Here's what you should learn from social media influencers for your own business marketing. Photo via Getty Images

Influencer marketing is booming, with companies allocating 10 to 25 percent of their advertising budgets to influencer-led strategies. Between 2016 and 2020, the number of sponsored posts rose from 1.26 million to 6.12 million, and overall spending in the past few years has grown by billions.

When partnering with online ambassadors, brands certainly want a large influencer audience. However, audience size does not necessarily reflect the amount influencers are paid. Influencers with similar-sized audiences can be paid very different amounts.

That’s partly because brands also want an engaged influencer audience. An influencer may have many followers, but if those followers don’t actively interact with content, the influencer’s reach is limited. Engagement metrics like comments, shares and “likes” are often a more reliable indicator of impact than follower count alone.

The problem brands face — no matter who the influencer is — is that sponsored posts typically see a plunge in engagement, making it difficult to measure their success. Very little research examines this effect and how influencers can mitigate it.

In a new study, Rice Business professors Jae Chung and Ajay Kalra take up this issue, along with Stanford professor Yu Ding. According to the researchers, one way of boosting engagement overall, even on sponsored content where engagement often falls, is for influencers to increase audience perceptions of authenticity, perceived similarity, and interpersonal curiosity.

Even in a world full of filters and careful staging, authenticity is a key differentiator for leaders, businesses and personalities. One powerful way of appearing true to one’s own personality or character is to effectively share life stories. But social media influencers walk a fine line between presenting their authentic selves and monetizing their platforms.

To attract followers and content sponsors, influencers must curate the images they share, the words they say, and the timing and cadence of their posts. It’s a delicate dance between providing value through a genuine audience connection and aligning with brand interests.

Here are three simple but powerful ways that influencers can boost engagement by highlighting close relationships:

  • Post photos that include one or two close friends or family members.
  • Mention friends and family in the caption.
  • Use first-person language (e.g., “I,” “my” and “we”).

Referencing close social ties is an especially powerful way to boost engagement. According to Professor Chung, “Intimate social ties can make influencers seem more authentic and sponsored messaging seem less transactional.” This effect holds true even when controlling for variables like gender, frequency of posting, use of emojis and hashtags, and audience familiarity with the influencer.

The team analyzed over 55,000 Instagram posts from 763 top influencers during the second half of 2019. One of their most distinctive findings is that, in terms of boosting audience engagement, the ideal number of faces in a photo is three — the influencer plus two friends or family members. For an Instagram audience, this numerical face count proves a surprisingly effective metric for assessing the closeness of relationships.

Influencers can also seem more genuine to followers by referencing intimate social ties in their captions. Terms like “grandpa,” “bestie” and “soulmate” give followers access to an inner circle usually reserved for loved ones, making them feel more connected and invested in the influencer’s world and worldview.

In one experiment, study participants were shown a series of Instagram posts supposedly written by actor Jessica Alba. Testing the impact of language on the perception of close ties, the researchers wrote three different captions for the same image. One caption mentions Alba’s daughter (“Styling by my daughter. Isn’t this outfit cute?”). Another references a distant tie (“Styling by designer Kelmen. Isn’t this outfit cute?”). A third post provided a baseline by indicating no ties at all.

Study participants were asked to select which posts they liked most. The results supported the research hypothesis. Posts mentioning close relationships are significantly more likable than posts mentioning distant ties or no ties.

The team also examined the impact of expressing emotion on Instagram. Does sharing feelings — either positive or negative — help or hurt audience engagement? Using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) language processing program, the researchers categorized and analyzed the strength and valence of emotion-related words and emojis (e.g., “love,” “nice,” “frustrated,” “sad”).

What they found is surprising. Expressing emotion boosts audience engagement, perhaps because it bridges a perceived gap of celebrity between influencer and audience. But what’s interesting is that negative emotions are more powerful than positive ones. According to the researchers’ dataset, negative emotions are expressed only 9.08 percent of the time, while positive feelings are shared 36.03 percent of the time. So, one way of interpreting the finding is that the comparative rarity of negative feeling could take some readers by surprise, and thereby incite a stronger sense of authenticity.

Importantly, all of these findings regarding audience engagement most likely apply to platforms where a gray line exists between private and public life.

And, on this note, the researchers warn against the potential for oversharing and exploiting family and friends for the sake of monetizing content.

But the study shows how brands can strategically sponsor posts that incorporate close ties in photos, express emotion, or share anecdotes in first-person language.

By quantifying tactics to achieve a greater perception of authenticity, the research provides valuable guidance on how to cut through the noise on social media. One of the paths to a more engaged audience, it turns out, runs through an influencer’s inner circle.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and was based on research from Jaeyeon (Jae) Chung, an assistant professor of marketing at Rice Business, Yu Ding an assistant professor of marketing at Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Ajay Kalra, the Herbert S. Autrey Professor of Marketing at Rice Business.

Investors gravitate toward funds ending in the number zero over those ending in the number five, a Rice University researcher finds. Because of this tendency, some investors expose themselves to financial risk and loss of wealth. Photo via Getty Images

Rice University research finds that investors might have a bias towards the number zero

houston voices

When the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit 18,000 a few years back, the nicely rounded number dominated the news. When teens take the SAT, those who just miss scoring a round number are more likely to seek a do-over. And, research shows, major league baseball players are four times more likely to end their seasons with a .300 batting average than a .299.

There's something irresistible about figures ending in zero. But does that extend to our decision-making? Does our instinctive love for round numbers affect our financial plans?

The answer is yes, says Rice Business professor Ajay Kalra. Along with Xiao Liu of NYU Stern and Wei Zhang of Iowa State University, Kalra looked at data from thousands of investors in Target Retirement Funds (TRFs), which generally assume retirement at age 65 and ask employees to pick a fund with a year ending either in zero or five (e.g., 2040, 2045) that is nearest to their planned retirement date.

Investors whose birth year doesn't already end in zero or five must round up or round down to choose their TRF.

The zeros clearly win investors' hearts. Succumbing to what the researchers call "zero bias," investors consistently choose to sink their retirement dollars into funds that end in zero, not five. For many of the investors Kalra and his team looked at, especially older people, men and those with higher incomes, this meant choosing a retirement age of 60 or 70 rather than the standard 65.

The choice was often costly. Many investors who rounded up or down to find a fund year ending in zero exposed themselves to real financial risk.

That's because TRFs are graded portfolios — meaning they start out stock-heavy, move to a mix of stocks and bonds and finally emphasize bonds. Investors who rounded down for a too-young retirement target gave themselves less time to benefit from a stock-dominant portfolio. Investors who rounded up for a too-old retirement target ending in zero contributed less money to their retirement because they assumed they had more time to invest. Investors who rounded down did worse than those who rounded up.

Who is most susceptible to losing hard-earned retirement dollars this way? The researchers looked at people born from the 1950s through the 1980s. Of these investors, those born in years ending between three and seven selected the appropriate fund. The zero bias was prevalent in those born in years ending in eight or nine, who tended to project their retirement age as 60, and those born in years that ended in zero, one or two, who favored retiring at 70.

Overall, the researchers discovered, 34 percent of people born in years ending in eight or nine picked retirement funds that targeted too-early retirement — and ended up financially worse off. Meanwhile, 29 percent of investors born in years ending in the numbers zero, one or two picked later TRFs. With the exception of those who were risk averse, these investors ended up better off than those who chose too-early TRFs. Overall, however, investors who picked funds with mismatched retirement dates (that is, inconsistent with retirement at 65), saw more losses than gains.

The infatuation with zero held up even when the researchers replicated their study in an experimental setting. So they tried something different: they presented participants with math problems to coax a "calculative mindset." It worked. Rather than gravitating to zeros, these investors chose retirement funds that matched their ages. Straight talk in the form of a 30-minute one-on-one financial planning session helped too. At least some investors who got this counseling made better choices.

Rounding up or down to zero can be a nice mental shortcut when stakes are low and time is short. There are good reasons, for example, to go for the zero in calculating sales tax when you're buying a book, or tallying how many party guests want cake.

But when it comes to life savings, instinct-based math can be trouble. Financial firms should be aware of this and discourage preference for the shiny number zero. Advisors should nudge clients toward funds that will truly enhance earnings. Most important, however, investors themselves need to keep their heads, think of the future and resist the allure of round numbers.

------

This story originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom. It's based on research by Ajay Kalra, a professor of marketing at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

UH med school granted $2M gift to offer student scholarships

scholarship gift

A new scholarship endowment aims to support students in the University of Houston’s recently established medical school.

The University of Houston’s Tilman J. Fertitta Family College of Medicine received a planned estate gift commitment estimated at $2.1 million to establish the Bob Diehl and Teresa Evans Diehl Scholarship Endowment. The scholarship will assist full-time medical students who demonstrate financial need and meet academic standards.

“Endowed scholarships like this do more than ease the burden of tuition—they empower our students to focus on learning, leadership and compassionate care,” Jonathan McCullers, UH vice president of health affairs and dean of the Fertitta College of Medicine, said in a news release. “We are deeply grateful to the Diehls for their vision and commitment to expanding access to health care through education.”

The endowment aims to provide annual scholarship support for students enrolled in the Fertitta College of Medicine. The gift also aligns with the university's fundraising initiative focused on expanding opportunities for students, known as Can’t Stop Houston: The Centennial Campaign, which works to expand research ahead of UH’s 100th anniversary next year.

The Diehls are both graduates from UH, and Bob Diehl spent 38 years working at UPS.

“It brings me happiness to know that my endowment will make a difference in young people's lives and in the communities that will need those future doctors,” he said in the release.

The Fertitta College of Medicine welcomed its inaugural class of 30 students in 2020 and expects classes to grow to 120 students in the coming years, according to UH. The university believes scholarship opportunities will be crucial for students to pursue medical education despite financial challenges.

“The Diehl family’s generosity will open doors for talented future physicians who are called to serve our communities but may otherwise face financial barriers to pursuing a medical education,” McCullers added.

9 Houston universities boast best grad programs of 2026, per U.S. News

making the grade

Nine Houston-area universities are earning new national acclaim in a report of the best graduate schools in the U.S. for 2026.

U.S. News & World Report annually publishes its national "Best Graduate Schools" rankings in early April, which comprehensively rank graduate programs across business, education, engineering, law, health, and many others.

New for the 2026 edition, the publication updated its rankings across 12 health disciplines — only physician assistant and social work were excluded — and "the first full refresh" of doctoral science programs since 2022. U.S. News also revived its Master's in Fine Arts rankings for the first time since 2020.

"We know a graduate degree is a major commitment,” said LaMont Jones, Ed.D., managing editor of Education at U.S. News. “That is why we are dedicated to methodologies that thoroughly examine a wide range of factors, from research excellence to career success. These rankings are a powerful tool for prospective students, offering clarity and confidence as they approach their most critical educational choice."

This is how the nine local schools ranked, statewide and nationally, and how they compared with last year's national ranking:

Rice University

  • Brown School of Engineering – No. 3 best graduate engineering school in Texas; No. 25 nationally (up from No. 26 last year)
  • Jones Graduate School of Business – No. 3 best business school in Texas; No. 29 nationally (unchanged)

Several of Rice’s doctoral science programs were among the 30 best in the country, including earth sciences (No. 20), chemistry (No. 22), biostatistics (No. 25), mathematics (No. 26), statistics (No. 27), and physics (No. 28). The Ph.D. biological sciences program tied as 55th best nationwide. Rice’s public affairs program tied for No. 107 nationally.

University of Houston

  • Cullen College of Engineering – No. 5 best graduate engineering school in Texas; tied for No. 71 nationally (up from No. 72 last year)
  • College of Education – No. 5 best graduate education school in Texas; No. 95 nationally (down from No. 81 last year)
  • UH Law Center – No. 5 best law school in Texas; No. 54 nationally (up from No. 63 last year)

The University of Houston has the 31st best pharmacy program in the country, its speech-language pathology program tied for No. 54 nationally, and the clinical psychology program tied as 65th best in the U.S. In the doctoral sciences rankings, UH’s earth sciences program ranked No. 80 nationally, the physics program tied for No. 81, the chemistry program ranked 84th, and the mathematics program ranked No. 87. The Ph.D. biological sciences program ranked as the 104th best in the nation. UH’s public affairs program tied as 80th best nationally. The university also has the 106th best fine arts program in the nation.

University of Houston, Clear Lake

  • College of Education – No. 12 best graduate education school in Texas; No. 164 nationally (up from No. 166 last year)

University of Texas Health Science Center (UT Health Houston)

  • Cizik School of Nursing – No. 2 best master’s in nursing program in Texas; No. 32 nationally (up from No. 41 last year)
  • McGovern Medical School – Tier 2 best research medical school in the U.S.

UT Health Houston’s public health program tied for No. 31 nationwide, and the health care management program tied for No. 47. The Cizik School of Nursing’s nurse anesthesia program tied as 49th best in the country. In the doctoral sciences rankings, the university’s biostatistics program tied as the 25th best nationwide.

University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston

  • Sealy School of Medicine – Tier 2 best medical research school in the U.S.

UT Medical Branch’s occupational therapy program tied for No. 41 nationally, the physical therapy program tied for No. 57, and the university tied for the 60th best nurse anesthesia program in the U.S. The public health program tied for No. 89 nationally. In the doctoral sciences rankings, the university’s biostatistics program tied for No. 70 nationally.

Prairie View A&M University

  • College of Nursing – No. 5 best master’s in nursing program in Texas; No. 104 nationally (unchanged)

South Texas College of Law Houston

  • No. 7 best law school in Texas; No. 128 nationally (up from No. 138 last year)

Texas Southern University

  • College of Education – No. 17 best graduate education school in Texas; No. 219 nationally (down from No. 178-195 last year)

TSU’s pharmacy program tied for No. 120 nationally.

University of Texas MD Anderson
UT MD Anderson’s doctoral biostatistics program tied as the 17th best nationally, and the doctoral biological sciences program tied for No. 50.

---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

Houston medtech firm secures $30M for neurosurgical robot

stroke surgery

Robotic neurosurgery is an exciting new frontier in medicine, and Houston-based medtech firm XCath is leading the charge with its revolutionary Iris robotic system. The company announced in March that it had secured $30 million in Series C funding to continue developing systems to tackle blood clots in the human brain.

“We are grateful to our investors for their conviction in our shared mission to improve clinical outcomes for patients impacted by endovascular diseases,” Eduardo Fonseca, CEO of XCath, said in a news release. “In 2025, the XCath team advanced the frontiers of endovascular robotics. This funding accelerates our commitment to expanding access to life-saving care so that where a patient lives no longer determines whether they live.”

XCath–which also has campuses in Pangyo, South Korea–has already achieved a number of remarkable firsts in robotic neurosurgery. The Iris is the only endovascular robotic system currently in development to perform intracranial navigation or neurointerventional treatment, and is the only robot in the world to have performed an intracranial neurovascular procedure involving the robotic manipulation of three devices.

These new Series C funds, which bring the company's total investment to $92 million, will go toward developing a clinical telerobot capable of performing a mechanical thrombectomy. This would bring unprecedented accuracy and precision to the surgical removal of brain clots, significantly reducing the risk of neurosurgery.

“Robotic surgery succeeds when innovation is paired with practical execution,” Dr. Fred Moll, chairman of the XCath board of directors, said in the release. “XCath has built a promising technology foundation, and just as importantly, a team that values rigor and appreciates perspective. I’m excited to support them as they take on the mission of globalizing access to gold-standard care for stroke patients.”

In November 2025, the Iris debuted under the control of Dr. Vitor Mendes Pereira at The Panama Clinic in Panama City, alongside local Principal Investigator Dr. Anastasio Ameijeiras Sibauste. It was only the second time in human history that a robot had been used for intracranial neurovascular intervention, and it established Iris as a viable technology in the fight against stroke.

“Treatment of stroke and other neurovascular diseases represents one of the most significant financial opportunities in healthcare, supported by positive reimbursement dynamics and strong demand from health systems,” Nicholas Drysdale, CFO of XCath, added in the release. “With our continued investor support and disciplined capital deployment, XCath is positioned to build a category-leading platform in endovascular robotics”.