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

Air taxi network to land in 'Texas triangle' of Houston, Austin, DFW next year

taking flight

San Jose, California-based aerospace company Archer Aviation is bringing its air-taxi system to the “Texas triangle” of Houston, Austin and Dallas-Fort Worth.

Currently, the planned zero-emission electric air taxi networks will use Archer’s Midnight air taxi to “turn 60- to 90-minute drives to major airports, business districts and major destinations into 10- to 20-minute flights,” the company said in a news release. Archer plans to begin flights in the Texas triangle next year.

The Midnight air taxi is an all-electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft. It can carry four passengers and a pilot and is designed for consecutive flights of about 20 miles.

Archer cites the Texas triangle as one of the busiest and fastest-growing “megaregions” in the country due to its proximity to coastal regions, major airports, and a number of business districts.

Archer Chief Commercial Officer Nikhil Goel described the air taxi experience to CW Houston as “100 times quieter than a helicopter for the price of an Uber Black.” He added that the air taxis are a combination of a helicopter, a small airplane and a drone.

In Houston, Archer’s air taxi network will aim to connect George Bush Intercontinental, William P. Hobby and Sugar Land Regional Airport with downtown destinations, including the Thompson Hotel helipad, and Galveston.

In Austin, it plans to link the city's Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and Austin Executive Airport with the F1 Circuit Helipad at the Circuit of the Americas. Archer debuted its Midnight aircraft at the F1 Prix in the Fan Zone and the F1 Paddock at Austin’s Circuit of the Americas. The Dallas-Fort Worth network is slated to include Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, Dallas Love Field, Addison Airport, Arlington Municipal Airport, Fort Worth Meacham International Airport and Perot Field Fort Worth Alliance Airport, plus major business hubs like Frisco Station.

“Texas is setting the bar for America’s leadership in the next generation of aviation,” Adam Goldstein, founder and CEO of Archer Aviation, said in the release. “Our planned networks will make the benefits of electric air taxis real for Texans — trading hours in traffic for minutes in the air, while connecting the biggest airports, business districts and sporting hubs in ways that America’s largest megaregion needs to grow.”

Archer is working with state and local partners to develop charging infrastructure and plans to pursue Texas operations through the White House’s eVTOL Integration Pilot Program, according to the release. It recently completed its "No Roads" flight tour, which included multiple flights over the San Francisco Bay, and flew to seven cities over three days.

5 Houston deep tech startups pushing the boundaries of their industries

meet the finalists

Houston has long been at the forefront of innovation, from NASA’s Johnson Space Center to its startup ecosystem using technology to disrupt industries.

As part of the 2026 Houston Innovation Awards, our Deep Tech Business category will honor an innovative startup providing technology solutions based on substantial scientific or engineering challenges, including those in the AI, robotics and space sectors.

Five deep tech companies have been named finalists for the 2026 award.

Read more about these businesses, their founders and their breakthrough technologies below. The 2026 winners will be announced on InnovationMap.com in mid-November.

Casimir

Battery tech startup Casimir develops semiconductor chips that produce continuous electrical power straight from the quantum vacuum, without the need for a battery, cord or external charge source. The company is targeting commercialization for its first-generation MicroSparc chip by 2028.

Harold “Sonny” White founded Casimir in 2023 after nearly two decades at NASA. The company emerged from stealth with a $12 million seed round in 2026. It was also awarded an STTR Phase I contract from the U.S. Space Force's SpaceWERX to support the development of the company's solid-state generator for potential use by the Department of the Air Force earlier this year.

FocisAI

Artificial intelligence startup FocisAI helps refinery owner-operators unlock actionable insights from 3D scans and images.

FocisAI was founded by CEO Tyler Wooten, COO Colin Snell and CTO Kyle Snell in 2026. It is a member of Greentown Labs and launched a seed round in September, which is expected to close by the end of the year, according to the company's application. It has rolled out 10 pilot programs and is looking to move into recurring, facility-scale deployments and scale its team in Houston this year.

Machine Saver Inc.

Industrial tech startup Machine Saver Inc. builds wireless and wired vibration and proximity sensors to tell heavy industry when a machine is about to fail. The company's technology runs on an 8-plus-year battery life and helps operators reduce downtime, improve maintenance and extend equipment life.

Machine Saver was founded by CEO Colton Bach and Quentin Bach in 2013. Its customers and partners include Houston Methodist, Blue Bell, Genemco, as well as energy and heavy industry, food and beverage, and cold chain companies, according to its application. The company is raising a Series A.

Square Robot

Energytech startup Square Robot develops and operates submersible inspection robotics that inspect aboveground storage tanks while they remain in service. The robots reduce downtime and costs, improve worker safety and limit hydrocarbon emissions.

Square Robot launched its Houston office in 2019 and closed a Series B in 2025. It plans to complete its first U.S. Navy demonstrator tank in November and is also developing real-time inspection software.

Venus Aerospace

Spacetech company Venus Aerospace is developing a high-thrust rotating detonation rocket engine (RDRE) that replaces the subsonic combustion used in conventional rocket engines. The RDRE is a compact, simpler engine that can deliver up to 15 percent greater efficiency for defense and space applications. It completed its first U.S. flight test of the engine last summer.

Venus Aerospace was founded in 2020 by CEO Cassie Duggleby and CTO Andrew Duggleby. It raised a $20 million Series A in 2022 and $42 million Series A2 in 2025. It closed a $91 million Series B earlier this year and expanded its leadership team. The company is working toward longer-duration and higher-thrust testing and advancing its flight program.

Houston leads U.S. with the biggest surge in millionaire renters

Rent Report

The number of millionaire renters and homeowners in the U.S. has surged over the last five years, and Houston has soared ahead of the rest with the largest growth rate among these affluent renter households.

Houston leads the nation with the No. 1 increase in millionaire renters from 2020 to 2024, a new RentCafe study found. The number of these wealthy households increased from 18 to 232 over the last five years, representing a 1,189 percent growth rate.

"The pandemic accelerated the shift as remote work pushed the wealthy to relocate to lower-tax metros like Houston, where millionaire renters grew 13-fold, versus 3.9-fold for owners," the report said. "Granted, 232 households is still a tiny fraction of the Houston metro’s roughly 2.7 million households, but the growth rate far outpaces any other major metro."

Nationwide, the number of millionaire renter households grew 229 percent from 2020 to 2024, outpacing the 193 percent growth rate among millionaire homeowners.

Dallas was the only other Texas metro to crack the top 10. The number of millionaire renter households in North Texas has more than quintupled, from just 30 in 2020 to 165 in 2024. That represents a growth rate of 450 percent, which — surprisingly — is only the eighth highest nationwide.

But when it comes to the largest populations of millionaire renters, New York City and San Francisco still lead the way. New York claimed the No. 1 spot with nearly 7,300 millionaire renters living in the city in 2024. Houston ranked 12th on that list.

Elsewhere in Texas, Austin and Dallas ranked as the 16th and 17th, respectively, for the largest population of millionaire renters. There were 206 millionaire renters living in Austin in 2024, and 165 in Dallas.

This is who the typical millionaire renter is
The report also revealed a surprising statistic about the typical millionaire renter in the U.S. — a lot of them are millennials working in "white-collar, high-earning fields."

"Nearly half (49 percent) of millionaire renters are Millennials, and the number of affluent Millennial renter households surged 392 percent during the five-year period," the report said. "Gen X follows with 33 percent of millionaire Gen X households renting after increasing by 147 percent."

The report continued, "Although Gen Z still represents a small share of millionaire renters (just 2 percent of the total), no generation has expanded faster: Gen Z millionaire renter households leaped from fewer than a dozen to more than 400 — a tiny cohort today, but one that was virtually nonexistent five years ago."

The top three most common professions for millionaire renters are chief executives, software developers, and managers, the report additionally found. In Houston, the surge of wealthy newcomers are mostly executives, professional athletes, and entertainers.

"These roles tend to generate steady, substantial income without necessarily tying workers to one location, making renting a practical fit, rather than a financial necessity," the report said.

Hotspots for millionaire homeowners
In RentCafe's separate list comparing the top 10 most popular U.S. metros for millionaire homeowners, Houston ranked 12th nationally with 4,374 millioniare homeowners living in the metro as of 2024. These wealthy Houstonians are most likely working as chief executives, physicians, managers, and lawyers and judges.

Houston has already proven to be a hotspot for millennial homebuyers, and the latest RentCafe data says millennials make up 19 percent of all millionaire homeowners in the U.S. Gen Xers and Baby Boomers still maintain the largest shares of millionaire homeowners nationwide, at 45 and 33 percent, respectively.

Dallas (No. 10) and Austin (No. 20) also appeared among the hottest metros for millionaire homeowners.

Only one Texas city appeared among RentCafe's list of the 20 fastest-growing metros for millionaire homeowners: College Station ranked 13th nationwide with a growth rate of 1,329 percent. From 2020-2024, the number of millionaire homeowners residing in College Station grew from 14 to 200.

---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

View All Listings