a sample of other populations using the covariance matrix instead of the correlation matrix as input data (Bollen, 1989; Lynam et al., 1993). The modeling used LISREL 8 and analyzed the fitness of the sample in both countries (Suzuki, 1998). This study uses a model of the structural equation model for KTX ride comfort in research verified and suggested by Kim et al. (2006). Figure 5 shows a final model of high-speed train ride comfort.

Figure 5: Final ride comfort model (Kim et al., 2006) 4. Results 4.1 Analysis Because the analysis of basic statistics shows a different number of samples in the experimental subject, the General Linear Model (GLM) was used in this analysis (Kim, 2002). The analytical software used was SAS 6.0. The average of ride comfort in TGV passengers is

63.19% and the average of KTX passengers is 55.53%, so it was statistically similar in the distribution of ride comfort between two groups (p=0.0031). Table 4 shows the basic results of ride comfort, overall satisfaction, and motion sickness from a comparative test. In the case of ride comfort and satisfaction, all of the results show that TGV passengers are higher, and in the case of motion sickness, it shows that only about 50% of TGV passengers experience motion sickness. Table 4: Raw data analysis (unit: %) Ride comfort Scope Backward Forward seat seat KTX 59.67 55.15 TGV 65.22 62.94 Satisfaction Forward Backward seat seat 65.24 62.93 73.0 69.0 Motion sickness Forward Backward seat seat 28.7 31.5 15.0 16.0

The results of motion sickness, visual fatigue, physical fatigue, etc. also indicate that TGV passengers experience 5-10% less than KTX passengers. In all kinds of factors, TGV passengers have 1.5-2 times better results than KTX passengers. In both cases, passenger ride comfort and overall satisfaction indicated high results in the forward direction, and motion sickness showed a slightly high result in the backward direction, but the effective degree in each boarding direction was not statistically significant (p>0.1). The results of a basic statistic analysis indicated that time distribution on average in ride comfort was similar in its distribution, but distribution was very different in high time distribution of ride comfort. This is because the two high-speed trains share the negative factors resulting in lower ride comfort on average, but because TGV has the positive factors, one could imply that the ride comfort of passengers is improved. 4.2 Comparison of ride comfort in both countries Model fitness Generally, the structural model regards a sample size of 150-200 as the proper level (Ding et al., 1995). In that case the input data will satisfy assumptions, so it has multivariate normality, and the analysis has not had any problems (Oborne, 1978). Therefore, to validate the acquired responses, the fitness analysis was performed with a sample size that can be used in the structural model (Korean: 200 subjects, French: 150 subjects). Overall fitness of the model of KTX and TGV ride comfort through two population samples is shown in Table 5. GFI (Goodness of Fitness Index), standard RMR (Root Mean square Residual), RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), and Chi-Square, which can estimate the overall fitness of the model indicated a fitness index of an acceptable level in both KTX and TGV. And all of KTX and TGV ride comfort results were similar where the model fitness and the fitness of the path loading value were at a 90% confidence interval. These results mean that the models of KTX and TGV ride comfort are statistically significant (Maria et al., 2005).

Table 5: Fitness index Index (category) Degree of Freedom Minimum fit function Chi-Square Normal theory weighted least square chi-square Estimated non-centrally parameter (NCP) 90 percent confidence interval for NCP Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) Standard RMR Root Mean square Residual (RMR) Normed Fit Index (NFI) Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) Reliability & Validity of Model For analyzing the reliability and validity of endogenous variables in conceptual models of KTX and TGV ride comfort, we performed composite reliability and discriminate validity testing. The composite reliability results are shown in Table 6. The KTX model indicated a level over 0.7, so all of the potential variables, excluding endogenous factors, have acceptable reliability. In the TGV model, all of the potential variables indicated levels over 0.7. This generally means that all the models of KTX and TGV ride comfort have high internal consistency (Hair et al., 1998). Also, the result of measuring the AVE (Average Variance Extracted) was higher than correlation values among all of the endogenous variables in the models of KTX and TGV ride comfort. Therefore, the models of KTX and TGV ride comfort were analyzed as generally having no problems in terms of reliability and validity. Table 6: Correlation matrix of endogenous variables Factors Ride comfort Ambient factors Seat factors Tunneling KTX effect factors Motion sickness factors Human fatigue factors Ride comfort TGV Ambient factors Construct Ride Ambient AVE reliability comfort factors 0.880 0.654 0.773 0.817 0.822 0.820 0.847 0.773 0.712 1 1 0.526 -0.545 -0.399 0.394 1 1 -0.292 -0.013 0.332 1 0.410 -0.176 1 -0.177 1 0.736 0.642 0.752 0.696 0.611 -0.370 0.622 -0.188 0.699 0.620 0.748 1 0.747 0.713 Seat factors Tunneling Motion effect sickness factors factors Human fatigue factors KTX ride comfort TGV ride comfort Remarks model model 105 105 339.618 (p=0) 185.227 (p=0.0) Model acceptance 344.604 (p=0) 239.604 (187.136 ; 299.678) 0.928 0.909 0.0219 0.0189 0.882 0.888 0.0442 181.997 (p=0.0) 76.997 (43.438 ; 118.421) 0.882 0.883 0.0685 0.0321 0.802 0.821 0.117 If GFI>0.9, accept If AGFI>0.9, accept Path acceptance

If NFI>0.9, accept If GFI>0.9, accept If RMSEA<0.05, accept

Seat factors Tunneling effect factors Motion sickness factors Human fatigue factors

0.838 0.827 0.847 0.817

0.686 0.673 0.631 -0.066 0.656 -0.287 0.692 0.649

0.475 -0.089 -0.420 0.343

1 0.019 -0.025 0.136 1 0.301 -0.128 1 -0.291 1

Comparison of models in final ride comfort Fitness in conceptual models of KTX and TGV ride comfort using the structural equation model indicated that the model of KTX ride comfort (GFI=0.928; RMSEA=0.0422) was higher than the model of TGV ride comfort (GFI=0.882; RMSEA=0.117), and both ride comfort models have reliability and validity which are satisfied statistically. Figure 6 shows the models of the final ride comfort model for both countries. The final ride comfort was most influenced by seat factors (positive effect: 0.430) related to seats in the model of KTX ride comfort, and by human fatigue factors (negative effect: -0.474) in the model of TGV ride comfort. In the pre-study (Kim et al., 2006; Yun et al., 2005), it was analyzed that tunneling effect was not significant on the model of KTX ride comfort (as well as the TGV model). In the case of the TGV model, tunneling effect especially indirectly influenced final ride comfort through the mediate of human fatigue factors.

Figure 6: The ride comfort conceptual models of KTX(upper) and TGV(lower) (Factor loading, standard error, t-value) In the results of comparing the conceptual models of KTX ride comfort and TGV ride comfort,

10

the final ride comfort was most influenced by seat factors in KTX and by human fatigue factors in TGV. Also, seat factors had little influence (negative effect: -0.006) on human fatigue factors in the model of TGV ride comfort. Ambient factors and motion sickness factors had an influence on each of the ride comfort factors (positive effect: 0.340) and human fatigue factors (positive effect: 0.162), and this was influenced 1.5-2 times more than in the model (0.244; 0.089) of KTX ride comfort. Table 7 shows the effective degree of each factor in the models of KTX and TGV ride comfort. Table 7: Effect degree of exogenous variables KTX ride comfort model Item Ride comfort Human fatigue factors factors Human fatigue -0.373 factors Ambient factors 0.244 -0.298 Seat factors 0.430 -0.198 Tunneling effect -0.046 0.081 factors (not significant) Motion sickness 0.089 factors

TGV ride comfort model Human fatigue Ride comfort factors factors -0.474 0.340 0.446 -0.017 (not significant) -0.267 -0.006 0.056 0.162

Finally, in the case of the model of KTX ride comfort shown in Table 8, the main factor in the conceptual model of final ride comfort was seat pitch (0.789) was greater than seat width (0.702) and seat shape (0.561), which are seat variables related to seat factors in order. In the case of the conceptual model of TGV ride comfort, it indicated that physical fatigue (0.894) was greater than visual fatigue (0.746) related to human fatigue in order. However, in the model of TGV ride comfort, because seat factors have more influence than in the model of KTX ride comfort. Finally, for improving ride comfort in both countries, as shown in Table 8, in the model of TGV ride comfort, unlike in the model of KTX ride comfort, because human fatigue factors have much more influence than seat factors, it can be recognized that individual fatigue, regardless of seat size, mainly influences ride comfort. Table 8: Completely standardized parameter estimates and t-value (Final model for ride comfort of high-speed train in Korea) KTX Factor Standard t-Values loading error Cabin air-condition 0.497 0.060 9.069 Ambient factors Cabin noise 0.666 0.082 11.138 Seat leg room 0.420 0.075 8.401 Seat width 0.702 0.109 15.241 Seat factors Seat pitch 0.789 0.108 17.540 Seat shape 0.561 0.082 11.656 Tunneling vibration 0.807 0.068 17.988 Tunneling effect factors Tunneling noise 0.877 0.073 19.755 Latent variable Item Factor loading 0.813 0.458 0.453 0.787 0.895 0.458 0.913 0.861 TGV Standard error 0.047 0.044 0.047 0.096 0.097 0.027 0.070 0.080 t-Values 6.812 4.387 4.772 9.274 10.975 4.839 10.181 9.558

11

Motion sickness factors Human fatigue factors Ride comfort factors

Tunneling dazzling Nausea Headache Dizziness Visual fatigue Physical fatigue Seat comfort Satisfaction Ride comfort

0.478 0.716 0.660 0.416 0.718 0.935 0.740 0.877 0.864

0.068 0.104 0.116 0.152 -* 0.162 -* 0.089 0.081

9.989 12.372 11.646 7.606 -* 12.076 18.248 18.032 -*

0.466 0.732 0.515 0.827 0.746 0.894 0.695 0.763 0.690

0.036 0.048 0.087 0.070 -* 0.197 -* 0.089 0.070

4.974 7.602 5.240 8.583 -* 6.482 -* 7.115 6.521

*: Indicates a parameter fixed at 1.0 in the original solution. 5. Discussion and conclusion This paper is intended to compare conceptual models of ride comfort in both countries passengers to figure out the effect of cultural differences. As a result, this study found that the conceptual models of ride comfort have common factors that have an influence on each model of KTX and TGV, but their relative importance has distinct characteristics. Ride comfort is analyzed from the four viewpoints of cultural comparison discussed in Chapter 2, considering degrees of effectiveness on structural models. Critical factors on structures of ride comfort were classified into common factors and uncommon factors. Similar objective design engineering variables are included in common factors and cultural preferences resulting from cultural habits are included in uncommon factors. 5.1 Cognitive difference of uncertainty avoidance Collectively, KTX and TGV have identified with design engineering variables of seats and compartment spaces, with backward direction due to fixed seats and average operative speed in common. There is a difference in the grade of seat recline, degrees of VOD, fares, number of tunnels, and noise/vibration (KRRI, 2003). But the similarity in design engineering variables did not guarantee equal ride comfort or structures of ride comfort. In particular, KTX passengers, whose structure of body is small (KATS, 2003), have higher dissatisfaction regarding the same seat (backward seat, seat pitch) than European passengers, whose structure of body is relatively tall. Consequently, it reduced the ride comfort of KTX. Because KTX passengers have a strong tendency avoid the unfamiliar, it was concluded that they have a reason not to use the backward and reclining seats of high-speed trains, which they have never experienced. Although it is not statistically significant, in the tunneling effect with topographical factors of both countries, ride comfort of KTX passengers was influenced by a dazzling effect after passing tunnels in the aspect of tunnel running, and ride comfort of TGV passengers was influenced by a tilting vibration when passing tunnels. This has been explicated to the conclusion that factors that cannot improve ride comfort regarding the dissatisfaction of Korean passengers caused by noise/vibration were of little relatively.

12

5.2 Experience differences in context and time perception In the aspect of compartment environment, KTX passengers overemphasized the safety and comfort of the seats, and the dissatisfaction of passengers regarding backward seats is shown as one of the critical factors of ride comfort. But in the case of TGV passengers, vibrations and noises caused by amenities and the running train are the critical factors affecting ride comfort. This implies that because TGV passengers (such as European) are from a pluralistic culture that emphasizes synchronism through consciousness of space and time, they demand and expect to be provided with other various services as well as with planned services at the same time, and they had a high dissatisfaction with environments. Moreover, they show a different satisfactory result for the same time delay. Also, the dissatisfaction of TGV passengers regarding backward seats did not influence ride comfort. In the case of TGV passengers, it was analyzed that noises and vibrations within the train compartment caused by the running train are critical factors affecting ride comfort by weighting human fatigue factors. This is caused by the difference in cultural experience between KTX passengers who prefer a comfortable seat to the running environment and TGV passengers who prefer comfortable environments within the train compartment to the seat architecture itself. it means that boarding backward seats in TGV has not dropped the preferences. Finally, it can be recognized that experience factors have more influence on the ride comfort model, and this cultural-embeddedness operates as a main variable in the improvement of ride comfort. 6. Acknowledgements This project is supported and financed by a grant from the KOrea RAILroad(KORAIL) National2004-425 (the ergonomics study of ride comfort model development for Korea high-speed rail). The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistant researchers of Seoul National University in Korea and AIX-Marseille University in France. 7. Reference Allaman, P. A. and Tardiff, T. J. (1982), Structural models of attitude-behavior relations for intercity rail traveler, Transportation research board 894, Washington DC: Transportation research board. Andersson, E. and Nilstam, N. (1984), The development of advanced high speed vehicles in Sweden, Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers, part D, 198(15), 229-237. Andersson, E., von Bahr, H. and Nilstam, N. G. (1995), Allowing higher speed on existing tracks design considerations of train X2000 for Swedish state railways, Proceedings of the Institution of mechanical engineers, Part F: Journal of rail and rapid transit, 209(2), 93-104.

13

Ashleigh, M. and Daniel, M. (2004), Cross-cultural factors in aviation safety, Cultural ergonomics, Advanced in human performance and cognitive engineering research, Vol. 4, 147-181. Birgelen,M., Ruyter, K. and Wetzels, M. (2001), Conceptualizing and isolating cultural difference in performance data in international high-tech industrial markets, Industrial Marketing Management. Bollen, K. A. (1989), Structural equation with latent variables, Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY. Choong, Y. Y. and Salvendy, G. (1998), Design of icons for use by Chinese in mainland China, Interacting with Computers, Vol. 9(4), 417-430. Cleon, L. M. (1986), Rail vehicles comfort related to theoretical and experimental optimization and its application to high speed trains, The dynamics of vehicles on roads and tracks, 58-70, 1986. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J. and Komazheva, B. P. (2001), Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country; A cross-cultural study of self-determination, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Ding, L., Velicer and Harlow (1995), Effects of estimation methods, number of indicator per factor and improper solution on structural equation modeling fit indices, Structural Equation Modeling. Flink, T. and Hulten, S. (1993), The Swedish high speed train project. In J. Whitelegg, T. Flink and S. Hulten (Eds.), High speed trains: Fast tracks to the future. Hawes (UK). Ford, D. P., Connelly, C. E. and Meister, D. B. (2003), Information systems research and Hofstedes cultures consequences: An uneasy and incomplete partnership. Forstberg, J. (1996), Motion-related comfort levels in trains: A study on human response to different tilt control strategies for a high speed train, Licentiate Thesis TRITA-FKT report 1996:41, Stockholm: KTH: Railway technology. Hair, Jr. J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. and Black, W. C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.), Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc. Helen, A. K. (2004), Cognition in natural settings: The cultural lens model, Cultural ergonomics, Advanced in human performance and cognitive engineering research, Vol.4, 249-280, Elsvier Ltd. Hendon, D. W., Hendon, R. A. and Herbig, P. (1999), Cross-Cultural Business Negotiation, London, Praeger Publishers, Westport, Connecticut. Hofstede, G. (1996), Cultural and organization, Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival, London, McGraw-Hill Book Company. Hoft, N. (1996), Developing a cultural model, in International User Interfaces, del Galdo, E. M. and Nielsen, J. (eds.), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 41-73. Hoogland, J. J. and Boomsma, A. (1998), Robustness Studies on Covariance Structure Modeling: An Overview and a Meta-Analysis, Sociological Methods and Research, Vol.26(3), 329-67. Jreskog, K. G. and Sordom D. (1993), Lisrel8: User's reference guide, Chicago, Scientific Software. Julia, G. C. and Michael, V. A. (1992), Field projects in anthropology: handbook a student. KATS (2003), Size Korea 5th survey report, Korean Agency for Technology and Standards, Size Korea.

14

Khaslavsky, J. (1998), Integrating culture into interface design, Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 98), Los Angeles, CA. Kilbourne,M. G. and Janice, F. (2005), A cross-cultural examination of the relationship between materialism and individual values, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol.26. Kim, I. K., Lee, J. H. and Yun, M. H. (2006), Development of structural models of ride comfort for high-speed rail passengers using a quantification method, International Ergonomics Association 2006, 16th world congress on ergonomics, Netherlands, Masstricht. Kim, J. D. (2002), Linear Regression using SAS, Freedom academy, Korea, Seoul. Kerstin, R. (2004), The development of culture-oriented human machine systems: specification, analysis and integration of relevant intercultural variables, Cultural ergonomics, Advanced in human performance and cognitive engineering research, Vol.4, 61-103, Elsvier Ltd. Koyanagi, S. (1985), Ride quality evaluation of a pendulum car, Quarterly report of RTRI. KRRI(2003), KTX passenger satisfaction survey report, Korea Railroad Research Institute. Kuhlthau, A. R., Richards, L. G. and Jacobson, I. D. (1980), Future problems and research needs related to passenger comfort, In D. J. Obonrne & J. A. Levis (Eds.), Human factors in transport research, Vol.2, 76-84, London: Academic press. Linda,C. U., Michel, L., Robert, D. T. and Peter, Y. (2004), Cross-cultural invariance of measures of satisfaction and service quality, Journal of Business Research, Vol.57, 901-912. Lynam, D., Moffitt, T. and Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1993), Explaining the relation between IQ and delinquency: class, race, test motivation, or self-control, Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Marc, B. (1991), Cultural stereotypes of businessmen: Two views of Korea, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol.15(3). Maria, A. G., Gennadij, G. K. and Helena, R. S. (2005), Cross-cultural differences in the structure of infant temperament: United States of America(U.S.) and Russia, Journal of infant behavior and development, Vol.28, 54-61. Nakata, C. and Sivakumar, K. (1996), National culture and new product development: An integrative review, Journal of Marketing, Vol.60(1), 61-72. Oborne, D. J. (1978), Techniques available for the assessment of passenger comfort, Vol.9(1), 45-49. Ohno, H. (1996), What aspect is needed for a better understanding of tilt sickness?, Quarterly report of RTRI, Vol.37, 9-13. Penaloza, L. and Gilly, M. C. (1999), Marketer Acculturation: The Changer And The Changed, Journal of Marketing, Vol.63, 84-104. Persson, R. (1989), Continued development of the tilt system for high speed trains in Sweden, In proceedings of seminar on tilting body trains, London, Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Schramm, G. (1937), Entwicklung und stand der ubergangsbogenfrage, Organ fur dir Forstschritte des Eisenbahnwesens, Vol.92(10), 427-434.

15

Singh, N., Zho, H. and Hu, X. (2003), Cultural adaptation on the web: a study of American companies domestic and Chinese website, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol.11(3), 63-81. Spreng, R. A. and Page, T. J. (2001), The impact of confidence in expectations on consumer satisfaction, Psychology, Vol.18(11). Straub, D. W., Loch, W., Aristo, R., Karahanna, E. and Strite, M. (2002), Toward a theory-based measurement of culture, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol.10(1), 13-23. Sussman, E. D., Pollard, J. K., Manager, P. and DiSario, R. (1994), Study to establish ride comfort criteria for high speed magnetically levitated transportation systems, DOT-VNTSC-FRA-94-1 (DOT/FRA/NMI-94-1), Cambridge (Mass.); U.S. Department of Transportation. Suzuki, H. (1996), Recent research and development in the field of riding comfort evaluation, Quarterly report of RTRI, Vol.37, 4-8. Suzuki, H. (1998), Research trends on riding comfort evaluation in Japan, Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers: Part F journal of rail and rapid transit, Vol.212, 61-72. Thomas, D. H. (1986), Refiguring anthropology: first principles of probability and statistics. Viren,S. and Martin, J. (2005), Female physical attractiveness in Britain and Malaysia, Body Image. Whitelegg, J., Hulten, S. and Flink, T. (1993), High speed train: Fast tracks to the future, Hawes(UK Leading Edge Press & Publishing Ltd. Yun, M. H., Lee, J. H., Ji, Y. G. and Jin, B. S. (2005), The ergonomics study of ride comfort using seat comfort and satisfaction for KTX, Seoul National University Engineering Institute. Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 List of Tables Cultural variables in ergonomics studies Some international standards for evaluation of ride comfort Introduction to the experiment Raw data analysis Fitness index Correlation matrix of endogenous variables Effect degree of exogenous variables Completely standardized parameter estimates and t-value List of Figures An approach to culture-specific machine design The Cultural Lens Model The process of this study Upper: Applied 9 point likert-scaling Lower: Modified magnitude estimation scaling for ride comfort evaluation Final ride comfort model The ride comfort conceptual models of KTX (upper) and TGV (lower)

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6

16