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

UH lands $3M grant to expand opioid overdose training

Overdose Response

The University of Houston has received a $3 million federal grant to expand its potentially life-saving overdose response training program.

The grant will support the Houston Health Department’s FRONTLINES program that trains first responders in Harris and Fort Bend counties to recognize opioid overdoses and administer the drug naloxone, which can counter the effects of an opioid overdose. The four-year grant comes from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services, and it builds on eight years of work at UH, according to a release from the university.

As part of the expansion, UH medical, social work and psychology students will now also be able to take part in FRONTLINES’ overdose-response training. Some of the students will also be selected to help train community members, ultimately passing along the life-saving skills throughout Houston.

FRONTLINES is a collaboration with the City of Houston, the Fertitta College of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine and the Houston Recovery Center. It was co-founded by Dr. James Bray, chair of the Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the University of Houston’s Tilman J. Fertitta Family College of Medicine, in 2018.

“When someone experiencing an opioid overdose is reached in time, naloxone can save their life,” Bray said in a news release. “We’ve seen the impact this training can have in Houston, and now we have an opportunity to extend that reach across Harris and Fort Bend counties, putting lifesaving knowledge and tools into the hands of more first responders.”

In 2024, around 450 residents of Harris County died from opioid overdoses, according to a Texas Department of State Health Services report. The report found that fentanyl was involved in about three-quarters of the deaths.

In 2025, UH also received a $2.6 million gift from the estate of Dr. William A. Gibson to expand its opioid research and develop a vaccine to help block fentanyl's effectiveness in entering the brain. The vaccine research is part of the Michael C. Gibson Addiction Research Program led by UH professor of psychology Therese Kosten and founding member of the UH Drug Discovery Institute Colin Haile. Read more about the grant and the vaccine’s development here.

Texas public libraries drive billions in economic impact, report finds

Beyond the Stacks

A new statewide study examining the economic impacts of public libraries has revealed they have generated over $3.8 billion in value to local communities — a return of $4.74 for every $1 invested.

The report, "Beyond the Stacks: Measuring the Economic and Community Value of Texas Public Libraries" was conducted by third-party consultancy JBK Economics Group in partnership with the Texas Library Association. About 300 of the total 513 public libraries in Texas participated in a survey for the report.

A major finding from the survey revealed that public libraries create billions in economic value for the communities they serve at a fraction of what it costs to pay employee wages and benefits, operating expenditures, and capital expenditures. About 11,200 jobs were directly and indirectly supported by public libraries, the report found.

The report found its $4.74 to $1 ratio by adding up the total value of the services provided by these institutions (an estimated $2.48 billion), and comparing it to total expenditures ($808.6 million).

"Public libraries had about the same economic footprint as the Texas motion picture and sound recording industry ($2.9 billion in Gross Domestic Product in 2024) or the Texas paper manufacturing industry ($4.0 billion in Gross Domestic Product in 2024)," the report said.

Many Houstonians are already familiar with Houston Public Library's expansive catalog and programming, but there are many more services the library provides that might fly under the radar. A few examples include access to subscription-based research databases and news outlets, and the Library of Things, a collection of cookware and bake ware, musical instruments, craft kits, and other tools or activity materials that are available for cardholders to borrow. Individual branches also provide free Wi-Fi, computer access, and meeting spaces.

Houston-area residents also have access to services at several other local libraries depending on their address, such as the Harris County Public Library, Montgomery County Memorial Library System, or Fort Bend County Libraries, just to name a few.

These are additional services and partnerships that Texas public libraries commonly provide, per the survey results:

  • 93 percent provide voter registration and/or serve as voting locations
  • 84 percent provide partnerships with local social services agencies
  • 82 percent provide job application assistance
  • 68 percent facilitate applications for government benefits
  • 38 percent provide on-site social services
  • 30 percent provide telehealth rooms and/or resources
"Public libraries are practical, welcoming and rooted in the communities they serve — they are unmistakably Texan," said Texas Library Association executive director Shirley Robinson in a press release. "This study puts a dollar value on the opportunities libraries create every day. Whether someone visits a library to apply for a job, access the internet, learn a new skill or simply find a new favorite book, those services create real value for Texans and their communities."

------

This article first appeared on CultureMap.com.

Rice University launches new venture fund for university-affiliated startups

startup support

Rice University has launched its new One Giant Leap Ventures Fund I, which will invest in the university’s spinouts and alumni-founded startups.

The early-stage institutional venture fund will function with a hybrid structure that allows for participation from traditional equity investors and philanthropic investors. According to the university, the fund will invest up to $500,000 per Rice-affiliated company.

To be considered eligible for funds, companies must use intellectual property licensed by the university or be led or founded by alumni.

One Giant Leap will draw on support and mentorship from Rice’s pool of 60,000 alumni and aims to create educational opportunities within the investment phases, work with graduate and undergraduate venture students, explore the scaling and commercialization of their ideas, and help investigate all the facets of venture capital.

“Rice alumni bring an extraordinary depth of experience as entrepreneurs, investors and industry leaders, and One Giant Leap creates new ways to put that expertise to work for the next generation of Rice innovators,” Stephen Bayer, vice president for development and alumni relations, said in a news release. “It strengthens the connection between our alumni and the university while giving them meaningful opportunities to mentor, advise and support Rice-affiliated companies as they grow.”

The fund held its first close in August and made its first investment into Rice brain health spinout Motif Neurotech. Led by Rice faculty member Jacob Robinson, Motif is working to commercialize a minimally invasive neurostimulator that targets treatment-resistant depression. In May, the FDA approved the company to move forward with its first clinical trial.

“Research produces breakthrough technologies and our academic environment forms outstanding entrepreneurs,” said Adrian Trömel, the fund’s managing director, a Rice alumnus and a startup founder who also serves as Rice’s interim chief innovation officer.

One Giant Leap joins the already long list of Rice-led programs that foster innovation, including the Liu Idea Labs for Innovation and Entrepreneurship’s Innovation Fellows and Summer Venture Studio, the Rice Alliance’s Business Plan Competition, the Ion District, Woodside Rice Decarbonization Accelerator, Rice Nexus, the Biotech Launchpad and RBL Ventures and its upcoming 200,000 square-foot research lab the Arc.

“With One Giant Leap, I am excited that we are creating a unique structure that brings together traditional investment and philanthropic participation to invest in and help catalyze our startups, engage the deep expertise within the Rice ecosystem and transform those strengths into real-world impact,” Trömel added in the release.

View All Listings