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 maritime startup raises $43M to electrify vessels, opens new HQ

Maritime Mission

A Houston-based maritime technology company that is working to reduce emissions in the cargo and shipping industry has raised VC funding and opened a new Houston headquarters.

Fleetzero announced that it closed a $43 million Series A financing round this month led by Obvious Ventures with participation from Maersk Growth, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, 8090 Industries, Y Combinator, Shorewind, Benson Capital and others. The funding will go toward expanding manufacturing of its Leviathan hybrid and electric marine propulsion system, according to a news release.

The technology is optimized for high-energy and zero-emission operation of large vessels. It uses EV technology but is built for maritime environments and can be used on new or existing ships with hybrid or all-electric functions, according to Fleetzero's website. The propulsion system was retrofitted and tested on Fleetzero’s test ship, the Pacific Joule, and has been deployed globally on commercial vessels.

Fleetzero is also developing unmanned cargo vessel technology.

"Fleetzero is making robotic ships a reality today. The team is moving us from dirty, dangerous, and expensive to clean, safe, and cost-effective. It's like watching the future today," Andrew Beebe, managing director at Obvious Ventures, said in the news release. "We backed the team because they are mariners and engineers, know the industry deeply, and are scaling with real ships and customers, not just renderings."

Fleetzero also announced that it has opened a new manufacturing and research and development facility, which will serve as the company's new headquarters. The facility features a marine robotics and autonomy lab, a marine propulsion R&D center and a production line with a capacity of 300 megawatt-hours per year. The company reports that it plans to increase production to three gigawatt-hours per year over the next five years.

"Houston has the people who know how to build and operate big hardware–ships, rigs, refineries and power systems," Mike Carter, co-founder and COO of Fleetzero, added in the release. "We're pairing that industrial DNA with modern batteries, autonomy, and software to bring back shipbuilding to the U.S."

---

This article originally appeared on EnergyCapitalHTX.com.

New cancer-fighting nanodrug tops Houston innovation news to know

Trending News

Editor's note: The new year brings big Houston innovation news, from pending retirements to new hires and a cancer-fighting nanodrug. Below are the five most-read InnovationMap stories published January 16-30, 2026:

1. Houston team uses CPRIT funding to develop nanodrug for cancer immunotherapy

Wei Gao (center), a UH assistant professor of pharmacology, and her team have developed Nano-273, which helps the immune system fight pancreatic and lung cancers. Photo courtesy UH.

With a relative five-year survival rate of 50 percent, pancreatic cancer is a diagnosis nobody wants. At 60 percent, the prognosis for lung cancer isn’t much rosier. That’s because both cancers contain regulatory B cells (Bregs), which block the body’s natural immunity, making it harder to fight the enemies within. Newly popular immunotherapies in a category known as STING agonists may stimulate natural cancer defenses. However, they can also increase Bregs while simultaneously causing significant side effects. But Wei Gao, assistant professor of pharmacology at the University of Houston College of Pharmacy, may have a solution to that conundrum. Continue reading.

2. Rice Alliance and the Ion leader Brad Burke to retire this summer

Houston entrepreneurship and innovation leader Brad Burke is set to retire on June 30. Photo by Jeff Fitlow/Rice University

Brad Burke—a Rice University associate vice president who leads the Ion District’s Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship and is a prominent figure in Houston’s startup community—is retiring this summer after a 25-year career at the university. Burke will remain at the Rice Alliance as an adviser until his retirement on June 30. Continue reading.

3. 5+ must-know application deadlines for Houston innovators

The University of Michigan's Intero Biosystems earned a top-place finish and the largest total investment from the 2025 Rice Business Plan Competition. Photo courtesy Rice University.

As 2026 ramps up, the Houston innovation scene is looking for the latest groups of innovative startups that'll make an impact. A number of accelerators and competitions have opened applications. See which might be a good fit for you or your venture, and take careful note of the deadlines. Continue reading.

4. Houston startups closed $1.75 billion in 2025 VC funding, says report

Local startups collected $1.75 billion in venture capital in 2025. Photo via Pexels.

Going against national trends, Houston-area startups raised 7 percent less venture capital last year than they did in 2024, according to the PitchBook-NVCA Venture Monitor report. The report shows local startups collected $1.75 billion in venture capital in 2025, down from $1.89 billion the previous year. Continue reading.

5. Baylor College of Medicine names Minnesota med school dean as new president, CEO ​

Baylor College of Medicine has named Dr. Jakub Tolar as its new president, CEO and executive dean. Photo courtesy of Mendel Lectures.

Dr. Jakub Tolar, dean of the University of Minnesota Medical School, is taking over as president, CEO and executive dean of Houston’s Baylor College of Medicine on July 1. Tolar—who’s also vice president for clinical affairs at the University of Minnesota and a university professor—will succeed Dr. Paul Klotman as head of BCM. Klotman is retiring June 30 after leading Texas’ top-ranked medical school since 2010. Continue reading.

Innovative Houston-area hardtech startup closes $5M seed round

fresh funding

Conroe-based hardtech startup FluxWorks has closed a $5 million seed round.

The funding was led by Austin-based Scout Ventures, which invests in early-stage startups working to solve national security challenges.

Michigan Capital Network also contributed to the round from its MCN Venture Fund V. The fund is one of 18 selected by the Department of Defense and Small Business Administration to participate in the Small Business Investment Company Critical Technologies Initiative, which will invest $4 billion into over 1,700 portfolio companies.

FluxWorks reports that it will use the funding to drive the commercialization of its flagship Celestial Gear technology.

"At Scout, we invest in 'frontier tech' that is essential to national interest. FluxWorks is doing exactly that by solving critical hardware bottlenecks with its flagship Celestial Gear technology ... This is about more than just gears; it’s about strengthening our industrial infrastructure," Scout Ventures shared in a LinkedIn post.

Fluxworks specializes in making contactless magnetic gears for use in extreme conditions, which can enhance in-space manufacturing. Its contactless design leads to less wear, debris and maintenance. Its technology is particularly suited for space applications because it does not require lubricants, which can be difficult to control at harsh temperatures and in microgravity.

The company received a grant from the Texas Space Commission last year and was one of two startups to receive the Technology in Space Prize, funded by Boeing and the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS), in 2024. It also landed $1.2 million through the National Science Foundation's SBIR Phase II grant this fall.

Fluxworks was founded in College Station by CEO Bryton Praslicka in 2021. Praslicka moved the company to Conroe 2024.

View All Listings