How Culture Shapes Online Reviews: A Global Insight

Sell the same product in Tokyo and Toronto, and you won’t get the same kind of review. Culture doesn’t just shape what people buy - it shapes how they talk about it. At least that is what studies suggest (Barbro et al., 2020; Hong et al., 2016). To test this, we analyzed over 11 million VoC data across 15 countries and five industries (consumer electronics, cosmetics, tires, pet food, and apps/stores) between 2020-2025 stored in our data lake. The result? Certain countries do indeed show specific patterns of ratings and reviews.

Content:

1. Why Online Reviews Matter
2. The Cultural Lense
3. Our Findings
4. Business Implications
5. Methodological Considerations

Why Online Reviews Matter

Before buying a new vacuum cleaner, most of us check reviews first, looking for more than just information: trust. In fact, a recent report shows that 95% of shoppers read reviews before buying, and 96% say they influence decisions more than recommendations from friends and family. Just showing reviews can lift conversions by 20%, and when shoppers actually read or interact with them, that figure can double. Reviews aren’t just opinions; they are value co-creators that shape brand trust and loyalty (Alhumud & Elshaer, 2024). But here’s the catch: not everyone writes or interprets them the same way. What’s “constructive” in Berlin might feel “harsh” in Bangkok; what’s “polite” in Tokyo might seem “vague” in Toronto. So, to truly understand global feedback, we have to look at culture.

Guiding Cultural Frameworks

To do so, we considered three cultural frameworks to explain the global patterns in online reviews:

1. Socio-Cognitive Systems Theory (SCST)

SCST proposes that cultural upbringing shapes how people think and process information (Makus & Kitayama, 1991; Nisbett et al., 2001; Monga & John, 2007):

• Western consumers tend to think analytically, breaking things down and judging features individually. Their reviews highlight product functionality, usability, and direct critique
• East Asian consumers think more holistically, weighing overall impressions and relationships between elements. Their reviews are context-sensitive, aesthetically oriented, and more restrained in tone (Brand & Kopplin, 2022)

2. The Revised Individualism-Collectivism Scale

Building on Hofstede’s (1980) famous framework, Minkov and colleagues (2017; 2022) refined the key cultural dimensions that affect how we express ourselves:

• Individualist countries (e.g., USA, Germany, Canada) encourage strong personal expression. Their reviews show more extreme ratings and emotional variation, and are more exhaustive (Hong et al., 2016; Messner, 2020)
• Collectivist countries (e.g., China, Thailand, Turkey) value harmony and conformity, resulting in more moderate, agreeable feedback (Hong et al., 2016)
  

3. Hall’s Context and Communication Style

Anthropologist Edward Hall (1976) divided cultures into high-context and low-context communicators:

• High-context cultures (e.g., Japan, China, Thailand, Turkey, and southern European countries) tend to rely on shared understanding and indirect communication. Their reviews are usually shorter, more polite, and tone-dependent, hinting at meaning rather than stating it outright. They are conflict avoidant and assume a shared base of knowledge, therefore relying more heavily on contextual clues when communicating (Croucher et al., 2012; Morden, 1999)
• Low-context cultures (e.g., Germany, USA, Canada) usually prefer explicit, detailed communication, leading to longer reviews with clearly defined positives and negatives (Morden, 1999)

Based on this literature, we expected that people from analytical, low-context cultures like Germany, the UK, and the US would write longer, more detailed reviews. On the other hand, holistic, high-context cultures such as Thailand, China, and Japan were expected to keep things shorter and subtler, using tone and shared understanding rather than long explanations. When it comes to ratings, we anticipated that collectivist, harmony-oriented countries (like Thailand, China, Brazil, Turkey, India) would show stronger conformity, sticking closer to the average and avoiding extreme ratings. Meanwhile, individualist cultures (like Germany, France, USA, and Japan) were expected to show more spread in their scores, freely expressing both praise and criticism.

What the Data Shows

Across 15 analyzed countries, these patterns emerged:

• Japan: Long reviews across all industries, with a high number of complaints (which can be attributed to their detailed nature)
• China: Overall high positivity, except in the Cosmetics industry
• Thailand: Consistently high ratings
• India: Lower ratings, especially for Apps/Store industry
• Canada, USA, UK: Longer, more explicit reviews
• Western countries (Europe + North America): Polish reviews are most positive and exhibit the highest ratings
• Europe: The ratings are at neither extreme end, except for France with the most negative reviews in the Tires industry
• Individualist cultures: Display a greater spread of star ratings
• Low-context cultures: write longer reviews than high-context cultures

When we look across all industries, clear cultural patterns emerge in how people write and rate reviews.

‍

Main Takeaways

1. Ratings reflect harmony or conformity: Overall, star-ratings in individualistic cultures are more dispersed, while those from collectivist cultures tend to be more positive and show more reviews with the same rating
2. Review length mirrors communication style: Generally speaking, low context cultures write longer reviews, while collectivist cultures write the shortest ones
3. Complaints don’t always mean dissatisfaction: A high TGW in Japan or Germany may not necessarily signal many complaints; it can reflect a culture of detailed feedback rather than dissatisfaction

What this Means for Interpreting R&R Data

If you’re analyzing global reviews, interpreting them without cultural context can skew your conclusions. A low sentiment score in Japan does not necessarily signal dissatisfaction; it might reflect a communication style that values balance over extremes. So, combine metrics with meaning: Star ratings alone can mislead. Reading the why behind them reveals true insights. Understanding these nuances transforms reviews from raw data into actionable cultural insight. Our Insights Lab can help you with this.

Some Final Considerations

Culture is complex - and people even more so. Not every individual perfectly reflects their country’s culture, just as no single nation fits neatly into one cultural box. The cultural frameworks we’ve used are best understood as guiding lenses, not rigid categories. Many countries are multifaceted, reflecting different traits depending on region, history, or context.

On top of that, different studies use different individualism-collectivism (I-C) scales. For example, a country might be classified as “individualist” in one study and “collectivist” in another. Our analysis is based on Minkov’s 2017 revised framework, while some of the supporting literature draws from earlier models, meaning that some discrepancies are expected. It’s also worth noting that data availability varies. Not all countries and industries had the same review volume, which means direct comparisons should be read with a degree of caution.

Finally, the relationships we’ve observed are correlational, not causal. The data show strong cultural patterns, but they don’t tell us exactly why these patterns occur. Exploring that “why” could be a fascinating next step - for instance, conducting linguistic analyses of content, tone, emotional expression, or language structure (how direct vs indirect) of the reviews.

‍

References

Alhumud, A., & Elshaer, I. (2024). Social Commerce and Customer-to-Customer Value Co-Creation Impact on Sustainable Customer Relationships. Sustainability, 16(10), 4237-.

Barbro, P. A., Mudambi, S. M., & Schuff, D. (2020). Do Country and Culture Influence Online Reviews? An Analysis of a Multinational Retailer’s Country-Specific Sites. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 32(1), 1–14.

Brand, B. M., Kopplin, C. S., & Rausch, T. M. (2022). Cultural differences in processing online customer reviews: holistic versus analytic thinkers. Electronic Markets, 32(3), 1039–1060.

Croucher, S. M., Bruno, A., McGrath, P., Adams, C., McGahan, C., Suits, A., & Huckins, A. (2012). Conflict Styles and High-Low Context Cultures: A Cross-Cultural Extension. Communication Research Reports, 29(1), 64–73.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hong, Y., Huang, N., Burtch, G., & Li, C. (2016). Culture, Conformity, and Emotional Suppression in Online Reviews. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(11), 737–758.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.

Messner, W. (2020). Cultural and Individual Differences in Online Reviews. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 32(5), 356–382.

Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C., Jandosova, J., Khassenbekov, Y., & Mudd, B. (2017). A revision of Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism dimension: A new national index from a 56-country study. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 24(3), 386–404.

Minkov, M., & Kaasa, A. (2022). Do dimensions of culture exist objectively? A validation of the revised Minkov-Hofstede model of culture with World Values Survey items and scores for 102 countries. Journal of International Management, 28(4), Article 100971.

Monga, A. B., & John, D. R. (2007). Cultural Differences in Brand Extension Evaluation: The Influence of Analytic versus Holistic Thinking. The Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 529–536.

Morden, T. (1999). Models of national culture - a management review. Cross Cultural Management, 6(1), 19–44.

Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological review, 108(2), 291.

The Complete Guide to Ratings & Reviews - PowerReviews. (2025, August 26). PowerReviews.

‍