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

8+ can't-miss Houston business and innovation events in January

where to be

Editor's note: Kick off 2026 by hearing insightful talks and making meaningful connections in Houston's innovation scene. From networking workshops to presentations from major industry leaders, here's what not to miss and how to register. Please note: this article may be updated to include additional event listings.

Jan. 13 – Financing the Future

Hear from James Blake, head of capital markets at Fervo Energy, in this informative talk. Blake will cover the current investment landscape for geothermal power, how geothermal projects are structured and the role of policy incentives and innovative financing models in moving the industry forward. A small reception follows.

This event is Tuesday, Jan. 13, from 5:30-7:30 p.m. at the Ion. Register here.

Jan. 13 – Your Path to the Boardroom

Visit Sesh Coworking to hear from Keith Dorsey, an executive advisor and author of The Boardroom Journey, as he shares insights and lessons from hundreds of corporate board members and presents an actionable roadmap for women at every stage of their careers. Dorsey will speak on what "optimal diversity” means in the boardroom, how purpose-driven leaders sustain resilience under relentless pressure and why inclusive leadership is non-negotiable for growth and innovation.

This event is Tuesday, Jan. 13, from 6-8 p.m. at Sesh Coworking. Register here.

Jan. 14 — A Conversation with Dr. Wayne J. Riley on Leading Through Healthcare Transformation

Rice Business Partners will host Dr. Wayne J. Riley, president of SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, for a moderated discussion with Dean Peter Rodriguez. Riley will share insights on leading complex healthcare organizations in an era of unprecedented industry challenges and reflect on his time at the Jones Graduate School of Business.

This event is Wednesday, Jan. 14, from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at McNair Hall on Rice University's campus. Register here.

Jan. 14 — VDW: Igniting Connections for Startup Success

Entrepreneurial communications instructor Diana Massaro will lead Lilie's latest Venture Development Workshop, focused on soft skills like clear communication, active listening and compelling introductions. Attendees will gain a personalized networking game plan and communication tools to turn casual encounters into meaningful relationships to support their ventures or careers.

This event is Wednesday, Jan. 14, from 6-7:30 p.m. at the Liu Idea Lab for Innovation and Entrepreneurship on Rice University's campus. Register here.

Jan. 21 — Upstream: Digital Tech Meetup

This month's Upstream: Digital Tech Meetup will explore how AI and real-time monitoring are being applied in safety-critical offshore environments, what’s working today, where the biggest gaps remain going into 2026 and how operators and service companies are approaching adoption. Expect to hear from leaders at NOV, Incom Solutions, Timbergrove and others.

This event is Wednesday, Jan. 21, from 8:30-10:30 a.m. at the Ion. Find more information here.

Jan. 22 — HEAD AND HEART: Leading Technology with Humanity While Everything Changes

Hear from Chris Hyams, former CEO of Indeed, at the latest installment of Rice's Master of Engineering Management & Leadership Seminar Series. Hyams will present on the intersection of technology, humanity and change—and how AI is reshaping all three.

This event is Thursday, Jan. 22, at 6 p.m. at Duncan Hall on Rice University's campus. Find more information here.

Jan. 22 – NASA Tech Talk

This month's NASA Tech Talks will feature a special delegation from the UK Science and Technology Network. Expect to hear from a panel of UK space experts, followed by a fireside chat featuring David Alexander, head of the Rice Space Institute, and Meganne Christian, ESA reserve astronaut and senior exploration manager.

This event is Thursday, Jan. 22, from 6-7 p.m. at the Ion. Find more information here.

Jan. 29 – Ignition Hub Startup Career Fair

Lilie will host the Ignition Hub Startup Career Fair this month in partnership with Rice University’s Center for Career Development and Career Development Office. The fair will bring together some of the most innovative, high-growth companies to offer Rice students exciting opportunities. Startups can apply to be considered for the fair. The event is open to Rice University undergraduate, graduate, MBA, and PhD students.

This event is Thursday, Jan. 29, at Grand Hall on Rice University's campus. Find more information here.

Jan. 29 – Health Policy Symposium: Value-Based Care & the Health Care Workforce

The Humana Integrated Health Systems Science Institute at the University of Houston will host its latest Health Policy Symposium this month, focused on the evolving landscape of value-based care and the importance of preparing and strengthening the health care workforce. Hear keynote addresses from leaders at Humana, UH, the American Medical Association and Houston Health Department.

This event is Thursday, Jan. 29, from 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the Tilman J. Fertitta Family College of Medicine on Rice University's campus. Find more information here.

Jan. 30 — GHP Annual Meeting

The Greater Houston Partnership's premier event will highlight the region’s progress, honor visionary leadership and set the tone for the year ahead. Hear reflections from outgoing board chair, Gretchen Watkins (former -president of Shell USA); welcome incoming board chair, Armando Perez (EVP of H-E-B Houston); and more

This event is Friday, Jan. 30, from 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at Hilton Americas. Find more information here.

CPRIT CEO: Houston’s $2B in funding is transforming cancer research and prevention

fighting cancer

With its plethora of prestigious health care organizations like the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, UTHealth Houston, and the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston sits at the heart of cancer research and prevention in Texas.

Of course, it takes piles of cash to support Houston’s status as the state’s hub for cancer research and prevention. Much of that money comes from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT).

Data supplied by CPRIT shows organizations in Harris County gained $2.3 billion in institute funding from 2009 through 2025, or nearly $145 million per year. That represents almost 60 percent of the roughly $4 billion that CPRIT has granted to Texas institutions over a 16-year period.

“The life sciences ecosystem that has developed and changed in Houston is phenomenal,” Kristen Doyle, who became the agency’s CEO in July 2024, tells InnovationMap. “In the next decade, we will look back and see a great transformation.”

That ecosystem includes more than 1,100 life sciences and biotech companies, according to the Greater Houston Partnership.

Houston plays critical role in clinical trials

Texas voters approved the creation of CPRIT in 2007. Twelve years later, voters agreed to earmark an extra $3 billion for CPRIT, bringing the state agency’s total investment in cancer research and prevention to $6 billion.

To date, CPRIT money has gone toward recruiting 344 cancer researchers to Texas (mainly to Houston) and has supported cancer prevention services for millions of Texans in the state’s 254 counties. CPRIT funding has also helped establish, expand, or relocate 25 cancer-focused companies. In Houston, MD Anderson ranks as the No. 1 recipient of CPRIT funding.

Regarding cancer research, Doyle says Houston plays a critical role in clinical trials.

“[Clinical trials are] something that CPRIT has focused on more and more. Brilliant discoveries are crucial to this whole equation of solving the cancer problem,” Doyle says. “But if those brilliant ideas stay in the labs, then we’ve all failed.”

Researchers conduct more clinical trials in Houston than anywhere else in the U.S., the Greater Houston Partnership says.

Doyle, a 20-year survivor of leukemia, notes that a minority of eligible patients participate in clinical trials for cancer treatments, “and that’s one of the reasons that it takes so long to get a promising drug to market.”

An estimated 7 percent of cancer patients sign up for clinical trials, according to a study published in 2024 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

MD Anderson takes on cancer prevention

Doyle also notes that Houston is leading the charge in cancer prevention.

“We get some national recognition for programs that have been developed in Houston that then can be replicated in other parts of the country,” she says.

Much of the work in Houston focusing on cancer prevention takes place at MD Anderson. The hospital reports that it has received more than $725 million from the CPRIT since 2007, representing approximately 18 percent of CPRIT’s total awards.

“These efforts can have profound impact on the lives of patients and their families, and this funding ensures our exemplary clinicians and scientists can continue working together to drive breakthroughs that advance our mission to end cancer,” Dr. Giulio Draetta, chief scientific officer at MD Anderson, said in a November news release, following the most recent CPRIT award for the hospital totaling more than $29 million.

CPRIT funding for Houston institutions supplements the more than $4.5 billion in federal funding for health and life sciences research and innovations that the Houston area received from 2020 to 2024, according to the Greater Houston Partnership.

“We are curing cancer every single day,” Doyle says of CPRIT. “Every step that we are taking — whether that’s funding great ideas or funding the clinical trials that are bringing promising drugs to Texas and to the world — we are making a difference.”

Houston energy tech co. breaks ground on low-cost hydrogen pilot plant

Coming Soon

Houston’s Lummus Technology and Advanced Ionics have broken ground on their hydrogen pilot plant at Lummus’ R&D facility in Pasadena, Texas.

The plant will support Advanced Ionics’ cutting-edge electrolyzer technology, which aims to deliver high-efficiency hydrogen production with reduced energy requirements.

“By demonstrating Advanced Ionics’ technology at our state-of-the-art R&D facility, we are leveraging the expertise of our scientists and R&D team, plus our proven track record of developing breakthrough technologies,” Leon de Bruyn, president and CEO of Lummus, said in a news release. “This will help us accelerate commercialization of the technology and deliver scalable, cost-effective and sustainable green hydrogen solutions to our customers.”

Advanced Ionics is a Milwaukee-based low-cost green hydrogen technology provider. Its electrolyzer converts process and waste heat into green hydrogen for less than a dollar per kilogram, according to the company. The platform's users include industrial hydrogen producers looking to optimize sustainability at an affordable cost.

Lummus, a global energy technology company, will operate the Advanced Ionics electrolyzer and manage the balance of plant systems.

In 2024, Lummus and Advanced Ionics established their partnership to help advance the production of cost-effective and sustainable hydrogen technology. Lummus Venture Capital also invested an undisclosed amount into Advanced Ionics at the time.

“Our collaboration with Lummus demonstrates the power of partnerships in driving the energy transition forward,” Ignacio Bincaz, CEO of Advanced Ionics, added in the news release. “Lummus serves as a launchpad for technologies like ours, enabling us to validate performance and integration under real-world conditions. This milestone proves that green hydrogen can be practical and economically viable, and it marks another key step toward commercial deployment.”

---

This article originally appeared on EnergyCapitalHTX.com.

View All Listings