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

Texas plugs in among states at highest risk for summer power outages in 2025

hot, hot, hot

Warning: Houston could be in for an especially uncomfortable summer.

A new study from solar energy company Wolf River Electric puts Texas at No. 2 among the states most at risk for power outages this summer. Michigan tops the list.

Wolf River Electric analyzed the number of large-scale outages that left more than 5,000 utility customers, including homes, stores and schools, without summertime electricity from 2019 to 2023. During that period, Texas experienced 7,164 summertime power outages.

Despite Michigan being hit with more summertime outages, Texas led the list of states with the most hours of summertime power outages — an annual average of 35,440. That works out to 1,477 days. “This means power cuts in Texas tend to last longer, making summer especially tough for residents and businesses,” the study says.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which operates the electric grid serving 90 percent of the state, predicts its system will set a monthly record for peak demand this August — 85,759 megawatts. That would exceed the current record of 85,508 megawatts, dating back to August 2023.

In 2025, natural gas will account for 37.7 percent of ERCOT’s summertime power-generating capacity, followed by wind (22.9 percent) and solar (19 percent), according to an ERCOT fact sheet.

This year, ERCOT expects four months to surpass peak demand of 80,000 megawatts:

  • June 2025 — 82,243 megawatts
  • July 2025 — 84,103 megawatts
  • August 2025 — 85,759 megawatts
  • September 2025 — 80,773 megawatts

One megawatt is enough power to serve about 250 residential customers amid peak demand, according to ERCOT. Using that figure, the projected peak of 85,759 megawatts in August would supply enough power to serve more than 21.4 million residential customers in Texas.

Data centers, artificial intelligence and population growth are driving up power demand in Texas, straining the ERCOT grid. In January, ERCOT laid out a nearly $33 billion plan to boost power transmission capabilities in its service area.

Houston ranks among top 5 cities for corporate HQ relocations in new report

h-town HQ

The Houston area already holds the title as the country’s third biggest metro hub for Fortune 500 headquarters, behind the New York City and Chicago areas. Now, Houston can tout another HQ accolade: It’s in a fourth-place tie with the Phoenix area for the most corporate headquarters relocations from 2018 to 2024.

During that period, the Houston and Phoenix areas each attracted 31 corporate headquarters, according to new research from commercial real estate services company CBRE. CBRE’s list encompasses public announcements from companies across various sizes and industries about relocating their corporate headquarters within the U.S.

Of the markets included in CBRE’s study, Dallas ranked first for corporate relocations (100) from 2018 to 2024. It’s followed by Austin (81), Nashville (35), Houston and Phoenix (31 each), and Denver (23).

According to CBRE, reasons cited by companies for moving their headquarters include:

  • Access to lower taxes
  • Availability of tax incentives
  • Proximity to key markets
  • Ability to support hybrid work

“Corporations now view headquarters locations as strategic assets, allowing for adaptability and faster reaction to market changes,” said CBRE.

Among the high-profile companies that moved their headquarters to the Houston area from 2018 to 2024 are:

  • Chevron
  • ExxonMobil
  • Hewlett-Packard Enterprise
  • Murphy Oil

Many companies that have shifted their headquarters to the Houston area, such as Chevron, are in the energy sector.

“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, said in 2024. “With deep roots in our region, Chevron is a key player in establishing Houston as a global energy leader. This move will further enhance those efforts.”

According to CBRE, California (particularly the San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles areas) lost the most corporate HQs in 2024, with 17 companies announcing relocations—12 of them to Texas. Also last year, Texas gained nearly half of all state-to-state relocations.

In March, Site Selection magazine awarded Texas its 2024 Governor’s Cup, resulting in 13 consecutive wins for the state with the most corporate relocations and expansions.

In a news release promoting the latest Governor’s Cup victory, Gov. Greg Abbott hailed Texas as “the headquarters of headquarters.”

“Texas partners with the businesses that come to our great state to grow,” Abbott said. “When businesses succeed, Texas succeeds.”

CBRE explained that the trend of corporate HQ relocations reflects the desire of companies to seek new environments to support their goals and workforce needs.

“Ultimately, companies are seeking to establish themselves in locations with potential for long-term success and profitability,” CBRE said.

SpaceX test rocket explodes in Texas, but no injuries reported

SpaceX Update

A SpaceX rocket being tested in Texas exploded Wednesday night, sending a dramatic fireball high into the sky.

The company said the Starship “experienced a major anomaly” at about 11 pm while on the test stand preparing for the 10th flight test at Starbase, SpaceX’s launch site at the southern tip of Texas.

“A safety clear area around the site was maintained throughout the operation and all personnel are safe and accounted for,” SpaceX said in a statement on the social platform X.

CEO Elon Musk ’s SpaceX said there were no hazards to nearby communities. It asked people not to try to approach the site.

The company said it is working with local officials to respond to the explosion.

The explosion comes on the heels of an out-of-control Starship test flight in late May, which tumbled out of control. The FAA demanded an investigation into the accident.

View All Listings