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

Report: Houston reclaims top 10 ranking among America's best cities

Houston has made a triumphant return to America's 10 best cities for 2026, certifying the city is a cornerstone of the country's growth and economic prosperity.

Houston ranks No. 9 nationwide in the annual "America's Best Cities" report from Canada-based real estate and tourism marketing firm Resonance Consultancy. Each year, the report ranks the relative qualities of livability, cultural "lovability," and economic prosperity in 393 American cities with metropolitan populations of 500,000 or more.

Dallas surpassed H-Town as the No. 8 best city in America, and the Lone Star State boasts a strong presence among the top 25. Austin and San Antonio, respectively, were named the 11th and 24th best American cities this year.

Previously, Houston was dubbed the 13th best American city in 2025, down from its No. 10 ranking in the 2024 report.

Rather than profiling each individual city like in past reports, the 2026 edition focuses on regional and state prosperity. Texas' economic dominance is second only to Florida's, and the state's growth is solidified by the Dallas-Houston-Austin "triangle," where each metro has its own distinct economic identity, but when combined "form one of the most formidable regional economies in the world."

"In our 2026 survey, Dallas ranks third nationally as the place Americans believe offers the best job opportunities, Austin fifth, and Houston seventh," the report's author wrote. "That concentration of perceived economic opportunity in a single state is unmatched, and the GDP data confirms it isn’t just perception."

After being named one of the best places to start a business or a career earlier in 2026, Houston has continued to punch above its weight with its success in tourism, education, and housing growth.

Overall, the report found a correlation between a city's population growth and its latest ranking, with bigger cities appearing higher up on the list. The top three best American cities — New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago — are coincidentally the three largest metros, while Dallas and Houston are the fourth and fifth largest but appear eighth and ninth on the list.

"Scale compounds at the large city level — more people generate more economic activity, more cultural infrastructure, more employer presence, which attracts more people," the report said.

The top 10 best cities in America for 2026 are:

  • No. 1 – New York
  • No. 2 – Los Angeles
  • No. 3 – Chicago
  • No. 4 – Miami
  • No. 5 – San Francisco
  • No. 6 – Seattle
  • No. 7 – Las Vegas
  • No. 8 – Dallas
  • No. 9 – Houston
  • No. 10 – Boston

New probe into Tesla after vehicle slams into Houston-area home at high speed

Tesla Talk

The top U.S. auto regulator opened an investigation Monday, June 22, after a Tesla using an automated driving feature slammed into a Texas home at high speed and killed a 76-year-old woman standing inside.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it's opening a special investigation into the Tesla Model 3 crash on Friday near Houston, a significant probe because the car was using technology that Elon Musk considers key to the company's future.

The Tesla CEO is rolling out robotaxis using automated software in several U.S. cities this year and plans to invite Tesla owners to put their cars into the fleet using the same system across the country.

The driver told the Harris County Sheriff's Office that he was using the technology, according to a police report on the crash, but it's not clear what role, if any, it played in the incident.

Tesla did not respond to a request for comment but the head of the company's artificial intelligence efforts suggested on social media later Monday that the self-driving feature was not to blame.

“In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area,” wrote Ashok Elluswamy on X, the platform that is now part of Musk's rocket company, SpaceX. “They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.”

The police report noted that the driver was not drunk and is cooperating. It identified the woman killed as Martha Avila.

Video obtained by KHOU-TV shows the car traveling at top speed over the front lawn of a brick home in Katy, then ramming into a front room. The next shot shows the car encased in the home amid piles of crumbling plaster, split beams and bits of furniture.

The auto safety regulator, known as NHTSA, has launched several investigations into Tesla, including one late last year into 58 incidents in which Teslas reportedly violated traffic safety laws while using self-driving technology, leading to more than a dozen crashes and fires and nearly two dozen injuries.

A few months earlier, the NHTSA opened an investigation into why Tesla apparently had not been reporting crashes promptly as required.

As for special crash investigations, the NHTSA has opened 46 involving Teslas using self-driving or driver-assistance technology over the past decade, according to the agency's records. In more than a dozen of those crashes, at least one person — a driver, passenger or pedestrian — was killed.

Tesla stock fell sharply early last year as car sales plunged amid a boycott of Musk after he waded into politics, leading President Donald Trump's budget-cutting Department of Government Efficiency initiative and embracing European extremist candidates.

Musk has since shifted the Tesla story to one less about car sales and more about AI and robotaxis, and done so successfully. The stock is up 16% in the past year.

Intuitive Machines lands $1M grant to expand robotics operations

Expansion mode

Houston-based Intuitive Machines is expanding its operations around the country.

The space tech company—which has offices and labs in Texas, California, Arizona, Colorado and Maryland—announced that it has received a $1 million grant from Maryland Gov. Wes Moore through the state's Build Our Future Grant. The funding will go toward expanding Intuitive Machines’ Super Cislunar Robotics Assembly Building (Supa-CRAB) Mechanisms and Robotics Center of Excellence in Anne Arundel County.

The company will move into a 69,000-square-foot facility and build out additional lab and office space. It will also procure equipment that will allow for in-house Assembly, Integration and Test (AI&T) activities, according to a news release. Intuitive Machines says the expansion will take place this fall.

“This collaboration shows how industry, state programs, and education can reinforce one another,” Steve Altemus, CEO of Intuitive Machines, said in the release. “Maryland invests in innovation, companies grow and hire, students gain experience, and communities benefit from new opportunities and long-term career pathways. Together with Governor Moore, the state of Maryland, and Anne Arundel County leaders, we are building a permanent path to long-term lunar operations, an advanced robotics and mechanisms center of excellence, and a technology edge for our nation.”

Intuitive Machines first launched operations in Maryland in 2021 and has since expanded five times in the state. The company officially opened its robotics and mechanisms facility in 2024.

The Maryland team has built robotics and mechanisms for the Nova-C landers and IM-1 and IM-2 missions. In the future, Intuitive Machines expects the Maryland team to work on its IM-3 Rover Deployment Mechanism (RDM), a 360 pan-tilt camera for panoramic views, the Main Engine Gimbal (MEG), and the company's first data relay satellite, known as Altus-1.

Intuitive Machines moved into a new $40 million headquarters at the Houston Spaceport in 2023. The company announced an expansion of its lease last year.

The company announced a $175 million equity investment to fuel growth in March. It's since landed a $180 million NASA CLPS award to deliver seven payloads to the moon's Mons Malapert on the IM-5 mission.

View All Listings