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

Eli Lilly breaks ground on $6.5B pharmaceutical factory in Houston

lilly lands

Leading pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly broke ground today, Sept. 21, on its $6.5 billion manufacturing site at Houston's Generation Park.

The 236-acre, state-of-the art factory is expected to come online in 2030 and will manufacture Foundayo, the company's first synthetic oral GLP-1 medication, as well as other advanced therapeutics.

"We are thrilled to break ground on our latest ‘medicines made in America’ site in the great state of Texas," David Ricks, Lilly chair and CEO, said in a prepared statement. "This $6.5 billion investment will help change the game for tens of millions of people suffering from overweight, obesity and its consequences like diabetes. We will make and ship Lilly’s latest products from Texas to people here at home and around the world.”

Houston was up against more than 300 locations in the U.S. for the factory, as part of Lilly’s $50 billion investment in domestic medicine production that has launched 10 manufacturing sites since 2020. Lilly first announced Houston had been selected for the site last September.

Photo via gov.texas.gov

As Abbott mentioned, the site is expected to create hundreds of jobs, and will hire engineers, scientists, operations personnel and lab technicians once up and running. It will create 4,000 construction jobs while being built.

In an effort to support workforce development, Lilly also announced a $12.5 million commitment to Houston's San Jacinto College in addition to a $2.5 million charitable donation to the San Jacinto College Foundation. The funding will go toward hands-on training, equipment and facilities to support future technicians, operators, maintenance professionals, and other manufacturing talent, according to Lilly. The charitable donation will fund scholarships for students.

"This relationship will build a strong, sustainable talent pipeline for Lilly while creating meaningful, high-demand career opportunities across our region,” Brenda Hellyer, chancellor of San Jacinto College, said in the release.

"When you invest in a place like Houston, you invest in its people first," Edgardo Hernandez, executive vice president and president of Lilly Manufacturing Operations, added. "This facility will run on the talent of this community, powered by our relationship with San Jacinto College. We're hiring across the greater Houston area to help residents build careers close to home."

Rendering courtesy Eli Lilly

Lilly previously said it chose Generation Park, a 4,300-acre, master-planned commercial district near Lake Houston, because of factors such as financial incentives, access to utilities and transportation and the region’s business-friendly environment. Generation Park is home to campuses for San Jacinto College and Lone Star College.

Since Lilly first announced plans for the site, another fellow pharma giant has made plans to move into Generation Park. Bristol Myers Squibb Co. announced last month that it would build a $2.3 billion factory in the district. The site is expected to manufacture small molecule, biologic and antibody-drug conjugates and will also come online around 2030. Read more here.

UH Health names leader of new digital health institute

new exec

Recently launched UH Health has named the first-ever executive director of its new Institute for Digital Healthcare Transformation at the University of Houston.

Beto López has been tapped to lead the new initiative that aims to help develop and commercialize health care technologies centered around university research.

Launched in August, the Institute for Digital Healthcare Transformation leans on experts from UH’s engineering, medicine, business, law and other departments and will connect with industry partners. It will initially focus on mobile health applications, sensors, wearables and artificial intelligence, according to UH.

“Most digital health initiatives and commercialization efforts start with the technology and hope adoption follows. But the translation gap isn't a science problem — it’s a scaffolding problem between researchers, the community and the market,” López said in a news release. “I've spent the past 10 years building that scaffolding in places that weren’t wired for it, and I'm looking forward to building it here at UH to help ensure new health care technologies reach the people and communities that can benefit from them most.”

López previously spent 10 years at San Francisco-based innovation consultancy company IDEO, where he led over 100 projects for Fortune 500 companies and public agencies. He co-founded and served as managing director of the Design Institute for Health at UT Austin’s Dell Medical School; and also co-founded a social venture studio/venture capital fund focused on health care innovation. He worked alongside Houston’s Legacy Community Health during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Beto understands that breakthrough technology alone doesn't transform health care — it has to be designed around the needs of patients, providers and communities and have a clear path into practice,” Jonathan McCullers, vice president for health affairs at UH, added in the news release. “His experience spanning academic health care and venture capital equips him to bring together researchers, health care organizations, entrepreneurs and investors. This makes him uniquely suited to lead this institute and help turn the university's innovation into solutions that improve people's lives.”

The University of Houston launched UH Health, its new cross-disciplinary academic venture, in July. It aims to bring together the university's health-related education, research and community impact under one umbrella.

ExxonMobil gets approval for $5B Texas Gulf Coast carbon capture project

CCS Expansion

Spring-based ExxonMobil has won approval from the Texas Railroad Commission for a $5 billion carbon capture and storage project in East Texas.

Dominic Genetti, senior vice president of CCS at ExxonMobil, told The Financial Times, which broke the news, that the Railroad Commission’s action is a “major milestone” that lets the company keep expanding along the Gulf Coast. In a 2-1 vote, commissioners authorized a carbon sequestration permit for the project.

“The Railroad Commission clearly recognizes the important role carbon capture and storage can play in meeting growing global demand for lower-carbon products while supporting new jobs and economic growth,” Genetti said.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved ExxonMobil’s Rose CCS project last year.

The project will enable the company to inject about 53 metric tons of industrial customers’ carbon emissions into three underground wells it drilled in the Beaumont-Port Arthur area. Over a 13-year period, ExxonMobil plans to inject about 4 million metric tons per year into the Fleming and Upper Frio rock formations, according to Carbon Herald.

ExxonMobil says it owns the world’s first and largest CCS system, comprising 1,300 miles of CO2 pipeline and secure storage sites. Seventy percent of the pipelines are along the Gulf Coast.

The company ramped up its CCS business in 2023 with the $4.9 billion purchase of Denbury, which owned about 1,000 miles of CO2 pipelines.

“Our expertise, combined with Denbury’s talent and CO2 pipeline network, expands our low-carbon leadership and best positions us to meet the decarbonization needs of industrial customers while also reducing emissions in our own operations,” ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Darren Woods said when the deal closed.

In January, Genetti wrote in a post on ExxonMobil’s website that the company is committed to CCS “for the long haul.”

“CCS is not new technology, but it’s flown relatively under the radar compared with the attention that production of hydrocarbons commands,” he wrote. “Now, as the world becomes more aware of the need to reduce emissions, CCS finally has a brighter spotlight and a broader runway to scale up.”

The company also announced this week that it has begun CCS operations at a direct reduced iron facility in Convent, Louisiana. The project will capture, transport and store up to 800,000 metric tons of CO2 per year, according to the company.

---

This article first appeared on EnergyCapitalHTX.com.

View All Listings