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

Future-focused Houston nonprofit names new leader

taking the helm

A nonprofit organization dedicated to leading Houston into the future has named its next leader.

The Center for Houston’s Future named David Gow as president and CEO, succeeding Brett Perlman, who was announced in April to be remaining at the Center with a focus on the Center’s hydrogen initiative. Gow is the founder and chairman of Gow Media, InnovationMap's parent company. His role is effective September 3.

“I am excited to step into this opportunity with the Center and work with the team, the board and many other stakeholders to help shape Houston’s future,” Gow says in a news release. “The Center presents an exciting opportunity to cast a vision for our region and identify initiatives that will make an impact.”

Gow — whose career includes a portfolio of online media properties and ESPN Radio — is a board member of Goose Capital and chair of MSAI, an entity he formed through a SPAC acquisition. Before he founded Gow Media, he served as CFO and CEO of an online watch retailer, Ashford.com. Prior to Ashford, Gow was director of corporate strategy at Compaq Computers and a consultant at McKinsey & Co. He received his master’s in public policy from Harvard and his bachelor's in economics from Williams College.

“David’s portfolio of experiences and skills, record of innovation and success, and deep commitment to the Houston community make him the perfect fit to lead the Center as we chart and execute on our next set of initiatives focused on ensuring a bright future for all residents in the Houston region,” adds Center for Houston’s Future Board Chair Cindy Yeilding.

In his new role, Gow will lead the Center’s next effort, Vision 2050, which plans to identify the city's key issues, gaps, and opportunities.

“Today’s announcement also reflects the success of the Center’s clean hydrogen program,” Yeilding continues. “On behalf of the Center’s board, I’d also like to recognize Brett for launching and building such a successful and important effort as well as his overall leadership and record of achievement at the Center these past seven years.”

Growing Houston energy startup scales local office presence

settling in

On the heels of landing more than $240 million in venture capital, Houston-based geothermal power provider Fervo Energy has more than quadrupled the size of its headquarters.

Fervo previously occupied 5,158 square feet at 114 Main St. in downtown Houston. The company recently left the Main Street space and leased 23,782 square feet at downtown Houston’s 910 Louisiana office tower. Houston-based commercial real estate company Hines owns and manages the 50-story former One Shell Plaza.

“We believe Houston is the center of the energy transition, and downtown Houston has long been its center of activity,” Tim Latimer, co-founder and CEO of Fervo Energy, says in a news release. “The availability of dining options, parks, and biking infrastructure continue to be great assets and a huge draw for our team. For these reasons and more, the only place for Fervo’s headquarters is downtown Houston.”

In February 2024, Fervo announced it had raised $244 million in an investment round led by Oklahoma City, Oklahoma-based hydrocarbon exploration company Devon Energy. Fervo has collected $431 million in funding since its founding in 2017.

Energy companies like Fervo occupy about 43 percent of office space in downtown Houston, according to a new report from the Downtown Houston+ organization. Nineteen new tenants set up shop last year in downtown Houston, with 10 of them operating in the energy sector.

Other energy companies that recently leased office space in downtown Houston include:

  • AES Clean Energy
  • Axip Energy Services
  • EnLink Midstream
  • MRC Global
  • Repsol Renewables
  • Stonepeak

Chevron to relocate HQ, executives to Houston

big move

The Energy Capital of the World is adding another jewel to its corporate crown.

With the impending move of Chevron’s headquarters from Northern California to Houston, the Houston area will be home to 24 Fortune 500 companies. Chevron ranks 15th on this year’s Fortune 500.

Oil and gas giant Chevron, currently based in San Ramon, California, will join three Fortune 500 competitors that already maintain headquarters in the Houston area:

  • Spring-based ExxonMobil, No. 7 on the Fortune 500
  • Houston-based Phillips 66, No. 26 on the Fortune 500
  • Houston-based ConocoPhillips, No. 68 on the Fortune 500

Chevron, which posted revenue of $200.9 billion in 2023, employs about 7,000 people in the Houston area and about 2,000 people in San Ramon. The company says its chairman and CEO, Mike Wirth, and vice chairman, Mark Nelson, will move to Houston before the end of 2024.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Wirth acknowledged Chevron’s differences of opinion with California policymakers regarding energy matters.

“We believe California has a number of policies that raise costs, that hurt consumers, that discourage investment and ultimately we think that’s not good for the economy in California and for consumers,” Wirth said.

Chevron expects all of its corporate functions to shift to Houston over the next five years. Jobs that support the company’s California operations will remain in San Ramon, where Chevron employs about 2,000 people. Some Chevron employees in San Ramon will relocate to Houston.

The company’s move to Houston hardly comes as a surprise. Speculation about a relocation to Houston intensified after Chevron sold its 98-acre San Ramon headquarters in 2022 and moved corporate employees to leased office space. Over the past several years, Chevron has shifted various corporate functions to Houston.

“This is just the final step that many industry observers were waiting to happen,” Ken Medlock, senior director of the Baker Institute’s Center for Energy Studies at Rice University, says in a news release.

“To start, Houston provides a world-class location for internationally focused energy companies, which is why there is such a massive international presence here,” Medlock adds. “Texas is also the nation’s largest energy producer across multiple energy sources and is poised to lead in emerging opportunities such as hydrogen and carbon capture, so Houston is a great place for domestically focused activities as well.”

The announcement of Chevron’s exit from California comes just a year after ExxonMobil finalized its relocation from Irving to Spring.

“Chevron’s decision to relocate its headquarters underscores the compelling advantages that position Houston as the prime destination for leading energy companies today and for the future,” Steve Kean, president and CEO of the Greater Houston Partnership, says in a post on the organization’s website.

“With deep roots in our region,” he adds, “Chevron is [a] key player in establishing Houston as a global energy leader. This move will further enhance those efforts.”

------

This article originally ran on EnergyCapital.

View All Listings