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

Meet 6 mentors who are helping the Houston startup scene flourish

meet the finalists

Few founders launch successful startups alone — experienced and insightful mentors often play an integral role in helping the business and its founders thrive.

The Houston startup community is home to many mentors who are willing to lend an ear and share advice to help entrepreneurs meet their goals.

The Mentor of the Year category in our 2025 Houston Innovation Awards will honor an individual like this, who dedicates their time and expertise to guide and support budding entrepreneurs. The award is presented by Houston City College Northwest.

Below, meet the six finalists for the 2025 award. They support promising startups in the medical tech, digital health, clean energy and hardware sectors.

Then, join us at the Houston Innovation Awards this Thursday, Nov. 13 at Greentown Labs, when the winner will be unveiled. The event is just days away, so secure your seats now.

Anil Shetty, InformAI

Anil Shetty serves as president and chief medical officer for biotech company Ferronova and chief innovation officer for InformAI. He's mentored numerous medical device and digital health companies at seed or Series A, including Pathex, Neurostasis, Vivifi Medical and many others. He mentors through organizations like Capital Factory, TMC Biodesign, UT Venture Mentoring, UTMB Innovation and Rice's Global Medical Innovation program.

"Being a mentor means empowering early-stage innovators to shape, test, and refine their ideas with clarity and purpose," Shetty says. "I’m driven by the opportunity to help them think strategically and pivot early before resources are wasted. At this critical stage, most founders lack the financial means to bring on seasoned experts and often haven’t yet gained real-world exposure. Mentorship allows me to fill that gap, offering guidance that accelerates their learning curve and increases the chances of meaningful, sustainable impact."

Jason Ethier, EnergyTech Nexus

Jason Ethier is the founding partner of EnergyTech Nexus, through which he has mentored numerous startups and Innovation Awards finalists, including Geokiln, Energy AI Solutions, Capwell Services and Corrolytics. He founded Dynamo Micropower in 2011 and served as its president and CEO. He later co-founded Greentown Labs in Massachusetts and helped bring the accelerator to Houston.

"Being a mentor means using my experience to help founders see a clearer path to success. I’ve spent years navigating the ups and downs of building companies, struggling with cash flow, and making all the mistakes; mentoring gives me the chance to share those lessons and show entrepreneurs the shortcuts I wish I’d known earlier," Ethier says. "At Energytech Nexus, that role goes beyond just helping individual founders — it’s about creating a flywheel effect for Houston’s entire innovation ecosystem."

Jeremy Pitts, Activate Houston

Jeremy Pitts serves as managing director of Activate Houston, which launched in Houston last year. He was one of the founders of Greentown Labs in the Boston area and served in a leadership role for the organization between 2011 and 2015. Through Activate, he has mentored numerous impactful startups and Innovation Awards finalists, including Solidec, Coflux Purification, Bairitone Health, Newfound Materials, Deep Anchor Solutions and others.

"Being a mentor to me is very much about supporting the person in whatever they need. Oftentimes that means supporting the business—providing guidance and advice, feedback, introductions, etc," But just as important is recognizing the person and helping them with whatever challenges they are going through ... Sometimes they need a hype man to tell them how awesome they are and that they can go do whatever hard thing they need to do. Sometimes they just need an empathetic listener who can relate to how hard these things are. Being there for the person and supporting them on their journey is key to my mentorship style."

Joe Alapat, Liongard

Joe Alapat founded and serves as chief strategy officer at Houston software company Liongard and chief information officer at Empact IT, which he also owns. He mentors through Founder Fridays Houston Group, Software Day by Mercury Fund, SUPERGirls SHINE Foundation, Cup of Joey and at the Ion. He's worked with founders of FlowCare, STEAM OnDemand, Lokum and many other early stage startups.

"Being a mentor to me means unleashing an individual’s 10x—their purpose, their ikigai (a Japanese concept that speaks to a person’s reason for being)," Alapat says. "Mentoring founders in the Houston community of early stage, high-growth startups is an honor for me. I get to live vicariously through a founder’s vision of the future. Once they show me that compelling vision, I’m drawn to bring the future forward with them so the vision becomes reality with a sense of urgency."

Neal Dikeman, Energy Transition Ventures

Neal Dikeman serves as partner at early stage venture fund Energy Transition Ventures, executive in residence at Greentown Labs, and offices in and supports Rice Nexus at the Ion. He mentors startups, like Geokiln, personally. He also mentored Helix Earth through Greentown Labs. The company went on to win in the Smart Cities, Transportation & Sustainability contest at SXSW earlier this year. Dikeman has helped launch several successful startups himself, most recently serving on the board of directors for Resilient Power Systems, which was acquired by Eaton Corp for $150 million.

"Founders have to find their own path, and most founders need a safe space where they can discuss hard truths outside of being 'on' in sales mode with their team or board or investors, to let them be able to work on their business, not just in it," Dikeman says.

Nisha Desai, Intention

Nisha Desai serves as CEO of investment firm Intention and mentors through Greentown Labs, TEX-E, Open Minds, the Rice Alliance Clean Energy Accelerator, Avatar Innovations and The Greenhouse. She currently works with founders from Solidec, Deep Anchor Solutions, CLS Wind and several other local startups, several of which have been nominated for Innovation Awards this year. She's served a board member for Greentown Labs since 2021.

"When I first started mentoring, I viewed my role as someone who was supposed to prevent the founder from making bad decisions. Now, I see my role as a mentor as enabling the founder to develop their own decision-making capability," Desai says. "Sometimes that means giving them the space to make decisions that might be good, that might be bad, but that they can be accountable for. At the end of the day, being a mentor is like being granted a place on the founder's leadership development journey, and it's a privilege I'm grateful for."

---

The Houston Innovation Awards program is sponsored by Houston City College Northwest, Houston Powder Coaters, FLIGHT by Yuengling, and more to be announced soon. For sponsorship opportunities, please contact sales@innovationmap.com.

Rice, Houston Methodist developing soft 'sleep cap' for brain health research

Researchers and scientists at Rice University and Houston Methodist are developing a “sleep cap” that aims to protect the brain against dementia and other similar diseases by measuring and improving deep sleep.

The project is a collaboration between Rice University engineering professors Daniel Preston, Vanessa Sanchez and Behnaam Aazhang; and Houston Methodist neurologist Dr. Timea Hodics and Dr. Gavin Britz, director of the Houston Methodist Neurological Institute and chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery.

According to Rice, deep sleep is essential for clearing waste products from the brain and nightly “cleaning cycles” help remove toxic proteins. These toxic proteins, like amyloids, can accumulate during the day and are linked to Alzheimer’s disease and other neurological issues.

Aazhang, director of the Rice Neuroengineering Initiative, and his team are building a system that not only tracks the brain’s clearing process but can also stimulate it, improving natural mechanisms that protect against neurodegeneration.

Earlier proof-of-concept versions of the caps successfully demonstrated the promise of this approach; however, they were rigid and uncomfortable for sleep.

Preston and Sanchez will work to transform the design of the cap into a soft, lightweight, textile-based version to make sleep easier, while also allowing the caps to be customizable and tailored for each patient.

“One of the areas of expertise we have here at Rice is designing wearable devices from soft and flexible materials,” Preston, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering, said in a news release. “We’ve already shown this concept works in rigid device prototypes. Now we’re building a soft, breathable cap that people can comfortably wear while they sleep.”

Additionally, the research team is pursuing ways to adapt their technology to measure neuroinflammation and stimulate the brain’s natural plasticity. Neuroinflammation, or swelling in the brain, can be caused by injury, stroke, disease or lifestyle factors and is increasingly recognized as a driver of neurodegeneration, according to Rice.

“Our brain has an incredible ability to rewire itself,” Aazhang added in the release. “If we can harness that through technology, we can open new doors for treating not just dementia but also traumatic brain injury, stroke, Parkinson’s disease and more.”

The project represents Rice’s broader commitment to brain health research and its support for the Dementia Prevention Research Institute of Texas (DPRIT), which passed voter approval last week. The university also recently launched its Rice Brain Institute.

As part of the project, Houston Methodist will provide access to clinicians and patients for early trials, which include studies on patients who have suffered traumatic brain injury and stroke.

“We have entered an era in neuroscience that will result in transformational cures in diseases of the brain and spinal cord,” Britz said in the release. “DPRIT could make Texas the hub of these discoveries.”

Autonomous truck company with Houston routes goes public

on a roll

Kodiak Robotics, a provider of AI-powered autonomous vehicle technology, has gone public through a SPAC merger and has rebranded as Kodiak AI. The company operates trucking routes to and from Houston, which has served as a launchpad for the business.

Privately held Kodiak, founded in 2018, merged with a special purpose acquisition company — publicly held Ares Acquisition Corp. II — to form Kodiak AI, whose stock now trades on the Nasdaq market.

In September, Mountain View, California-based Kodiak and New York City-based Ares disclosed a $145 million PIPE (private investment in public equity) investment from institutional investors to support the business combo. Since announcing the SPAC deal, more than $220 million has been raised for the new Kodiak.

“We believe these additional investments underscore our investors’ confidence in the value proposition of Kodiak’s safe and commercially deployed autonomous technology,” Don Burnette, founder and CEO of Kodiak, said in a news release.

“We look forward to leading the advancement of the commercial trucking and public sector industries,” he added, “and delivering on the exciting value creation opportunities ahead to the benefit of customers and shareholders.”

Last December, Kodiak debuted a facility near George Bush Intercontinental/Houston Airport for loading and loading driverless trucks. Transportation and logistics company Ryder operates the “truckport” for Ryder.

The facility serves freight routes to and from Houston, Dallas and Oklahoma City. Kodiak’s trucks currently operate with or without drivers. Kodiak’s inaugural route launched in 2024 between Houston and Dallas.

One of the companies using Kodiak’s technology is Austin-based Atlas Energy Solutions, which owns and operates four driverless trucks equipped with Kodiak’s driver-as-a-service technology. The trucks pick up fracking sand from Atlas’ Dune Express, a 42-mile conveyor system that carries sand from Atlas’ mine to sites near customers’ oil wells in the Permian Basin.

Altogether, Atlas has ordered 100 trucks that will run on Kodiak’s autonomous technology in an effort to automate Atlas’ supply chain.

View All Listings