Uncertainty Avoidance, Culture & UX Research

It’s a well-known fact that Japan’s transportation system is one of the most punctual in the world. Trains leave on time, to the minute, sometimes to the second. But have you ever wondered why that is? Is it because the country values rules? Maybe. But then, why does Japan value rules so much? What’s behind that mindset? Japan is known to be one of the most rule-driven societies in the world, though I’d argue Singapore might take the lead. Still, Japan’s relationship with rules and structure is deeply tied to a concept in cross-cultural psychology called uncertainty avoidance.

What is uncertainty avoidance?

Uncertainty avoidance is a cultural dimension developed by Geert Hofstede.¹ It describes how comfortable (or uncomfortable) people in a society are with ambiguity, unpredictability, and the unknown. In high uncertainty avoidance cultures, people tend to:

• Prefer rules and structure.
• Value long-term employment and job security.
• Avoid risk.
• Emphasize tidiness, order, and emotional restraint.
• Resist change.

Countries are ranked on a scale from 0 to 100. The higher the number, the stronger the preference for avoiding uncertainty. The United States, for example, scores a 46—moderate to low. That means people in the U.S. are generally more tolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity. There’s more comfort with risk-taking, flexible thinking, and informal communication. Critical thinking and problem-solving are emphasized in education, and personal initiative is generally encouraged. Japan, on the other hand, scores a 92—one of the highest in the world.

So, what does high uncertainty avoidance look like in Japan?

Let’s go back to transportation. Punctuality and strict schedules are ways to eliminate uncertainty. If everything runs on time, people know what to expect, and there’s less anxiety about the unknown. But it goes further than trains. There’s resistance to change in many aspects of life; like outdated websites still in use or the notoriously slow political reforms. Another interesting example is the decision-making style in traditional Japanese companies: ringi.

Ringi is a bottom-up decision-making process. When someone has a proposal or idea, it doesn’t go straight to the boss. Instead, it circulates among peers and managers for approval (often using a formal document called a ringi-sho), collecting consensus before reaching a final decision-maker. The emphasis is on harmony and group agreement rather than speed or bold individual action.

It’s not just business. Japan’s communication style also reflects uncertainty avoidance. Japanese is a high-context language, which means meaning is often implied rather than stated directly. People rely on shared cultural understanding, etiquette, and context to interpret meaning. This reduces the risk of misunderstandings, but it can also make communication ambiguous to others.

So why does Japan score so high on this scale?

There are a few likely reasons. One big factor that is often cited is Japan’s frequent exposure to natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis and typhoons).² Being prepared isn’t optional; it’s a way of life. There’s also a strong emphasis on social harmony, conformity, and avoiding disruption (as talked about in a previous blog). Together, these shape a culture where predictability is valued, and ambiguity can feel threatening.

Uncertainty Avoidance in User Research

Uncertainty avoidance doesn’t just show up in society, it also impacts how people respond in user research. Now, this is a big topic (too big for just one blog post), but I want to introduce the idea briefly. In user research, uncertainty avoidance shows up as anxiety around ambiguous tasks or open-ended questions.³ It also affects how participants interpret the purpose of the research itself.

This is anecdotal but based on the experience of our user researchers: participants in Japan often treat research sessions like a job. They want to do well. They want to give “good” answers. And sometimes, they worry that their responses might disappoint the moderator, or worse, the client silently observing in the background. This makes certain generative methods tricky. For example:

• Open-ended prompts can feel stressful. Participants often ask, “What’s the right answer?”
• Projective or speculative techniques might fall flat.
• Ambiguity can create hesitation, silence, or even discomfort.

To reduce participant anxiety, researchers often adjust their approach. Questions are made more specific. Instructions are repeated clearly. Interviewers work hard to create a sense of safety and reassurance. All of this helps but it also means we may miss out on the unexpected insights that come from letting people roam freely in their responses. That’s the tradeoff: structure increases clarity and comfort but can reduce spontaneity and surprise. But that’s not always a bad thing.

In high uncertainty avoidance cultures, what we gain is often overlooked. Specific, structured questioning can lead to highly accurate, thoughtful, and useful feedback. Participants may take the task more seriously and give answers grounded in real-life experience. There’s less noise to sort through. So, while we might lose some “creative” surprises, we gain a type of reliability and depth that’s just as valuable, especially when the goal is to refine, validate, or test.

Conclusion

Uncertainty avoidance describes how people in a culture deal with ambiguity. In high uncertainty avoidance countries like Japan, this means a preference for structure, clarity, and predictability. In user research, this translates into the need for more specific and carefully worded questions. Yes, it can make open-ended exploration more difficult. But it can also lead to clearer, more grounded insights, if we know how to design for it.

Key Takeaways

• Uncertainty avoidance affects both daily life and user research. It’s a cultural tendency to reduce ambiguity, which shows up in things like punctual trains and structured interviews.
• In high uncertainty avoidance cultures, participants often prefer clarity. Ambiguity can lead to hesitation or discomfort, so questions need to be carefully framed.
• Adjusting research methods isn’t a limitation, it’s a strength. Specificity can lead to rich, accurate insights, even if we lose some unpredictability.

References

¹Snitker, Thomas Visby. “Uncertainty Avoidance - an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics.” Sciencedirect.com, 2011. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/uncertainty-avoidance.
²Scroope, Chara. “Japanese Culture - Core Concepts.” Cultural Atlas. Mosaica, 2021. https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/japanese-culture/japanese-culture-core-concepts.
³Lee, Jung-Joo, and Kun-Pyo Lee. “Cultural Differences and Design Methods for User Experience Research: Dutch and Korean Participants Compared.” Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1145/1314161.1314164.