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

5 minority-founded Houston startups shine as Innovation Awards finalists

Meet the Finalists

Houston is one of the most diverse cities in the nation, and that trend carries over into its innovation and startup ecosystem.

As part of the 2025 Houston Innovation Awards, our Minority-founded Businesses category will honor an innovative Houston startup founded or co-founded by BIPOC or LGBTQ+ representation.

Five minority-founded businesses have been named finalists for the 2025 award. The finalists, selected by our esteemed panel of judges, range from a wearable health tech device company to a clean chemical manufacturing business to a startup with a lunar mission.

Read more about these innovative businesses, their initiatives, and their inspirational founders below. Then join us at the Houston Innovation Awards on Nov. 13 at Greentown Labs, when the winner will be unveiled at our live awards ceremony.

Tickets are on now for this exclusive event celebrating all things Houston Innovation.

Capwell Services

Houston-based methane capture company Capwell Services works to eliminate vented oil and gas emissions economically for operators. According to the company, methane emissions are vented from most oil and gas facilities due to safety protocols, and operators are not able to capture the gas cost-effectively, leading operators to emit more than 14 million metric tons of methane per year in the US and Canada, equivalent to more than 400 million metric tons of CO2e per year. Founded in 2022, Capwell specializes in low and intermittent flow vents for methane capture.

The company began as a University of Pennsylvania senior design project led by current CEO Andrew Lane. It has since participated in programs with Greentown Labs and Rice Clean Energy Accelerator. The company moved to Houston in 2023 and raised a pre-seed round. It has also received federal funding from the DOE. Capwell is currently piloting its commercial unit with oil and gas operators.

Deep Anchor Solutions

Offshore energy consulting and design company Deep Anchor Solutions aims to help expedite the adoption of floating offshore energy infrastructure with its deeply embedded ring anchor (DERA) technology. According to the company, its patented DERA system can be installed quietly without heavy-lift vessels, reducing anchor-related costs by up to 75 percent and lifecycle CO2 emissions by up to 80 percent.

The company was founded in 2023 by current CEO Junho Lee and CTO Charles Aubeny. Lee earned his Ph.D. in geotechnical engineering from Texas A&M University, where Aubeny is a professor of civil and environmental engineering. The company has not raised VC funding, but has participated in numerous accelerators and incubators, including Greentown Labs, MassChallenge, EnergyTechNexus LiftOff and others. Lee is an Activate 2025 fellow.

Mars Materials

Clean chemical manufacturing business Mars Materials is working to convert captured carbon into resources, such as carbon fiber and wastewater treatment chemicals. The company develops and produces its drop-in chemical products in Houston and uses an in-licensed process for the National Renewable Energy Lab to produce acrylonitrile, which is used to produce plastics, synthetic fibers and rubbers. The company reports that it plans to open its first commercial plant in the next 18 months.

Founded in 2019 by CEO Aaron Fitzgerald, CTO Kristian Gubsch and lead engineer Trey Sheridan, the company has raised just under $1 million in capital and is backed by Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy, Shell, Black & Veatch and other organizations.

Torres Orbital Mining (TOM)

Space tech company Torres Orbital Mining aims to pioneer the sustainable extraction and processing of lunar regolith and designs and builds robotic systems for excavating, classifying, and delivering lunar material. The company aims to accelerate a permanent and ethical human presence on the Moon.

The company was founded this year by Luis Torres, a current MBA candidate at Rice Business.

Wellysis USA Inc.

Wellysis USA Inc. works to detect heart rhythm disorders with its continuous ECG/EKG monitor with AI reporting. Its S-Patch cardiac monitor is designed for extended testing periods of up to 14 days on a single battery charge. The device weighs only 9 grams, is waterproof and designed to be comfortable to wear, and is considered to have a high detection rate for arrhythmias. It is ideally suited for patient-centric clinical trials to help physicians make diagnoses faster, cheaper and more conveniently.

It was established in Houston in 2023 and participated in the JLABS SFF Program the same year. It closed a $12 million series B last year. It was founded by CEO Young Juhn, CTO Rick Kim, CFO JungSoo Kim and chief strategy officer JoongWoo Kim.

---

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

The Ion taps John Reale for startup and investor role

new hire

The Ion has named John "JR" Reale as its director for startups and investor engagement.

In his new role, Reale, a longtime leader in Houston’s startup ecosystem, will work to strengthen the innovation district's founder and investor network.

"Here’s what I’ve come to believe: the Ion is not just a building, not just a real estate play, and not just another innovation district. COVID, remote work, and shifting market dynamics changed the rules. Key ingredients like co-working, events, and community, while impactful, are no longer enough on their own," Reale shared on a LinkedIn post announcing the move. "What’s needed are advantages ... We need to intentionally design a system that repeatedly delivers advantages so founders can pull forward their visions."

Reale previously served as executive in residence and venture partner at TMC Venture Fund and co-founded Station Houston. He also serves as managing director of Integr8d Capital. He's an investor and serves on the board of directors for a number of venture-backed companies, including Cart.com, Lionguard and others.

The Ion will host "Today Is Day One – A conversation with John (JR) Reale" to welcome Reale to the role on Tuesday, Oct. 21. Reale will be joined at the event by Heath Butler, partner at Mercury, to discuss their thoughts on shaping Houston's founders ecosystem, as well as the Ion’s Founder Advantage Platform.

"On top of this connected architecture, we will build product. That product will be the Founder Advantage Platform to remove friction, compress time, and compound outcomes," Reale continued on LinkedIn. "This is the system that will drive repeatable experiences, and naturally, make these journeys so much more fun."

Houston's IAH soars in new ranking of U.S. airports with best dining

Flying High

Here's news that'll make a flight delay at Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport a bit more palatable: IAH arrives at No. 12 in a new ranking of the country’s best airports for food and beverage options.

The 2025 study by commercial furniture manufacturer Restaurant Furniture relied on Google reviews of food and beverage establishments at the busiest U.S. airports to come up with its list. The study included only those restaurants and bars with at least 20 Google reviews.

IAH earned an average Google review rating of 3.29 out of 5 stars for its food-and-beverage establishments.

The study analyzed 61 restaurants and bars at George Bush Intercontinental Airport. The Houston airport’s highest rated establishment was Pappadeaux Seafood Kitchen. That Pappadeux location garnered an average Google review rating of 4.48 out of 5. George Bush International also is home to the study’s highest-rated Chick-fil-A and Whataburger restaurants.

Several years ago, IAH made a major effort to upgrade its dining options by partnering with local chefs such as Chris Shepherd, Ryan Pera (Coltivare), and Greg Gatlin (Gatlin's BBQ) on concepts for Terminal C North. More recently, a change in the city's airport concessions contract brought local favorites such as The Annie Cafe and Common Bond to the George Bush.

“Airports aren’t usually renowned for their choices of bars and restaurants, and this is often because people just want to get through the airport and onto their final destinations as quickly as possible,” Nick Warren, head of e-commerce at Restaurant Furniture, says in a release. “However, a good airport bar or restaurant can provide a great rest stop after a long flight, and these positive experiences can go a long way towards travelers choosing which airport they will fly from in the future.”

Dallas Fort Worth International Airport soared to No. 1 in the rankings. Restaurants and bars at DFW earned an average of 3.56 out of 5 stars on Google — the highest number among 31 airports.

Just like in Houston, among 74 locations at DFW, the study found Pappadeaux Seafood Kitchen in Terminal A scored the highest average Google review rating — 4.59. DFW also boasts the top-rated IHOP, McDonald’s, Panera Bread, and Panda Express among the 31 airports that were analyzed.

Rounding out the top five airports with best food are Miami International Airport (No. 2), San Francisco International Airport (No. 3), Denver International Airport (No. 4), and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (No. 5).

---

A version of this story originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

View All Listings