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

Who are Houston's top innovators? Nominate now for 2026 Houston Innovation Awards

Calling All Innovators

Calling all Houston innovators: The 2026 Houston Innovation Awards, presented by InnovationMap, return this fall to celebrate the best and brightest in the Houston innovation ecosystem right now.

We're asking you to nominate Houston's top innovators and startups for this year's awards. Nominations are open now through August 27 and can be made on behalf of yourself, your organization, and other influential leaders in the local innovation scene.

The annual awards program recognizes the most innovative individuals and companies in Houston across 10 prestigious categories.

This year's awards will honor the following categories:

  • Minority-founded Business, honoring an innovative startup founded or co-founded by BIPOC or LGBTQ+ representation.
  • Female-founded Business, honoring an innovative startup founded or co-founded by a woman.
  • Energy Transition Business, honoring an innovative startup providing a solution within renewables, climatetech, clean energy, alternative materials, circular economy, and beyond.
  • Health Tech Business, honoring an innovative startup within the health and medical technology sectors.
  • Deep Tech Business, honoring an innovative startup providing technology solutions based on substantial scientific or engineering challenges, including those in the AI, robotics, and space sectors.
  • Startup of the Year (People's Choice), honoring a startup celebrating a recent milestone or success. The winner will be selected by the community via an interactive voting experience.
  • Scaleup of the Year, honoring an innovative later-stage startup that's recently reached a significant milestone in company growth.
  • Incubator/Accelerator of the Year, honoring a local incubator or accelerator that is championing and fueling the growth of Houston startups.
  • Mentor of the Year, honoring an individual who dedicates their time and expertise to guide and support budding entrepreneurs.
  • Trailblazer, honoring an innovator who's made a lasting impact on the Houston innovation community.

You have three weeks to submit nominees, so don't delay — nominate today at this link or fill out the form below. Qualified nominees will receive a formal application to complete, which will be reviewed by our esteemed panel of judges to determine the finalists and winners.

More announcements about the 2026 Houston Innovation Awards are coming soon, including an introduction to this year's panel of judges. Interested in sponsoring the 2026 Houston Innovation Awards? Please contact sales@innovationmap.com.

KBR unveils name, branding for new government services spinoff

new identity

Houston-based KBR Inc.'s new Mission Technology Solutions unit officially has a name.

The previously announced government services spinoff, which until now has been nicknamed SpinCo, will now be known as Trinzic. The company said in a news release that the name was inspired by the word intrinsic, "reflecting essential, built-in capabilities and deep expertise operating in some of the world’s most complex and mission-critical environments."

New York-based firm Siegel + Gale developed the company's new brand. In addition to the new name, the company shares that its new logo will feature a stylized letter N, with brand colors in orange and gray.

“Trinzic represents who KBR Mission Tech has always been at our core: an essential partner bringing innovation and trusted execution to the missions that matter most,” Stuart Bradie, KBR President and CEO, said in the release. “The new Trinzic brand represents both our strong heritage and the tremendous opportunity ahead. Our teams aim to deliver solutions that address some of the world’s most critical national priorities every day, and this new identity captures the purpose-driven culture and mission focus that we expect to continue to define the company moving forward.”

KBR expects the spin-off to be completed in January 2027. At that time, Trinzic will operate as an independent, publicly traded company that will focus on technology and engineering services for the space and national security sectors.

KBR will remain a separate publicly traded company that will focus on sustainable technology and services to support the energy transition. KBR first announced the spinoff plans in October 2025.

Last month, KBR announced two C-suite hires for Trinzic, or what was then known as SpinCo.

Michael LaRouche will serve as Trinzic's inaugural president and CEO. LaRouche is currently CEO of Serco North America, a Virginia-based government services contractor. Nicholas Veasey, current CFO of Virginia-based MAG Aerospace, was named Trinzic's CFO. Bradie will remain chairman, president and CEO of KBR.

Rice lands $19 million grant to build AI-driven quantum materials lab

Quantum Boost

Rice University has received a $19.9 million award from the National Science Foundation to increase the production of quantum and electronic materials by using a combination of artificial intelligence, cloud-based labs and robotics.

The four-year project will create a remote and automated research platform that aims to accelerate discovery and the testing process, according to Rice. The aptly titled project, "Revolutionizing AI-Driven Autonomous Experimentation for Next-Generation Semiconductor Synthesis” (READINESS), will be led by Rice materials scientist Jun Lou, who serves as principal investigator. SUNY Polytechnic Institute and the University of Texas at Austin will collaborate with Rice on the project.

At first, READINESS will focus on two-dimensional materials, oxide semiconductors and diamond thin films that can support emerging technologies, like quantum devices.

READINESS is one of 20 projects selected for the NSF's Programmable Cloud Laboratories Test Bed initiative, which aims to provide more U.S. researchers with access to automated scientific tools.

Additionally, the project aligns with the Department of Energy’s Genesis Mission, which recently selected four projects from Houston universities and companies, including two from Rice. The national initiative aims to unite government, industry, academia and philanthropy to lead to breakthroughs in energy, scientific discovery and national security.

READINESS will offer more advanced lab systems remotely via a cloud interface to assist startups, other research groups, and companies that don’t have the resources, staffing or equipment to produce quantum materials and advanced electronics. READINESS will also allow researchers to simulate experiments via virtual experiments or digital twins before they conduct the physical experiment.

Rice says this will be particularly useful in quantum materials research, which is often met with barriers— like the adjustments of chemical composition, gas flow, pressure, and temperature—that can change the properties of a material.

“This project will give researchers access to capabilities that have traditionally been available only in a handful of laboratories,” David Sholl, executive vice president for research at Rice, said in a news release. “By lowering those barriers, READINESS can accelerate discovery and expand who can participate in cutting-edge materials research.”

Additionally, the project’s AI aspect will offer recommendations for new tests, recognize safety limits and analyze results to assist researchers.

“Responsible AI should complement researchers’ capabilities rather than replace their judgment,” Luay Nakhleh, Dean of Rice’s George R. Brown School of Engineering and Computing, added in the release. “READINESS embodies this principle by combining automated systems with transparency, safeguards and human oversight at critical decision points.”

READINESS’ lab will be based out of Rice’s Ralph S. O’Connor Building for Engineering and Science. Partner sites will also contribute equipment, expertise and workforce development programs, according to Rice.

Ultimately, READINESS aims to elevate the speed, reliability and reproducibility of experiments, and to promote access to automated scientific tools for U.S. researchers.

“Our goal is to create a laboratory that researchers from across the country can use to produce advanced electronic and quantum materials on demand,” Lou added in the release. “By integrating robotics, AI and digital twins, we aim to learn from every experiment and shorten the pathway from scientific discovery to practical technology.”

View All Listings