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

Eli Lilly scoops up Houston biotech startup in $300 million deal

big pharma deal

Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly has acquired Houston biotech startup CrossBridge Bio, which develops antibody-drug conjugates for cancer, in a deal worth up to $300 million. The deal was celebrated by TMC Venture Fund and the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston last week.

CrossBridge, founded in 2023, is developing ADCs based on research by Kyoji Tsuchikama and Zhiqiang An, both of UT Health Houston. Tsuchikama is an associate professor of medicinal chemistry and a globally recognized ADC pioneer, and An is a professor of molecular science and vice president of drug discovery.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are a potent combination of targeted therapy and chemotherapy that kills cancer cells while saving healthy tissue.

Clinical trials for CrossBridge’s primary ADC candidate, CBB-120, are expected to start this year, pending approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“I’m proud of how well our team has executed and advanced our platform in such a short time since the company’s founding,” Michael Torres, co-founder and CEO of CrossBridge, said in a news release. “By becoming a part of Lilly, a leader in patient-focused therapeutic development, we are well-positioned to further accelerate the clinical potential of this approach.”

Under the Lilly deal, CrossBridge shareholders were expected to receive an upfront payment along with a follow-up payment based on the achievement of certain milestones.

In 2024, CrossBridge closed a $10 million seed round. Among the investors in CrossBridge are the Texas Medical Center Venture Fund, CE-Ventures, Alexandria Venture Investments, Portal Innovations, Linden Lake Labs, and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT). It was formed in TMC Innovation’s Accelerator for Cancer Therapeutics program."Built within the TMC ecosystem, CrossBridge Bio grew with the support, funding, and resources that helped shape its trajectory. TMC led the company's early financing and watched it evolve from its earliest days to its acquisition by Eli Lilly," William McKeon, president and CEO of the Texas Medical Center, shared in a LinkedIn post. "[This is a] strong reminder that breakthrough science and the right early backing can change what’s possible."

7 Houston neighbors named to U.S. News' best places to live in 2026

Living Well

Several Houston suburbs have been crowned the best places to live in the U.S. for 2026, according to U.S. News & World Report. Sugar Land is the highest-ranked city in the Houston metro, and it ranks as the 10th best place to live in the country.

The annual list of Best Places to Live in the U.S. is designed to help readers make the most informed decisions when choosing where to settle down, using data from sources such as the U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, the Federal Reserve and the Bureau for Economic Analysis, as well as state and local sources.

For the 2026-2027 rankings, U.S. News featured 250 U.S. cities and ranked them across four livability indexes — quality of life, value, desirability, and job market — weighted by importance based on survey results of approximately 500 Americans. The rankings were also broken down state-by-state, as well as the best big, medium, and small cities overall.

Sugar Land is the No. 4 best places to live in Texas, and it soared into the No. 10 spot overall in the nation after ranking 16th last year. Sugar Land also ranks as the fourth-best mid-sized city to live in America for 2026-2027.

According to U.S. News, Sugar Land's median household income is far higher than the national average. Residents make $140,511 per year, while the average American household income is only $83,181.

Additionally, the $431,815 median home value in Sugar Land is also far greater than the $359,870 national average.

After ranking in the top 10 in the 2025 report, League City and Pearland now both rank outside the national top 10 for 2026. League City slipped from No. 6 to No. 13 this year, while Pearland dropped from No. 3 nationwide to No. 16.

These three Houston suburbs also boast highly desirable job markets for potential newcomers or current residents that want to start or change their career.

Houston proper, however, remains outside of the top 250 and is the 327th best place to live in the U.S., and it's the 60th best place to live in Texas.

Other cities in the greater Houston area that ranked among the top 100 include:

  • No. 28 – The Woodlands
  • No. 38 – Katy
  • No. 61 – Missouri City
  • No. 82 – Spring

The Lone Star State had a "strong showing" in the overall top 10 thanks to its "high affordability scores," a release said. Besides Sugar Land, three more popular Texas suburbs made the cut: Leander (No. 8) outside Austin and Dallas-Fort Worth suburbs Flower Mound (No. 3) and Frisco (No. 9).

"As prices of everyday goods continue to rise, consumers are considering affordability as a top priority when choosing a place to live," said U.S. News consumer lending analyst Erika Giovanetti. "While U.S. News’ consumer survey indicated that quality of life and affordability were close in importance, cost-of-living concerns resulted in many Americans putting what they can afford above their aspirations."

---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

7+ can't-miss Houston business and innovation events in June 2026

where to be

Editor's note: The FIFA World Cup comes to Houston this month, joined by major energy conferences and a lineup of fan-favorite, recurring events. Here’s what not to miss and how to register. Please note: this article may be updated to add more events.


June 1-4 — CLEANPOWER 2026 Conference and Exhibition

CLEANPOWER unites policymakers, experts, and corporate leaders to solve the challenges that none can solve alone. This must-attend, four-day conference is packed with cutting-edge discussions about wind, solar, storage, and transmission; dealmaking; networking; and fun.

This event begins June 1 at the George R. Brown Convention Center. Register here.

June 2 — Humans of Healthcare

Houston Methodist Center for Innovation will present its quarterly speaker series, Humans of Healthcare. The series will feature a panel of experts who will share about their career paths and discuss the nuances of the health care industry. This month's session will focus on today’s nursing landscape, the industry’s expectations of nurses and what career paths are possible in the field.

The event is Tuesday, June 2, from 5-6:30 p.m. at the Ion. Register here.

June 9 — Greentown Go Make Kickoff

Head to the Ion to celebrate the Greentown Go Make 2026 cohort. The open-innovation program with Shell Catalysts & Technologies and Technip Energies focuses on catalytic solutions for industrial decarbonization and the energy transition. Hear pitches from the founders and network with a select group of startups while enjoying food and drink.

This event is Tuesday, June 9, from 5:30-8 p.m. Register here.

June 9-10 — Texas Brain Economy Summit

The Center for Houston’s Future and UTMB are bringing the Texas Brain Economy Summit back to Houston this summer to continue to position the region as a global leader in brain health. Expect to hear from leaders of global institutions, including the World Economic Forum, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, McKinsey Health Institute, Global Brain Economy Initiative, Davos Alzheimer’s Collaborative, Business Collaborative for Brain Health (UsAgainstAlzheimer’s), Rice University, Memorial Hermann, MD Anderson and many others. Read InnovationMap's full preview of the event here.

This event begins Tuesday, June 9. Purchase tickets here.

June 10 — MIT Future of Healthcare Technology Forum

The MIT Club of South Texas will host an in-person forum to explore how innovation, government and policy are changing the healthcare industry. The event will feature MIT alumni and Houston healthcare leaders, including Dr. Tim Boone, dean of the Texas A&M School of Engineering Medicine; Cynthia Reinhart-King, chair of bioengineering at Rice University; Dr. Tony Lin, CEO and chairman emeritus of Kelsey-Seybold Clinic; and others.

This event is Wednesday, June 10, from 5:15-8:30 p.m. at the TAMU EnMed Building. Register here.

June 11 — Goals & Gigawatts: Houston Energy & Climate Week The Power of & Kickoff Party

Come watch the Mexico City FIFA opening match while celebrating energy and innovation at the Goals & Gigawatts Kickoff Party. The event will feature food, drinks, and a showcase on Houston Energy & Climate Week. Learn what to expect and how to get involved in HECW before closing the night with a DJ and karaoke.

This event is Thursday, June 11, from 1:30-6:30 p.m. Find more information here.

June 16-17 — Energy Projects Conference & Expo

The Energy Projects Conference & Expo (EPC Show) is the largest event in North America for professionals working at the heart of major energy projects. The essential event for engineering, construction, commissioning, operations and maintenance across multiple energy sectors brings together five leading conferences under one roof. Conference subjects span LNG exporting, hydrogen and ammonia, midstream, petrochem and refining, and sustainable aviation fuels.

This event begins June 16 at George R. Brown Convention Center. Register here.

June 25 – NASA Tech Talk

Every fourth Thursday of the month, NASA experts, including longtime engineer Montgomery Goforth, present on technology development challenges NASA’s Johnson Space Center and the larger aerospace community are facing, and how they can be leveraged by Houston’s innovation community. Stick around after for drinks and networking at Second Draught.

This event is Thursday, June 25, from 6-7 p.m. at the Ion. Register here.

View All Listings