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

Trailblazing Houston entrepreneur brings big ideas to new Yahoo Finance show

tune in

Elizabeth Gore, co-founder and president of Houston's Hello Alice, debuted the first episode of her new video podcast series with Yahoo Finance on Thursday, April 24.

The weekly series, known as "The Big Idea with Elizabeth Gore," will focus on providing information and resources to small business owners and sharing stories of entrepreneurship, according to a news release from Yahoo Finance.

“Entrepreneurs and small business owners drive our country’s economy forward. With a record number of small businesses launching in our communities, my goal is to help every citizen live the American Dream. On the Big Idea, we will break down barriers for entrepreneurs and lift up opportunities for every person wanting to be their own boss,” Gore said in the release.

“By hosting the 'Big Idea' on Yahoo Finance, I’m looking forward to elevating business owners’ stories and providing actionable insights to small business owners at a scale like never before. I am blown away to be joining the number one finance news source that is already trusted by so many.”

Gore was joined by Hello Alice co-founder and CEO Carolyn Rodz in the premiere episode, titled "Got a big idea for a small business? Here's your first step," to discuss the steps they took when launching the business.

Gore and Rodz founded Hello Alice in 2017. The fintech platform supports over 1.5 million small businesses across the nation. It has helped owners access affordable capital and credit and distributed over $57 million in grants to businesses across various industries. The company raised a series C round backed by Mastercard last year for an undisclosed amount and reported that the funding brought the company's valuation up to $130 million at the time.

According to Yahoo Finance, Gore's experience and expertise build on its "mission to be the trusted guide of financial information to all investors, and democratize access to quality content."

“Over the past year, we invested in expanding our programming lineup with the launch of new shows and podcasts, and welcomed new financial creators and influencers into our newsroom,” Anthony Galloway, head of content at Yahoo Finance, added the release. “By diversifying our programming and talent roster, Yahoo Finance is introducing unique points-of-view that make financial topics more engaging, actionable, and personalized. Small business owners are a vital part of our audience, so we’re excited to welcome Elizabeth Gore from Hello Alice, whose insights and expertise will help us serve and connect with this important cohort in meaningful ways.”

The show is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, iHeart, Pandora, and Amazon Music for listening. Streamers can view it on yahoofinance.com, Amazon Prime Video, Samsung TV, Fire TV, Vizio, Haystack, DirectTV and other streaming platforms. Watch the premiere here:

7 top Houston researchers join Rice innovation cohort for 2025

top of class

The Liu Idea Lab for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Lilie) has announced its 2025 Rice Innovation Fellows cohort, which includes students developing cutting-edge thermal management solutions for artificial intelligence, biomaterial cell therapy for treating lymphedema, and other innovative projects.

The program aims to support Rice Ph.D. students and postdocs in turning their research into real-world solutions and startups.

“Our fourth cohort of fellows spans multiple industries addressing the most pressing challenges of humanity,” Kyle Judah, Lilie’s executive director, said in a news release. “We see seven Innovation Fellows and their professors with the passion and a path to change the world.”

The seven 2025 Innovation Fellows are:

Chen-Yang Lin, Materials Science and Nanoengineering, Ph.D. 2025

Professor Jun Lou’s Laboratory

Lin is a co-founder of HEXAspec, a startup that focuses on creating thermal management solutions for artificial intelligence chips and high-performance semiconductor devices. The startup won the prestigious H. Albert Napier Rice Launch Challenge (NRLC) competition last year and also won this year's Energy Venture Day and Pitch Competition during CERAWeek in the TEX-E student track.

Sarah Jimenez, Bioengineering, Ph.D. 2027

Professor Camila Hochman-Mendez Laboratory

Jimenez is working to make transplantable hearts out of decellularized animal heart scaffolds in the lab and the creating an automated cell delivery system to “re-cellularize” hearts with patient-derived stem cells.

Alexander Lathem, Applied Physics and Chemistry, Ph.D. 2026

Professor James M. Tour Laboratory

Lathem’s research is focused on bringing laser-induced graphene technology from “academia into industry,” according to the university.

Dilrasbonu Vohidova is a Bioengineering, Ph.D. 2027

Professor Omid Veiseh Laboratory

Vohidova’s research focuses on engineering therapeutic cells to secrete immunomodulators, aiming to prevent the onset of autoimmunity in Type 1 diabetes.

Alexandria Carter, Bioengineering, Ph.D. 2027

Professor Michael King Laboratory

Carter is developing a device that offers personalized patient disease diagnostics by using 3D culturing and superhydrophobicity.

Alvaro Moreno Lozano, Bioengineering, Ph.D. 2027

Professor Omid Veiseh Lab

Lozano is using novel biomaterials and cell engineering to develop new technologies for patients with Type 1 Diabetes. The work aims to fabricate a bioartificial pancreas that can control blood glucose levels.

Lucas Eddy, Applied Physics and Chemistry, Ph.D. 2025

Professor James M. Tour Laboratory

Eddy specializes in building and using electrothermal reaction systems for nanomaterial synthesis, waste material upcycling and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) destruction.

This year, the Liu Lab also introduced its first cohort of five commercialization fellows. See the full list here.

The Rice Innovation Fellows program assists doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers with training and support to turn their ideas into ventures. Alumni have raised over $20 million in funding and grants, according to Lilie. Last year's group included 10 doctoral and postdoctoral students working in fields such as computer science, mechanical engineering and materials science.

“The Innovation Fellows program helps scientist-led startups accelerate growth by leveraging campus resources — from One Small Step grants to the Summer Venture Studio accelerator — before launching into hubs like Greentown Labs, Helix Park and Rice’s new Nexus at The Ion,” Yael Hochberg, head of the Rice Entrepreneurship Initiative and the Ralph S. O’Connor Professor in Entrepreneurship, said in the release. “These ventures are shaping Houston’s next generation of pillar companies, keeping our city, state and country at the forefront of innovation in mission critical industries.”

Houston startup Collide secures $5M to grow energy-focused AI platform

Fresh Funds

Houston-based Collide, a provider of generative artificial intelligence for the energy sector, has raised $5 million in seed funding led by Houston’s Mercury Fund.

Other investors in the seed round include Bryan Sheffield, founder of Austin-based Parsley Energy, which was acquired by Dallas-based Pioneer Natural Resources in 2021; Billy Quinn, founder and managing partner of Dallas-based private equity firm Pearl Energy Investments; and David Albin, co-founder and former managing partner of Dallas-based private equity firm NGP Capital Partners.

“(Collide) co-founders Collin McLelland and Chuck Yates bring a unique understanding of the oil and gas industry,” Blair Garrou, managing partner at Mercury, said in a news release. “Their backgrounds, combined with Collide’s proprietary knowledge base, create a significant and strategic moat for the platform.”

Collide, founded in 2022, says the funding will enable the company to accelerate the development of its GenAI platform. GenAI creates digital content such as images, videos, text, and music.

Originally launched by Houston media organization Digital Wildcatters as “a professional network and digital community for technical discussions and knowledge sharing,” the company says it will now shift its focus to rolling out its enterprise-level, AI-enabled solution.

Collide explains that its platform gathers and synthesizes data from trusted sources to deliver industry insights for oil and gas professionals. Unlike platforms such as OpenAI, Perplexity, and Microsoft Copilot, Collide’s platform “uniquely accesses a comprehensive, industry-specific knowledge base, including technical papers, internal processes, and a curated Q&A database tailored to energy professionals,” the company said.

Collide says its approximately 6,000 platform users span 122 countries.

---

This story originally appeared on our sister site, EnergyCapitalHTX.com.

View All Listings