Houston research: How social pressures are affecting digital product evaluations

houston voices

Serious product reviewers need peers and audiences to see them as credible. But new research indicates that pursuing credibility may compromise the objectivity of their evaluations. Photo via Getty Images

Theoretically, product evaluations should be impartial and unbiased. However, this assumption overlooks a crucial truth about product evaluators: They are human beings who are concerned about maintaining credibility with their audience, especially their peer evaluators.

Because evaluators must also care about being perceived as legitimate yet skillful themselves, certain social pressures are at play that potentially influence their product reviews.

Research by Minjae Kim (Rice Business) and Daniel DellaPosta (Penn State) takes up the question of how evaluators navigate those pressures. They find that in some cases, evaluators uphold majority opinion to appear legitimate and authoritative. In other contexts, they offer a contrasting viewpoint so that they seem more refined and sophisticated.

Pretend a movie critic gives an uplifting review of a widely overlooked film. By departing from the aesthetic judgments of cinema aficionados, the reviewer risks losing credibility with their audience. Not only does the reviewer fail to understand this specific film, the audience might say; they fail to understand film and filmmaking, broadly.

But it’s also conceivable, in other situations, that the dissenting evaluator will come across as uniquely perceptive.

What makes the difference between these conflicting perceptions?

Partly, it depends on how niche or mainstream the product is. With large-audience products, Kim and DellaPosta hypothesize, evaluators are more willing to contradict widespread opinion. (Without a large audience, contradicting opinions are like the sound of a tree that falls in a forest without anyone nearby to hear.)

The perceived classiness of the product can affect the evaluator’s approach, as well. It’s easier to dissent from majority opinion on products deemed “lowbrow” than those deemed “highbrow.” Kim and DellaPosta suggest it’s more of a risk to downgrade a “highbrow” product that seems to require more sophisticated taste (e.g., classical music) and easier to downgrade a highly rated yet “lowbrow” product that seems easier to appreciate (e.g., a blockbuster movie).

Thus, the “safe spot” for disagreeing with established opinion is when a product has already been thoroughly and highly reviewed yet appears easier to understand. In that case, evaluators might sense an opportunity to stand out, rather than try to fit in. But disagreeing with something just for the sake of disagreeing can make people think you’re not a fair or reasonable evaluator. To avoid that perception, it might be better to agree with the high rating.

To test their hypotheses, Kim and DellaPosta used data from beer enthusiast site BeerAdvocate.com, an online platform where amateur evaluators review beers while also engaging with other users. Online reviewers publicly rate and describe their impressions of a variety of beers, from craft to mainstream.

The data set included 1.66 million user-submitted reviews of American-produced beers, including 82,077 unique beers, 4,302 brewers, 47,561 reviewers and 103 unique styles of beer. The reviews spanned from December 2000 to September 2015.

When the researchers compared scores given to the same beer over time, they confirmed their hypothesis about the conditions under which evaluators contradict the majority opinion. On average, reviewers were more inclined to contradict the majority opinions for a beer that had been highly rated and widely reviewed. When reviewers considered a particular brew to be a “lowbrow,” downgrading occurred to an even greater extent.

Kim and DellaPosta’s research has implications for both producers and consumers. Both groups should be aware of the social dynamics involved in product evaluation. The research suggests that reviews and ratings are as much about elevating the people who make them as they are about product quality.

Making evaluators identifiable and non-anonymous may help increase accountability for what they say online — a seemingly positive thing. But Kim and DellaPosta reveal a potential downside: Knowing who evaluators are, Kim says, “might warp the ratings in ways that depart from true objective quality.”

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and was based on research from Minjae Kim, assistant professor of Management – Organizational Behavior at Rice Business, and Daniel DellaPosta, associate professor of Sociology and Social Data Analytics at Pennsylvania State University.

From Your Site Articles
When it comes to promoting social causes, corporations have to find a way to appear genuine over posturing. Photo via Getty Images

Navigating corporate challenge of genuinely supporting social causes, per Rice research

Houston Voices

It is becoming more and more common for companies to promote social causes such as human rights, LGBTQ+ rights, racial justice, and environmental sustainability. But organizations face a tricky dilemma when expressing commitments to helping address social issues: Stakeholders may interpret their words and deeds as shallow rhetoric or insincere posturing.

Terms like “greenwashing” (regarding environmentalism) or “pinkwashing” (regarding LGBTQ+ rights) are on the rise, and they signal heightened suspicions around companies doing something with ostensible objectives of bringing in positive social change.

It's critical for researchers and business leaders to investigate this duality of audience perception: actual virtue versus virtue-signaling. In an age of social media and polarization, consumers are increasingly likely to wonder: Does this company have ulterior motives? Are they trying to cover for their own wrongdoing? Are they actually walking the walk, or are they merely talking the talk?

When can companies avoid such suspicion of being pro-social imposters?

Minjae Kim of Rice Business and Ezra W. Zuckerman Sivan of MIT Sloan School of Management have taken a close look at the conditions under which upholding social norms will make firms appear to be “model citizens” and when it will make them seem like imposters.

Their theory is two-fold: First, those who follow through and do social good in response to an explicit “social mandate” are viewed as “model citizens.” Second, those who go out of their way to do social good without any prompts or social mandates are less likely to be trusted and will be widely viewed as imposters.

Think about the following situation. A “social mandate” is given to a politician when they are asked in an interview what they think about a particular cause. In that context, if they express support, audiences are less likely to suspect the politician of having ulterior motives or pandering to constituents. After all, if the politician does not express support in that situation, that is tantamount to expressing disapproval. Here, the interview question (i.e., “social mandate”) provides a cover of plausible deniability to any suspicions of ulterior motives. Law enforcement (e.g., police, prosecutors) often have this social mandate built into their professions.

But if the politician takes initiative — unprompted — to support the same cause, they will more likely be viewed with suspicion. They may instead appear to seek out social rewards associated with supporting the cause (e.g., good reputation), without the cover of plausible deniability.

To test their theory, Kim and Zuckerman launched a series of experiments involving 509 online participants based in the United States. The experiments sought to determine how respondents perceive individuals who encourage others to abide by social norms. Participants were specifically asked to identify which of two individuals they think are “model citizens” committed to the norm, or “imposters” who are uncommitted but trying to hide their own deviance.

The researchers found that people who encourage others to abide by social norms when prompted (“social mandate”) are perceived as “model citizens,” while those who do the same but without such prompts are more likely to appear as “imposters.” This duality provides a clear guideline for managers engaging in corporate social responsibility: When suspicions are rampant, launching pro-social campaigns without a plausible mandate may heighten suspicion regarding motives.

The larger question is how to build firms and societies where people can safely support norms (that we all support) without being suspected as imposters. After all, we want our own norms and moral principles to govern our lives. But in some situations, we may mistakenly vilify those who are trying to do good, based on the absence of some contextual “social mandate.”

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and was based on research from Minjae Kim, assistant professor of organizational behavior at Rice University Jones Graduate School of Business, and Ezra Zuckerman Sivan, the Alvin J. Siteman (1948) Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at MIT Sloan School of Management.

Professionals are more likely to refer a friend, rather than an acquaintance, for a job. Photo via Getty Images

Houston research: Strong connections go a long way in job hunting

houston voices

Job hunting can feel like prying open a succession of elaborately padlocked doors, and making it through all of them might seem to require a miracle. In reality, though, you could know someone who has the right keys – and is willing to use them for you.

As layoffs and furloughs continue to transform the workplace, commentators often discuss whether job hunters are better served by a team of close friends or a wider, less intimate army of acquaintances. This discussion is especially relevant when about 20 percent of high-income workers appear to get jobs via firm-driven referral practices.

For years, research pointed toward the less intimate army. Casual acquaintances or friends-of-friends, the types of relationships known as "weak ties," seemed preferable because they offered a greater number of and more diverse job tips. Social media platforms such as LinkedIn, Facebook and other networking sites thrived on the notion that loosely connected groups were more effective networks than the concentrated energies of a few friends.

But Rice Business professor Minjae Kim and Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Roberto M. Fernandez have taken a fresh look at the matter, questioning whether weak ties are really that useful. In a recent paper, they analyzed when and why socially connected people share job opportunities they know about.

To gather their data, the team surveyed 196 first-year MBA students, asking half of them (randomly assigned) their willingness to help close friends and the other half about acquaintances. Both close friends and acquaintances were described as qualified for the opportunities.

Past research assumed that regardless of the strength of the ties, people would be equally likely to relay job information, thus focusing on the reach of weaker, more numerous ties. But in Kim and Fernandez' study, the participants, most of whom were former professionals, said they were more likely to help friends than people with distant, weaker connections.

This was true even when the students being surveyed were offered a hypothetical financial bonus. Offering money for referrals is a time-honored practice in many industries, and indeed, when a bonus was offered, participants in the study were more willing to give a job tip to an acquaintance.

But the study also revealed that money isn't always enough to make people pass along job information, which other recent research confirms. For some people, Kim and Fernandez found, helping a good friend is more important than gaining professional or social benefit by helping a mere acquaintance.

In fact, even when an acquaintance was known to be qualified for a job, and even with referral bonuses as an incentive, when it came to passing on job tips, most participants surveyed favored close friends over people with whom they only had weak ties.

Praising the weak tie is still de rigueur in many employment think pieces. But, the team concluded, landing a job requires more than simply knowing people who know about possible job opportunities. In many cases, someone needs to make an effort for you. We all have a range of motivations, only some of them financial, for sharing information. Friendship, Kim and Fernandez discovered, is a surpassingly strong motivator for relaying job information.

Having an intricate network can be a highly effective way to learn what's out there. But because individuals have such a strong bias toward friends, big networks should not be a job hunters' lone strategy. Keeping your friends close, it turns out, offers professional benefits. The person with the key to your next job may be standing nearer than you think.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and is based on research from Minjae Kim, an assistant professor of management at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Houston named the No.1 emerging city for biopharma in inaugural report

Biopharma Leader

Houston is ranked No.1 on the first-ever Next 10 U.S. Biopharma Clusters report published by Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN).

The report, which ranks the best emerging hubs for life science activities, considered patents, NIH funding, lab space, venture capital investments, and the number of jobs in regions in cities, states and “clusters” across the U.S. GEN touts Houston as the top city for the biopharma industry due to a surge in funding, job creation, medical innovations and startup success.

Here’s how Houston ranked in the report’s different categories;

  • No. 1 for NIH funding with 2,262 awards totaling more than $1.25 billion
  • No. 2 for emerging regions for jobs, with 28,000 jobs
  • No. 2 for lab space, with roughly 8 million square feet in the market
  • No. 6 for patents, with 2,760 patent families

According to BioHouston chairman Jeff Wade, Houston secured half a billion dollars in venture capital funding in 2025 and 2026 to date.

The report called out major biopharm news out of Houston in the last few months, including Bristol Myers Squibb selecting Houston for its $1 billion, 600,000-square-foot manufacturing site and Eli Lily selecting Houston for its $6.5 billion, 236-acre manufacturing site. Both facilities will be located within Generation Park, a 4,300-acre, master-planned commercial district near Lake Houston.

Houston startups like CrossBridge Bio and Duracyte were also mentioned in the report. CrossBridge, which develops antibody-drug conjugates for cancer, was acquired by Eli Lily in April for $300 million. Duracyte, a “living pharmacy” company, was launched out of Rice University’s biotech venture studio RBL LLC this spring and is backed by up to a $45 million Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) award.

The startup is working to commercialize its Hybrid Advanced Molecular Manufacturing Regulator (HAMMR) technology, a rechargeable, implantable device that can sense biological signals, monitor tumor environments and adjust therapeutic output in real time.

“There’s a lot of great talent, but the unique advantage that we have is we are able to benefit from a lot of unique clinical infrastructure and clinician insights,” Omid Veiseh, Duracyte co-founder and managing partner of RBL LLC, told GEN. “There are a lot of clinicians here who are eager to partner on investigator-initiated trials.”

The report also touted Houston’s Texas Medical Center, home to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Baylor College of Medicine, and international partnerships like the recently expanded TMC Korea BioBridge.

Other cities to make the list include:

  • No. 2 Minneapolis-St. Paul
  • No. 3 Denver-Boulder
  • No. 4 St. Louis
  • No. 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

States to make the list include:

  • No. 1 Ohio (including Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus)
  • No. 2 Indiana (including Indianapolis)
  • No. 3 Florida (including Jacksonville and Miami-Fort Lauderdale)
  • No. 4 Georgia (including Atlanta and Augusta)
  • No. 5 Wisconsin (including Madison and Kenosha)

Regional state clusters to watch include:

  • Phoenix
  • Pittsburgh
  • Greater Richmond, Virginia
  • South Carolina
  • Utah

See the full report here.

Major Texas-based airlines ground humanoid robots as passengers

In The Air

Two major airlines based in Texas are drawing a hard line between human and humanoid: American Airlines and Southwest Airlines won’t permit human-like or animal-like robots to board flights as passengers.

Fort Worth-based American and Dallas-based Southwest recently adopted bans on robotic passengers after two incidents in which human-like robots joined flesh-and-blood passengers on Southwest flights.

In May, Aaron Mehdizadeh, owner of The Robot Studio rental company in Dallas, was heading from Las Vegas to Dallas Love Field with 3.5-foot-tall Stewie, according to CBS News Texas. Rather than shipping Stewie as cargo, Mehdizadeh bought the robot its own seat using a type of ticket often purchased for fragile items such as wedding dresses and equipment.

But because Stewie was technically a carry-on item, the robot wasn’t supposed to occupy a seat, according to eWeek. Crew members wound up disconnecting Stewie’s battery and relocating the robot to a window seat before takeoff.

Mehdizadeh pushed back on Southwest’s stance regarding the battery, telling CBS News Texas that Stewie’s power supply is a standard battery that’s similar to one for a laptop.

Stewie isn’t the only robot making mischief in the skies. In May, a 70-pound, human-like robot named Bebop caused a stir on a Southwest flight from Oakland, California, to San Diego.

The robot prompted a nearly one-hour flight delay after crew members realized it violated restrictions on large carry-ons and raised concerns about the battery, San Francisco TV station KGO reported. Dallas-based Elite Event Robotics owns Bebop.

Southwest seized Bebop’s lithium-ion battery, but the airline did let Bebop take the San Diego-bound flight.

Southwest’s new robot policy prohibits human-like or animal-like robots from riding in an airplane cabin or as checked baggage, no matter their size or purpose. All other robots, including toys, must fit in a carry-on size bag and comply with battery restrictions, the airline says.

In a statement sent to CultureMap, a Southwest spokeswoman says the airline “has taken a strong stance on this issue and has led the U.S. airline industry with our battery policy.”

“The robot policy is a further evolution of a [safety] journey we have been on for several months. This move was not in response to any single incident,” the spokeswoman adds. “To eliminate confusion, the policy applies to all similar devices, regardless of size.”

Lithium-ion batteries can overheat, catch on fire, or explode on airplanes.

American’s new robot policy, which took effect Monday, August 17, is similar to Southwest’s. The policy prohibits human-like and animal-like robots from sitting in a purchased seat, being stored in an overhead bin or traveling as checked baggage. The ban applies to U.S., international, and regional flights.

“While there have been no known events involving this type of robot on any American flight, this policy was developed following a comprehensive review of safety risks associated with these devices, including the large lithium-ion batteries that power them,” the airline said in an internal memo obtained by the View From the Wing travel blog.

American gate agents have been told not to allow a passenger accompanied by a robot to board a plane or to let a robot travel as a checked item, the memo say.

If a robot is discovered after check-in, American employees are supposed to follow the Federal Aviation Administration’s “undeclared dangerous goods” procedures. These procedures cover hazardous shipments like lithium-ion batteries, explosives, flammable liquids, and compressed gases that lack required warning labels or shipping documents.

---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

Texas A&M, UH rise in global rankings of universities attracting the most attention

visibility report

Houston and Texas universities had a strong showing on the 2026-27 Global University Visibility (GUV) Rankings compiled by D.C.-based higher ed market research firm American Caldwell.

Texas A&M ranked No. 6 on the list—the top rank of any Texas university. Meanwhile, the University of Houston ranked No. 52, a 15-spot jump from its previous ranking.

The GUV rankings rate colleges that garner the most global attention via news coverage, social media influence, website traffic, YouTube views, and general public interest. GUV evaluated over 1,200 universities across 193 United Nations-recognized countries.

Texas A&M, with its No. 6 global ranking, also claimed the No. 5 spot among U.S. institutions. The university climbed 21 spots from its previous rank.

“News mentions were a driver of Texas A&M’s movement in this year’s rankings, and earned media remains one of the strongest signals of relevance,” Tim Doty, associate vice president for earned media at Texas A&M, said in a news release. “Much of that visibility begins with our faculty and research experts, whose work helps explain, solve and give context to issues people care about. When Texas A&M experts appear in news stories about research, discovery, national security, agriculture, health, engineering, service and the future of Texas, audiences see the university not only as large or well known, but as useful, relevant and necessary to the conversations shaping our state and country.”

In the “Public Interest” category, UH also claimed a top 10 global ranking at No.6. UH touts its overall GUV rankings success to Guggenheim Fellowships, MacArthur “Genius” grants, National Academy membership, studies like researchers breaking the superconductivity temperature record, and success on the football field and basketball courts.

“Across the board, there is no question that the University of Houston is a brand on the rise,” Shawn Lindsey, interim vice president for marketing and communications, said in a news release. “People are seeing our story, hearing about the amazing things happening at UH and actively seeking us out to learn more. We are seeing it in record-high student applications, we are seeing increases in trademark licensing revenue, our faculty are earning global accolades. It’s an exciting time to be a Houston Cougar.”

Other Texas institutions to make the top 250 on the list include:

  • No. 22 The University of Texas at Austin
  • No. 104 University of Texas at Dallas
  • No. 159 Texas Tech University
  • No. 178 Rice University
  • No. 191 University of North Texas
  • No. 248 Texas State University

For the fourth year in a row, Harvard University secured the top spot on the list, followed by MIT, Stanford University and Purdue University. The University of Oxford was the top non-U.S. institution at No. 5.

See the full list here.

View All Listings