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

Report: These 10 jobs earn the biggest salary premiums in Texas

A move to Texas bolsters earnings for some, and a new SmartAsset study has revealed the top professions where the median annual earnings in the Lone Star State exceed the national median.

The report, "When it Pays to Work in Texas — and When It Doesn’t," published in April, analyzed over 700 occupations to determine which have the biggest "Texas premium" — meaning jobs where the price-adjusted median annual pay in Texas most exceeds the national median for the same occupation — and which jobs have the biggest “Texas penalty,” where the statewide median annual pay falls furthest below the national median. Salaries were sourced from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and adjusted for regional price parity.

According to the report's findings, geoscientists have the biggest "Texas premium" and make a $159,903 median annual salary. Texas' salary for geoscientists is 61 percent higher than the national median for the same position (after adjusting for regional price parity).

"Texas’s large petroleum industry helps explain why employers in the state retain so many geoscientists," the report's author wrote. "In fact, the Lone Star State is home to more geoscientists than any other state except California."

There are more than 3,600 geoscientists working in Texas, SmartAsset said.

These are the remaining top 10 occupations with the biggest "Texas premiums" (salaries are price-adjusted):

  • No. 2 – Commercial pilots: $167,727 median Texas earnings; 37 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 3 – Sailors: $67,614 median Texas earnings; 36 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 4 – Aircraft structure assemblers: $83,519 median Texas earnings; 35 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 5 – Ship captains: $108,905 median Texas earnings; 27 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 6 – Nursing instructors (postsecondary): $100,484 median Texas earnings; 26 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 7 – Tax preparers: $63,321 median Texas earnings; 25 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 8 – Chemists: $104,241 median Texas earnings; 24 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 9 – Health instructors (postsecondary): $128,680 median Texas earnings; 22 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 10 – Engineering instructors (postsecondary): $129,030 median Texas earnings; 22 percent higher than the national media

The careers where Texas workers earn less

SmartAsset said an editor is the Texas profession where workers earn the furthest below the median for the same occupation elsewhere in the U.S. Not to be confused with film and video editors, BLS defines editors as those who "plan, coordinate, revise, or edit written material" and "may review proposals and drafts for possible publication."

The study found editors make a price-adjusted median wage of $29,710, which is 61 percent lower than the national median for the same position, and there are nearly 8,200 editors in Texas.

It's worth noting that the salaries for editors may be skewed by the fact that there are not major publications in rural areas of Texas, and other professions may also have financial deviations for similar reasons.

Several healthcare jobs also appear to have the worst penalties in Texas compared to elsewhere in the country. Home health aides are the second-worst paying professions in the state, making a median wage of $24,161.

"More home health aides work in Texas than in nearly any other state, with only California and New York employing more," the report said. "However, the more than 300,000 Texans in this occupation earn median annual pay that is about 31 percent below the national median, after adjusting for regional price parity.

SmartAsset clarified that pay penalties are not consistent "across the board" for other healthcare occupations in Texas.

"For physical therapy assistants, occupational therapy assistants, and postsecondary nursing instructors, Texas may be an especially strong place to work, with these occupations offering 'Texas premiums' of between 17 percent and 26 percent," the study said.

These are the remaining top 10 occupations where median annual earnings in Texas fall furthest below the national median for the same occupation:

  • No. 3 – Cardiovascular technicians: $49,382 median Texas earnings; 27 percent lower than the national median
  • No. 4 – Semiconductor processing technicians: $38,295 median Texas earnings; 25 percent lower than the national median
  • No. 5 – Tutors: $30,060 median Texas earnings; 25 percent lower than the national median
  • No. 6 – Control and valve installers: $56,496 median Texas earnings; 24 percent lower than the national median
  • No. 7 – Mental health social workers: $46,109 median Texas earnings; 23 percent lower than the national median
  • No. 8 – Clinical psychologists: $74,449 median Texas earnings; 22 percent lower than the national median
  • No. 9 – Producers/directors: $65,267 median Texas earnings; 22 percent lower than the national median
  • No. 10 – Interpreters/translators: $46,953 median Texas earnings; 21 percent lower than the national median

---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

Houston rises in 2026 ranking of best U.S. cities to start a business

Best for Biz

Houston has reaffirmed its commitment to a business-friendly environment and now ranks as the 26th best large U.S. city for starting a business in 2026. The city jumped up eight places after ranking 34th last year.

WalletHub's annual report compared 100 U.S. cities based on 19 relevant metrics across three key dimensions: business environment, access to resources, and costs. Factors that were analyzed include five-year business survival rates, job growth comparisons from 2020 and 2024, population growth of working-age individuals aged 16-64, office space affordability, and more.

Florida cities locked out the top five best places in America for starting a new business: Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville, Hialeah, and St. Petersburg.

Houston's business environment ranked as the 19th best in the country, and the city ranked 51st in the "business costs" category. However, the city lagged behind in the "access to resources" ranking, coming in at No. 72 overall. This category examined metrics such as Houston's working-age population growth, the share of college-educated individuals, financing accessibility, the prevalence of investors, venture investment amounts per capita, and more.

"From the Gold Rush and the Industrial Revolution to the Internet Age, periods of innovation have shaped our economy and driven major societal progress," the report's author wrote. "However, the past few years have been particularly challenging for business owners in the U.S., due to factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the Great Resignation and high inflation."

Earlier this year, WalletHub declared Texas the third-best state for starting a business in 2026, and several Houston-area cities have seen robust growth after being recognized among the best career hotspots in the U.S. Entrepreneurial praise has also been extended to five local companies that were named the most innovative companies in the world, and six powerhouse female innovators that made Inc. Magazine's 2026 Female Founders 500 list.

Texas cities with strong environments for new businesses
Multiple cities in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex can claim bragging rights as the best Texas locales for starting a new business. Dallas ranked highest overall — appearing 11th nationally — and Irving landed a few spots behind in the 16th spot. Arlington (No. 23), Fort Worth (No. 30), Plano, (No. 35), and Garland (No. 65) followed behind.

Only six other Texas cities earned spots in the report: Austin (No. 24), Lubbock (No. 36), Corpus Christi (No. 39), San Antonio (No. 64), El Paso (No. 67), and Laredo (No. 76).

Austin tied with Boise, Idaho and Fresno, California for the highest average growth in the number of small businesses nationally, while Corpus Christi and Laredo topped a separate list of the U.S. cities with the most accessible financing.

---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

Houston humanoid robotics startup taps Amazon veteran to lead manufacturing

new hire

Persona AI, a Houston-based startup that’s developing AI-powered humanoid robots for manufacturers and other businesses, has hired Brian Davis as head of global manufacturing.

Davis previously guided teams at Amazon Robotics and Dell Technologies. During his tenure at Amazon Robotics and Dell, both companies saw major increases in manufacturing volumes within a four-year period. Davis oversaw manufacturing, supply chain, logistics, quality assurance and real estate.

“Davis steps into this role [at Persona AI] as industrial enterprises face an urgent and accelerating challenge: a structural shortage of capacity for welding, fabrication, and heavy maintenance in dynamic environments, precisely the high-value, high-risk tasks where humanoid robots can deliver the greatest impact,” according to a company news release.

Davis comes aboard as Persona AI, founded in 2024, seeks to meet demand generated by deals with HD Hyundai and POSCO Group to make humanoids for shipyards and steel plants, and by a pilot program with the State of Louisiana.

“Now is the perfect time to accelerate our production capabilities as we rapidly close the gap between what’s possible in the lab versus what’s driving real commercial value,” Davis says.

“Building industrial-rated humanoid robots and production-deployable AI is only one piece of the puzzle,” he adds. “Producing humanoids at scale will require systematic supply chain management, stringent quality control, and building the playbook for safe, high-volume manufacturing. That’s what I’m here to build.”

Last year, Persona AI raised more than more than $10 million in pre-seed funding. The company also named a new head of commercial strategy in March.
View All Listings