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

Intel Corp. and Rice University sign research access agreement

innovation access

Rice University’s Office of Technology Transfer has signed a subscription agreement with California-based Intel Corp., giving the global company access to Rice’s research portfolio and the opportunity to license select patented innovations.

“By partnering with Intel, we are creating opportunities for our research to make a tangible impact in the technology sector,” Patricia Stepp, assistant vice president for technology transfer, said in a news release.

Intel will pay Rice an annual subscription fee to secure the option to evaluate specified Rice-patented technologies, according to the agreement. If Intel chooses to exercise its option rights, it can obtain a license for each selected technology at a fee.

Rice has been a hub for innovation and technology with initiatives like the Rice Biotech Launch Pad, an accelerator focused on expediting the translation of the university’s health and medical technology; RBL LLC, a biotech venture studio in the Texas Medical Center’s Helix Park dedicated to commercializing lifesaving medical technologies from the Launch Pad; and Rice Nexus, an AI-focused "innovation factory" at the Ion.

The university has also inked partnerships with other tech giants in recent months. Rice's OpenStax, a provider of affordable instructional technologies and one of the world’s largest publishers of open educational resources, partnered with Microsoft this summer. Google Public Sector has also teamed up with Rice to launch the Rice AI Venture Accelerator, or RAVA.

“This agreement exemplifies Rice University’s dedication to fostering innovation and accelerating the commercialization of groundbreaking research,” Stepp added in the news release.

Houston team develops low-cost device to treat infants with life-threatening birth defect

infant innovation

A team of engineers and pediatric surgeons led by Rice University’s Rice360 Institute for Global Health Technologies has developed a cost-effective treatment for infants born with gastroschisis, a congenital condition in which intestines and other organs are developed outside of the body.

The condition can be life-threatening in economically disadvantaged regions without access to equipment.

The Rice-developed device, known as SimpleSilo, is “simple, low-cost and locally manufacturable,” according to the university. It consists of a saline bag, oxygen tubing and a commercially available heat sealer, while mimicking the function of commercial silo bags, which are used in high-income countries to protect exposed organs and gently return them into the abdominal cavity gradually.

Generally, a single-use bag can cost between $200 and $300. The alternatives that exist lack structure and require surgical sewing. This is where the SimpleSilo comes in.

“We focused on keeping the design as simple and functional as possible, while still being affordable,” Vanshika Jhonsa said in a news release. “Our hope is that health care providers around the world can adapt the SimpleSilo to their local supplies and specific needs.”

The study was published in the Journal of Pediatric Surgery, and Jhonsa, its first author, also won the 2023 American Pediatric Surgical Association Innovation Award for the project. She is a recent Rice alumna and is currently a medical student at UTHealth Houston.

Bindi Naik-Mathuria, a pediatric surgeon at UTMB Health, served as the corresponding author of the study. Rice undergraduates Shreya Jindal and Shriya Shah, along with Mary Seifu Tirfie, a current Rice360 Global Health Fellow, also worked on the project.

In laboratory tests, the device demonstrated a fluid leakage rate of just 0.02 milliliters per hour, which is comparable to commercial silo bags, and it withstood repeated disinfection while maintaining its structure. In a simulated in vitro test using cow intestines and a mock abdominal wall, SimpleSilo achieved a 50 percent reduction of the intestines into the simulated cavity over three days, also matching the performance of commercial silo bags. The team plans to conduct a formal clinical trial in East Africa.

“Gastroschisis has one of the biggest survival gaps from high-resource settings to low-resource settings, but it doesn’t have to be this way,” Meaghan Bond, lecturer and senior design engineer at Rice360, added in the news release. “We believe the SimpleSilo can help close the survival gap by making treatment accessible and affordable, even in resource-limited settings.”

Texas among 5 hardest working states and more innovation news to know

Trending News

Editor's note: As we look back at the top Houston innovation news for the first half of September, reports show that Texas is one of the hardest working states, while local startup activity has slowed down. Plus, exciting medical innovation advancements. Here are the most-read InnovationMap stories from September 1-14.

1. Texas is the 4th hardest working state in America, report finds

Texas is home to some of the hardest workers. Photo via Getty Images

It's no secret that Texans are hardworking people. To align with the recent Labor Day holiday, a new WalletHub study asserts that the Lone Star State is one of the five most hardworking states in America for 2025. The report ranked Texas the fourth most hardworking state this year, indicating that its residents are working harder than ever after the state fell into seventh place in 2024. Continue reading.

2. UH receives $1M grant to advance research on rare pediatric disorder

The Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation has granted $1.1M to the University of Houston to support research on Usher Syndrome. Photo courtesy University of Houston.

The University of Houston has received a two-year, $1.1 million gift from the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation to advance research on a rare genetic disorder that can lead to both deafness and blindness in children, known as Usher Syndrome. The current grant will support the research of UH biomedical engineering professors Muna Naash and Muayyad Al-Ubaidi, who work in the Laboratory for Retinal Molecular and Cellular Biology and Gene Therapy in the Cullen College of Engineering. Continue reading.

3. Houston's surge in new startups cools since pandemic peak, study shows

Startup applications in Houston have dipped since their 2021 peak, even as national entrepreneurship hits record highs, according to a new report from The Kaplan Group. Photo via Getty Images.

Startup activity in the Houston metro area has dipped since its pandemic peak, according to a new study. Dating back to 2005, the volume of applications to form new businesses in the Houston area hit its highest level in 2021 (151,804). Since then, though, the application volume has fallen, according to the study, conducted by business debt collection agency The Kaplan Group. Continue reading.

4. TMC lands $3M grant to launch cancer device accelerator

Recent funding from CPRIT will help launch the new Accelerator for Cancer Medical Devices. Photo via TMC

A new business accelerator at Houston’s Texas Medical Center has received a nearly $3 million grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. The CPRIT grant, awarded to the Texas Medical Center Foundation, will help launch the Accelerator for Cancer Medical Devices. The accelerator will support emerging innovators in developing prototypes for cancer-related medical devices and advancing them from prototype to clinical trials. Continue reading.

5. 10 Houston billionaires make Forbes' list of richest Americans in 2025

Pictured: Nancy and Richard Kinder, the richest Houstonian, according to the Forbes 400. Photo by Michelle Watson/Catchlight Group

America's wealthiest billionaires are $1.2 trillion richer in 2025, bringing their collective worth to a staggering $6.6 trillion. And Houston's own Richard Kinder has become the richest billionaire in the city, according to the new Forbes 400. The Kinder Morgan chairman is the 11th richest Texas resident and ranks as the 108th richest American. Kinder also dethroned Tilman Fertitta to claim the title as the wealthiest Houstonian. The annual Forbes 400 list is a definitive ranking of the wealthiest Americans, using interviews, financial data, and documentation provided by billionaires and their companies. Continue reading.

View All Listings