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

Houston hardtech accelerator names 8 scientists to 2025 cohort

ready, set, activate

National hardtech-focused organization Activate has named its 2025 cohort of scientists, which includes new members to Activate Houston.

The Houston hub was introduced last year, and joins others in Boston, New York, and Berkley, California—where Activate is headquartered. The organization also offers a virtual and remote cohort, known as Activate Anywhere. Collectively, the 2025 Activate Fellowship consists of 47 scientists and engineers from nine U.S. states.

This year's cohort comprises subject matter experts across various fields, including quantum, robotics, biology, agriculture, energy and direct air capture.

Activate aims to support scientists at "the outset of their entrepreneurial journey." It partners with U.S.-based funders and research institutions to support its fellows in developing high-impact technology. The fellows receive a living stipend, connections from Activate's robust network of mentors and access to a curriculum specific to the program for two years.

“Science entrepreneurship is the origin story of tomorrow’s industries,” Cyrus Wadia, CEO of Activate, said in an announcement. “The U.S. has long been a world center for science leadership and technological advancement. When it comes to solving the world’s biggest challenges, hard-tech innovation is how we unlock the best solutions. From infrastructure to energy to agriculture, these Activate Fellows are the bold thinkers who are building the next generation of science-focused companies to lead us into the future.”

The Houston fellows selected for the 2025 class include:

  • Jonathan Bessette, founder and CEO of KIRA, which uses its adaptive electrodialysis system to treat diverse water sources and reduce CO2 emissions
  • Victoria Coll Araoz, co-founder and chief science officer of Florida-based SEMION, an agricultural technology company developing pest control strategies by restoring crops' natural defenses
  • Eugene Chung, co-founder and CEO of Lift Biolabs, a biomanufacturing company developing low-cost, nanobubble-based purification reagents. Chung is completing his Ph.D. in bioengineering at Rice University.
  • Isaac Ju, co-founder of EarthFlow AI, which has developed an AI-powered platform for subsurface modeling, enabling the rapid scaling of carbon storage, geothermal energy and lithium extraction
  • Junho Lee, principal geotechnical engineer of Houston-based Deep Anchor Solutions, a startup developing innovative anchoring systems for floating renewables and offshore infrastructure
  • Sotiria (Iria) Mostrou, principal inventor at Houston-based Biosimo Chemicals, a chemical engineering startup that develops and operates processes to produce bio-based platform chemicals
  • Becca Segel, CEO and founder of Pittsburgh-based FlowCellutions, which prevents power outages for critical infrastructure such as hospitals, data centers and the grid through predictive battery diagnostics
  • Joshua Yang, CEO and co‑founder of Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Brightlight Photonics, which develops chip-scale titanium: sapphire lasers to bring cost-effective, lab-grade performance to quantum technologies, diagnostics and advanced manufacturing

The program, led locally by Houston Managing Director Jeremy Pitts, has supported 296 Activate fellows since the organization was founded in 2015. Members have gone on to raise roughly $4 billion in follow-on funding, according to Activate's website.

Activate officially named its Houston office in the Ion last year.

Charlie Childs, co-founder and CEO of Intero Biosystems, which won both the top-place finish and the largest total investment at this year's Rice Business Plan Competition, was named to the Activate Anywhere cohort. Read more about the Boston, New York, Berkley and Activate Anywhere cohorts here.

Houston team’s discovery brings solid-state batteries closer to EV use

A Better Battery

A team of researchers from the University of Houston, Rice University and Brown University has uncovered new findings that could extend battery life and potentially change the electric vehicle landscape.

The team, led by Yan Yao, the Hugh Roy and Lillie Cranz Cullen Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at UH, recently published its findings in the journal Nature Communications.

The work deployed a powerful, high-resolution imaging technique known as operando scanning electron microscopy to better understand why solid-state batteries break down and what could be done to slow the process.

“This research solves a long-standing mystery about why solid-state batteries sometimes fail,” Yao, corresponding author of the study, said in a news release. “This discovery allows solid-state batteries to operate under lower pressure, which can reduce the need for bulky external casing and improve overall safety.”

A solid-state battery replaces liquid electrolytes found in conventional lithium-ion cells with a solid separator, according to Car and Driver. They also boast faster recharging capabilities, better safety and higher energy density.

However, when it comes to EVs, solid-state batteries are not ideal since they require high external stack pressure to stay intact while operating.

Yao’s team learned that tiny empty spaces, or voids, form within the solid-state batteries and merge into a large gap, which causes them to fail. The team found that adding small amounts of alloying elements, like magnesium, can help close the voids and help the battery continue to function. The team captured it in real-time with high-resolution videos that showed what happens inside a battery while it’s working under a scanning electron microscope.

“By carefully adjusting the battery’s chemistry, we can significantly lower the pressure needed to keep it stable,” Lihong Zhao, the first author of this work, a former postdoctoral researcher in Yao’s lab and now an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at UH, said in the release. “This breakthrough brings solid-state batteries much closer to being ready for real-world EV applications.”

The team says it plans to build on the alloy concept and explore other metals that could improve battery performance in the future.

“It’s about making future energy storage more reliable for everyone,” Zhao added.

The research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Battery 500 Consortium under the Vehicle Technologies Program. Other contributors were Min Feng from Brown; Chaoshan Wu, Liqun Guo, Zhaoyang Chen, Samprash Risal and Zheng Fan from UH; and Qing Ai and Jun Lou from Rice.

---

This article originally appeared on EnergyCaptialHTX.com.

Rice biotech accelerator appoints 2 leading researchers to team

Launch Pad

The Rice Biotech Launch Pad, which is focused on expediting the translation of Rice University’s health and medical technology discoveries into cures, has named Amanda Nash and Kelsey L. Swingle to its leadership team.

Both are assistant professors in Rice’s Department of Bioengineering and will bring “valuable perspective” to the Houston-based accelerator, according to Rice. 

“Their deep understanding of both the scientific rigor required for successful innovation and the commercial strategies necessary to bring these technologies to market will be invaluable as we continue to build our portfolio of lifesaving medical technologies,” Omid Veiseh, faculty director of the Launch Pad, said in a news release.

Amanda Nash

Nash leads a research program focused on developing cell communication technologies to treat cancer, autoimmune diseases and aging. She previously trained as a management consultant at McKinsey & Co., where she specialized in business development, portfolio strategy and operational excellence for pharmaceutical and medtech companies. She earned her doctorate in bioengineering from Rice and helped develop implantable cytokine factories for the treatment of ovarian cancer. She holds a bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering from the University of Houston.

“Returning to Rice represents a full-circle moment in my career, from conducting my doctoral research here to gaining strategic insights at McKinsey and now bringing that combined perspective back to advance Houston’s biotech ecosystem,” Nash said in the release. “The Launch Pad represents exactly the kind of translational bridge our industry needs. I look forward to helping researchers navigate the complex path from discovery to commercialization.”

Kelsey L. Swingle

Swingle’s research focuses on engineering lipid-based nanoparticle technologies for drug delivery to reproductive tissues, which includes the placenta. She completed her doctorate in bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, where she developed novel mRNA lipid nanoparticles for the treatment of preeclampsia. She received her bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering from Case Western Reserve University and is a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow.

“What draws me to the Rice Biotech Launch Pad is its commitment to addressing the most pressing unmet medical needs,” Swingle added in the release. “My research in women’s health has shown me how innovation at the intersection of biomaterials and medicine can tackle challenges that have been overlooked for far too long. I am thrilled to join a team that shares this vision of designing cutting-edge technologies to create meaningful impact for underserved patient populations.”

The Rice Biotech Launch Pad opened in 2023. It held the official launch and lab opening of RBL LLC, a biotech venture creation studio in May. Read more here.

View All Listings