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 ranks among 10 most affordable metros to raise a child

Family Matters

Raising a child is not an easy or inexpensive feat, but a new study has determined Houston parents have the 7th lowest childrearing costs in the country.

SmartAsset's new report, "Cost of Raising a Child in Major U.S. Metros – 2026 Study," calculated year-over-year changes in the annual cost of raising a child (factoring in childcare, additional housing costs, food, transportation, medical costs and other necessities) in the 48 largest U.S. metro areas. MIT's Living Wage Calculator was used to compare the living costs of a household with two working adults and one child to that of a childless household with two working adults.

Childrearing costs in Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands have grown 3.37 percent since last year, totaling $22,605 for a family of three in 2026. That's $737 more than what it took to raise a child in 2025 and $1,209 higher than in 2024.

This is how SmartAsset broke down the annual cost for raising a child in the Houston area:

  • Cost of childcare: $10,265
  • Cost of food: $1,721
  • Other expenses: $10,619

Houston ranked 42nd in SmartAsset's national list of cities with the highest childrearing costs in 2026, making it the No. 7 most affordable U.S. metro.

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont in California topped the list with the highest childrearing costs in the U.S., at $43,171. The cost for raising a child in this California metro soared nearly 11 percent higher since last year.

Memphis, Tennessee ranked dead last as the most affordable U.S. metro for raising a child in 2026. Families will spend less than $20,000 to raise a child in Memphis, only 3.24 percent more than what was needed in 2025.

Raising a child in other Texas metros
It may come as no surprise that Austin is the most expensive place to raise a child in Texas, and it appeared as the 31st most expensive U.S. metro for families. Parents will spend nearly $25,000 to raise a child in the state's capital city, which is $703 higher than it was a year ago.

Two other Texas metros join Houston among the top 10 most affordable U.S. metros for raising a family: San Antonio-New Braunfels (No. 3) and Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington (No. 10). Childrearing costs in San Antonio add up to $21,393 annually, and Dallas-Fort Worth parents will spend $23,340 to raise their children in 2026.

The top 10 most affordable U.S. metros for raising a child in 2026 are:

  • No. 1 – Memphis, Tennessee ($19,922)
  • No. 2 – Nashville, Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, Tennessee ($21,216)
  • No. 3 – San Antonio-New Braunfels ($21,393)
  • No. 4 – Birmingham, Alabama ($21,684)
  • No. 5 – Virginia Beach-Chesapeake-Norfolk, Virginia ($22,314)
  • No. 6 – Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, Georgia ($22,470)
  • No. 7 – Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands ($22,605)
  • No. 8 – Richmond, Virginia ($22,658)
  • No. 9 – Louisville/Jefferson County, Kentucky ($23,270)
  • No. 10 – Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington ($23,340)
---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

Axiom Space expands executive team with two C-suite hires

new leaders

Fresh off officially making Texas its legal headquarters, Axiom Space has named two new C-level executives.

The Houston-based spacetech company, which is developing the first commercial space station, announced earlier this month that it had appointed Zach Gitomer as its new chief financial officer and Erick Wegerer as chief information officer.

Gitomer served as vice president of investor relations and capital markets for Axiom from March to June of this year. Before joining Axiom, he held various leadership roles at Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and Citi, where he supported technology and growth companies, according to Axiom.

"Building era-defining space infrastructure and pioneering the orbital economy is a complex endeavor that requires not just an audacious vision and stellar engineering talent, but the financial infrastructure, discipline, and capital strategy to match," Gitomer shared in a LinkedIn post. "I’m honored to take on this role ... I’m looking forward to partnering with the exceptional leadership team here at Axiom Space during a defining chapter for the company and commercial spaceflight broadly, as well as a crucial period for maintaining U.S. human presence in low-Earth orbit and leadership in space exploration."

Wegerer joins Axiom after most recently serving as CIO of Washington-based Insitu Inc., a subsidiary of Boeing that develops customized unmanned hardware for commercial, government and defense customers.

"My time at Insitu was defined by talented people, meaningful challenges, and work that mattered. I'm grateful for the teams, partners, and leaders who made progress there possible. Stepping into Axiom, I'm energized by the mission, the momentum, and the opportunity to help shape what's next," Wegerer shared.

Photo via LinkedIn

The duo was celebrated on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange last week.

“We are pleased to welcome these exceptional leaders to the Axiom Space team," Axiom CEO Jonathan Cirtain added in the announcement. “Their strong record of helping complex organizations advance their strategic priorities will strengthen our executive team to further advance our core business objectives."

It's been a busy summer for Axiom. The company tacked on an additional $175 million to a previously announced capital raise, bringing the oversubscribed round to a total of more than $525 million, in June.

It also announced plans to open a Japanese subsidiary July 1. It tapped veteran Japanese astronaut Koichi Wakata to lead Axiom Space Japan as chief technology officer in the Asia-Pacific region. It also shared plans to establish Axiom Space Switzerland, a wholly owned subsidiary based in Lucerne that is also expected to begin operations this summer.

Axiom also officially redomiciled its legal headquarters from Delaware to Texas last month. Read more here.

Houston hardtech accelerator names 8 founders to 2026 cohort

hardtech fellows

Hardtech-focused organization Activate has named 50 new members to its 2026 cohort of scientists, which includes eight startups joining Activate Houston.

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. Its fellows receive a living stipend, research and development funding, connections from Activate's robust network of mentors and access to a curriculum specific to the program for two years.

This year's fellows represent 41 companies from 22 U.S. cities and 11 states.

“This cohort clearly demonstrates that the next industry-defining companies won't choose between modern technology and deep science; they'll be built by combining both,” Cyrus Wadia, CEO of Activate, said in the announcement. “These are the scientists and engineers turning our most urgent global challenges into the companies that will deliver a more sustainable future.”

The Houston fellows are working across the energy, space, AI infrastructure and agriculture sectors. They include:

  • Sophie Clare Broun, founder of Anning Corporation, which is producing clean hydrogen by stimulating naturally occurring geologic deposits
  • Kathy Andersen, founder of Brint Tech, which builds optical sensing systems that quantify hydrogen for infrastructure operators
  • Dorsa Talebi, founder of Kinetiq Drive, which builds rare-earth-free, contact-free electric motors with wireless rotors for small appliances and heavy industry alike
  • Neethu Pottackal, founder of Nivera, which is developing natural, edible coatings made from agricultural byproducts to reduce food waste and extend the shelf life of fresh food
  • Jonathan Huffman, founder of Orbital Arc, which is shrinking spacecraft propulsion to a microchip powerful enough for deep space
  • Tim Lee, founder of Renesin, which develops advanced materials for faster, more efficient AI hardware
  • Joshua Livingston, founder of Selerra Separations, which is developing high-performance membranes that cut the cost and energy consumption of water treatment
  • Wenli Jiang, founder of SwieNitro Recovery, which is developing technology that converts nitrogen-rich waste streams into valuable fertilizer

"Home to the largest concentration of engineers in the United States and a dense ecosystem of Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies, Houston is uniquely positioned for scientists tackling large-scale industrial challenges. Activate Houston fellows are connected to the city's deep networks in energy, chemicals, and materials," Activate said in the announcement.

Activate named its inaugural Houston cohort in 2024. It has other hubs in Boston, New York, and Berkley, California—where Activate is headquartered. The organization also offers a virtual and remote cohort, known as Activate Anywhere. Nationally, it has supported 346 fellows and 276 companies since 2015.

Activate Houston is led by managing director Jeremy Pitts, who co-founded Greentown Labs in Boston. It is based out of the Ion. The latest cohort is Activate Houston's third. Read more about the last year's cohort here.

View All Listings