Decoding the cultural bias in your data

Why a satisfaction score of 6 in Japan might be better than an 8 in China

If you’ve ever looked at the same satisfaction question broken down by country and thought, “Why are these numbers so wildly different?” – you’re not alone. In global research, interpreting data responsibly is one of the hardest parts. At SlashData, we run developer studies across regions year after year (including our rolling Developer Program Benchmarking (DPB), where we help vendors identify concrete improvement paths for their developer programs). One pattern shows up consistently: the way respondents use rating scales is deeply cultural.

A satisfaction heatmap promises a unified view of performance. Executives can scan rows and columns for the green of success or the red of failure. Yet, once that data spans continents, it often conceals as much as it reveals. As we will see throughout this post, a growing body of research suggests that the standardised metric of customer satisfaction is often just a map of cultural biases. Without a cultural lens, your global heatmap isn't just a distorted mirror – it’s a dangerous map that can lead to strategic missteps, from the misallocation of resources to the unfair penalisation of high-performing regional teams. For simplicity, in this blog, we will assume a satisfaction scale from 0 to 10.

Treat global satisfaction scores as directly comparable, and you can end up misallocating budget, fixing markets that aren’t broken, or missing early warning signals in markets that look healthy.

The "Optimists" vs the "Sceptics" (and the Japan paradox)

A quick glance at our DPB vendor satisfaction cuts often reveals a geographic divide. North American respondents are frequently at the high end. We also see a cluster of high-scoring Southeast and East Asian markets – especially the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and China. On the other hand, Japan consistently shows up as more conservative in its ratings, and we often see the same tougher grading in parts of Western Europe, including Germany and the Netherlands.

This is not just a SlashData thing. Ipsos specifically flags that the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam give high scores, while other Asian markets provide much lower scores, explicitly including Japan in the low-scoring set. And SurveyMonkey’s cross-country NPS study shows just how dramatic this can be on a simple 0-10 “recommend” scale: Japan is the lowest of the markets they studied, while the United States and Canada are much higher, and the Netherlands sits well behind many other countries.

If taken at face value, this data would suggest that developer programmes are thriving in North America but failing to impress in Western Europe. But does this align with actual retention rates? Often, the answer is no. This disconnect is likely driven by a few powerful cultural forces, like optimism bias and polite agreement on the one hand, and scepticism on the other. 

High satisfaction scores can coexist with low developer retention, especially across regions.

North America & Emerging Asia are “optimists” when it comes to surveys

Research indicates that in cultures prioritising social harmony, such as some Asian markets (often correlated with high collectivism), respondents are predisposed to be agreeable. For high-scoring Asian markets (like the Philippines, Vietnam, China, Indonesia), one driver is often what researchers call agreement and harmony effects: in some cultures, direct negative feedback is less comfortable, and respondents can lean toward more socially acceptable, relationship-preserving answers. Some markets systematically use the top end of the scale more than others, enough to reorder league tables without any real change in underlying experience.

In high-agreement environments, a score of 8-9 can be closer to “fine” than “fanatically loyal”. The danger is overconfidence.

In the US and Canada, high scores are often driven by Optimism Bias. Culturally, there is a tendency to view things in a positive light. “Good” is often rated as “Great”. As noted in global NPS studies by SurveyMonkey, American respondents consistently score higher than their European counterparts for the same service levels.

Western Europe & Japan are the “sceptics” when it comes to surveys

On the other side of the chart, we see Western Europe (e.g. Germany, the Netherlands) and Japan hovering at the bottom of the scale. Western Europe is home to the “Dutch effect” or sober grading. In these cultures, hyperbole is viewed with suspicion. A score of 10 is reserved for perfection – a standard almost no B2B service achieves.

Japan is the ultimate outlier in our data. Despite being geographically close to the high-scoring Asian nations, it often produces the lowest satisfaction scores in the world. Multiple other studies reveal this pattern: in Japan, service expectations are famously high. A minor friction point that an American consumer might forgive is often punished harshly by Japanese consumers in surveys. Importantly, lower scores don’t automatically mean unhappiness. It often means that top ratings are reserved for rare perfection, and the cultural norm is to score more conservatively. 

The cultural bias disconnect: confusing ratings with retention

The biggest error a vendor can make is assuming a linear, universal relationship between these scores and churn.

In harder-grading markets like Japan and some of Western Europe, a 6 or 7 can still behave like a loyal consumer. If you treat every sceptic as a problem, you risk wasting resources fixing relationships that aren’t broken – or worse, annoying stable customers with constant nudges to “rate us a 10.”

In high-scoring markets, the risk flips. If the baseline is inflated, then a drop from 9 to 8 might not be just noise – it can be your early warning signal. And if the culture discourages direct complaints, you may not hear why until the customer leaves.

If direct criticism is culturally discouraged, customers can look satisfied right up until they churn. Your first visible signal can be cancellation, not feedback.

Adding a culturally intelligent framework to your research

To navigate this landscape, vendors and clients must move beyond raw comparisons and adopt a relative, culturally intelligent framework.

Benchmark intranationally, not internationally 

Stop asking, "Why is our German market less satisfied than the Chinese market?" The correct question is, "How does our German score compare to the German benchmark?" If the regional average is a 6.5 and you score a 7.0, you are likely a market leader. Create country indices that normalise scores against the local average to reveal true performance. This is where tailored services like our Developer Program Benchmarking shine – we help you normalise scores against local averages to reveal true performance.

Adjust your internal thresholds

In “stoic” markets like parts of Western Europe and Japan, a 7 or 8 can be a genuine win. In high-scoring markets like some East Asian countries, treat anything below the local norm as a potential signal – especially if it’s trending down.

Use ranking over rating 

Where applicable, complement ratings with questions that force trade-offs. Ranking-style questions (“Which programme is best?”) are harder to game through polite scale use than “rate each one 0-10,” and they often reveal the competitive truth hiding beneath the friendliness.

Conclusion

A red Japan does not necessarily mean a failing program, nor does a green China guarantee a secure future. 

By interpreting survey data through a cultural lens – acknowledging the sceptics, the polite promoters, and the scale's structural biases – you get closer to the true voice of the customer. The goal is not to standardise the customers, but to sophisticate the analysis so your data predicts what users will actually do next.

Are you worried that your retention strategy is based on skewed heatmaps? We can audit your satisfaction data to separate real performance issues from cultural noise. Contact us today!

About the author

Bleona Bicaj - Principal Research Consultant

Bleona is a research consultant, enthusiastic about product strategy and behavioural science. She holds a Master’s in Economic and Consumer Psychology. With more than 6 years of professional experience as an analyst, she has worked across quantitative and qualitative research studies, turning complex data into clear narratives that inform better products, smarter investments, and long-term growth.