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

Rice University partners with astronaut foundation to offer new STEM scholarship

space scholars

Rice University has partnered with The Astronaut Scholarship Foundation (ASF) to offer a new scholarship opportunity for junior or senior STEM majors, beginning this spring.

The prestigious Astronaut Scholarship includes up to $15,000, mentorship, networking and a paid trip to the ASF Innovators Symposium and Gala. The scholarship is funded by the James A. Lovell Jr. Family Endowment, in honor of the late American astronaut and founder of the ASF.

“This scholarship opportunity represents an exciting new avenue for Rice STEM students to synthesize their experiences in courses and research and their commitment to advancing the public good as leaders in their field,” Danika Brown, executive director for the Center for Civic Leadership at Rice, said in a news release. “We are so grateful to the Lovell family and to the foundation for investing in Rice students, and we are confident that the foundation will be impressed with our nominees and that selected students will have a life-changing experience as astronaut scholars.”

The Rice Space Institute and the Center for Civic Learning recently hosted the ASF at the Ralph S. O’Connor Building for Engineering and Science.

At the ASF event, Jeff Lovell—son of James Lovell, who commanded Apollo 13 and flew on Apollo 8—announced the scholarship aimed at Rice STEM students. Charlie Duke, who served as spacecraft communicator for the Apollo 11 Moon landing and as the lunar module pilot for Apollo 16, also spoke at the event.

The ASF awarded 74 scholarships to students from 51 universities across the U.S. last May.

The ASF awarded its first seven $1,000 scholarships in 1986 to pay tribute to the Mercury 7 astronauts. It has since awarded more than $10 million to more than 850 college students.

So far, only students from Texas A&M University and the University of Texas at Austin have received the scholarship in Texas.

Houston hospital first in U.S. to use new system for minimally invasive surgery

sharper images

Houston’s Baylor St. Luke’s Medical Center has introduced an innovative new surgical imaging system that will allow surgeons to increase the number of minimally invasive procedures as well as reposition on the fly during operations.

Minimally invasive surgery has been shown across the board to improve patient outcomes with less chance of infection and shorter recovery times compared to traditional open surgery. However, the human body is not exactly easy to work on through small incisions, necessitating the development of state-of-the-art cameras and imaging technology to guide surgeons.

Enter GE HealthCare’s Allia Moveo, now a part of the Baylor St. Luke’s Medical Center operating room. Using cutting-edge technology, it uses the same high-definition imaging usually seen in the catheterization lab at speeds fast enough to respond to shifting surgical conditions. Its cable-free setup allows surgeons to switch positions much faster, and it features advanced 3D imaging that compensates for breathing motion and interference from metal implants.

Its design supports a range of cardiovascular, vascular, non-vascular, interventional and surgical procedures, according to CommonSpirit Health, a nonprofit Catholic health network, of which Baylor St. Luke's is a member.

“This innovative platform enhances how our clinicians navigate complex minimally invasive procedures by improving mobility, image clarity, and workflow efficiency. It strengthens our ability to deliver precise, patient-centered care while supporting our teams with technology designed for the evolving demands of modern interventional medicine,” Dr. Brad Lembcke, president of Baylor St. Luke’s Medical Center, said in a news release from Baylor and the Texas Heart Institute.

Baylor St. Luke’s is the first hospital in the U.S. to use the Allia Moveo technology. The definition and responsiveness of the new system allow surgeons to navigate the body with greater accuracy and smaller incisions, even for very delicate operations.

“Allia Moveo gives us the flexibility and image quality needed to manage increasingly complex minimally invasive procedures with greater confidence,” Dr. Gustavo Oderich, vascular surgeon and professor of surgery at Baylor College of Medicine, added in the release. “The ability to quickly reposition the system, obtain high-quality 3D imaging, and integrate advanced guidance tools directly into the workflow enhances procedural accuracy. This technology supports our mission to push the boundaries of what is possible in endovascular and interventional surgery.”

Houston clocks in as one of the hardest working cities in America

Ranking It

Houston and its residents are proving their tenacity as some of the hardest working Americans in 2026, so says a new study.

WalletHub's annual "Hardest-Working Cities in America (2026)" report ranked Houston the 37th most hardworking city nationwide. H-town last appeared as the 28th most industrious American city in 2025, but it still remains among the top 50.

The personal finance website evaluated 116 U.S. cities based on 11 key indicators across "direct" and "indirect" work factors, such as an individual's average workweek hours, average commute times, employment rates, and more.

The U.S. cities that comprised the top five include Cheyenne, Wyoming (No. 1); Anchorage, Alaska (No. 2); Washington, D.C. (No. 2); Sioux Falls, South Dakota (No. 4); and Irving, Texas (No. 5). Dallas and Austin also earned a spot among the top 10, landing as No. 7 and No. 10, respectively.

Based on the report's findings, Houston has the No. 31-best "direct work factors" ranking in the nation, which analyzed residents' average workweek hours, employment rates, the share of households where no adults work, the share of workers leaving vacation time unused, the share of "engaged" workers, and the rate of "idle youth" (residents aged 16-24 that are not in school nor have a job).

However, Houston lagged behind in the "indirect work factors" ranking, landing at No. 77 out of all 116 cities in the report. "Indirect" work factors that were considered include residents' average commute times, the share of workers with multiple jobs, the share of residents who participate in local groups or organizations, annual volunteer hours, and residents' average leisure time spent per day.

Based on data from The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), WalletHub said the average American employee works hundreds of more hours than workers residing in "several other industrialized nations."

"The typical American puts in 1,796 hours per year – 179 more than in Japan, 284 more than in the U.K., and 465 more than in Germany," the report's author wrote. "In recent years, the rise of remote work has, in some cases, extended work hours even further."

WalletHub also tracked the nation's lowest and highest employment rates based on the largest city in each state from 2009 to 2024.

ranking

Source: WalletHub

Other Texas cities that earned spots on the list include Fort Worth (No. 13), Corpus Christi (No. 14), Arlington (No. 15), Plano (No. 17), Laredo (No. 22), Garland (No. 24), El Paso (No. 43), Lubbock (No. 46), and San Antonio (No. 61).

Data for this study was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Travel Association, Gallup, Social Science Research Council, and the Corporation for National & Community Service as of January 29, 2026.

---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

View All Listings