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.

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

Houston lab-test startup seeks $1M for nationwide expansion

Testing Access

Health care industry veteran Jim Gebhart knew there had to be a better way for patients to access lab services, especially those with high health insurance deductibles or no insurance at all.

“This challenge became deeply personal when a close family member developed a serious illness, and we struggled to secure prompt appointments,” Gebhart tells InnovationMap. “It’s incredibly frustrating when a loved one cannot receive timely care simply because of provider shortages or the limited capacity of traditional clinics.”

Driven by the desire to knock down lab-test barriers, Gebhart founded Houston-based TheLabCafe.com in 2024. The platform provides access to low-cost medical tests without requiring patients to carry health insurance. TheLabCafe serves patients in six states: Texas, Georgia, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Gebhart, the startup’s CEO, says that by the end of March, LabCafe will be offering services in 20 more states and the District of Columbia.

Gebhart has spent more than 30 years in the lab industry. His career includes stints at Austin-based Clinical Pathology Laboratories, Ohio’s Cleveland Clinic Laboratories and Secaucus, New Jersey-based Quest Diagnostics.

“Since nearly 80 percent of disease diagnoses rely on laboratory testing, I decided to leverage my background to create a more accessible, self-directed process for individuals to order blood and urine tests on their own terms — when and where they need them,” says Gebhart.

So far, Gebhart is self-funding the startup. But he plans to seek $700,000 to $1 million in outside investments in late 2026 to support the nationwide expansion and the introduction of more services.

TheLabCafe contracts with labs for an array of tests, such as cholesterol, hepatitis, metabolic, testosterone, thyroid and sexually transmitted infection (STI) tests. A cholesterol test obtained through TheLabCafe might cost $29, compared with a typical cost of perhaps $39 to $59 without insurance.

A health care professional reviews every test, both when the test is ordered and when the results are delivered, often within 24 hours. After receiving test results, a patient can schedule a virtual visit with a health care professional to go over the findings and learn potential treatment options.

Gebhart says TheLabCafe particularly benefits uninsured patients, including those in Texas. Among the states, Texas has the highest rate of uninsured residents. U.S. Census Bureau data shows 21.6 percent of adults and 13.6 percent of children in Texas lacked health insurance in 2024.

“Uninsured patients often pay the highest prices in the health care system,” Gebhart explains. “We address this by offering straightforward pricing and convenient access to testing without requiring insurance.”

“Our rates are intentionally set to remain affordable, helping individuals take a proactive approach to their health,” he adds. “Regular testing enables people to identify potential health issues early and track their progress as they make lifestyle changes. Ultimately, you can’t measure improvement without data — and laboratory results provide that data.”

Houston geothermal startup secures $97M Series B for next-gen power

fresh funding

Houston-based geothermal energy startup Sage Geosystems has closed its Series B fundraising round and plans to use the money to launch its first commercial next-generation geothermal power generation facility.

Ormat Technologies and Carbon Direct Capital co-led the $97 million round, according to a press release from Sage. Existing investors Exa, Nabors, alfa8, Arch Meredith, Abilene Partners, Cubit Capital and Ignis H2 Energy also participated, as well as new investors SiteGround Capital and The UC Berkeley Foundation’s Climate Solutions Fund.

The new geothermal power generation facility will be located at one of Ormat Technologies' existing power plants. The Nevada-based company has geothermal power projects in the U.S. and numerous other countries around the world. The facility will use Sage’s proprietary pressure geothermal technology, which extracts geothermal heat energy from hot dry rock, an abundant geothermal resource.

“Pressure geothermal is designed to be commercial, scalable and deployable almost anywhere,” Cindy Taff, CEO of Sage Geosystems, said in the news release. “This Series B allows us to prove that at commercial scale, reflecting strong conviction from partners who understand both the urgency of energy demand and the criticality of firm power.”

Sage reports that partnering with the Ormat facility will allow it to market and scale up its pressure geothermal technology at a faster rate.

“This investment builds on the strong foundation we’ve established through our commercial agreement and reinforces Ormat’s commitment to accelerating geothermal development,” Doron Blachar, CEO of Ormat Technologies, added in the release. “Sage’s technical expertise and innovative approach are well aligned with Ormat’s strategy to move faster from concept to commercialization. We’re pleased to take this natural next step in a partnership we believe strongly in.”

In 2024, Sage agreed to deliver up to 150 megawatts of new geothermal baseload power to Meta, the parent company of Facebook. At the time, the companies reported that the project's first phase would aim to be operating in 2027.

The company also raised a $17 million Series A, led by Chesapeake Energy Corp., in 2024.

---

This article originally appeared on our sister site, EnergyCapitalHTX.com.

10+ can't-miss Houston business and innovation events in February

where to be

Editor's note: February may be short, but its event calendar isn’t. From recurring monthly favorites to the return of annual celebrations and summits, here's what not to miss and how to register. Please note: this article may be updated to include additional event listings.

Feb. 2 — Entrepreneurship Roundtable with OPEN

Join founders, builders and innovators as they explore what it takes to create, scale and sustain meaningful ventures. This event, hosted by Open Houston, will be moderated by Faisal Bhutto, president and CEO of Houston-based end-to-end IT and cybersecurity company Alykas.

This event is Monday, Feb. 2, from 11 a.m.-1 p.m. at the Ion. Register here.

Feb. 3 — Tech+Tequila Talk: Tax Equity: Aligning Incentives for Founders, Investors & Philanthropy

Hear from guest speaker Cesar de la Cerda, founder and CIO of EnvisionVest, at the latest installment of Tech and Tequila Talk. The event will focus on using the tax code as a powerful fundraising tool.

This event takes place Tuesday, Feb. 3, from 5-7 p.m. at the Ion. Register here.

Feb. 5 — Ion Block Party Mardi Gras

Let the good times roll while networking with potential collaborators, mentors and investors at the Ion. Food and drink will be available, and the Ion will provide drink tickets for one free drink at Second Draught upon check-in.

This event is Thursday, Feb. 5, from 4-7 p.m. at the Ion. Register here.

Feb. 10 — Mercury Fund Day at the Ion

The Ion and Houston's Mercury Fund will host this special event, previously known as Software Day. The event will feature a panel that dives into how Mercury is pushing the boundaries of what’s possible with agentic AI and blockchain. A select group of early-stage software startups will also participate in office hours before the panel. Afterwards, all attendees can network during happy hour at Second Draught.

This event is Tuesday, Feb. 10, from 3:30-7:30 p.m. Register here.

Feb. 11-12 – In-Space Physical AI Workshop

Rice Nexus is bringing together industry leaders, government agencies and academia to explore the cutting edge of AI in space exploration. Matt Ondler, president of Aegis Aerospace, will present the keynote address. Other industry leaders from NASA Johnson Space Center, Intuitive Machines, Microsoft and Rice University and other organizations will participate. The event will close with the Inaugural Space Galette Reception hosted by the Consulate General of France in Houston and the Rice Space Institute.

This event begins Wednesday, Feb. 11, at the Ion. Register here.

Feb. 12 — State of the City

Houston First Corporation and the Greater Houston Partnership will host Mayor John Whitmire’s State of the City luncheon. Whitmire will share an update on his administration’s progress since taking office and highlight his top priorities that will continue to elevate Houston and its economy.

This event is Thursday, Feb. 12, from 11 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the Hilton Americas-Houston. Register here.

Feb. 12 — Positioning Houston as the Brain Capital of the World

David Gow, CEO of the Center for Houston's Future, will present "Positioning Houston as the Brain Capital of the World" at the University of Houston Honors College Leadership Forum. Gow will share how Project Metis aims to establish Houston as a global hub for brain health research, innovation and economic development.

This event is Thursday, Feb. 12, from 7:30-9:30 a.m. at The Junior League of Houston. Register here.

Feb. 13 — From Research to Enterprise: Immigration & Innovation

Innov8 Hub will host an in-person seminar as part of its Startup Resources Series, focused on the intersection of immigration law, entrepreneurship and technology commercialization. The session will feature guest speakers Mario Cantu, Shilpa Ghurye and Vikesh Patel of KM&D PLLC, who will share insights for founders and innovators navigating legal pathways while building and scaling technology-driven ventures.

The event is Friday, Feb. 13, from 1-2 p.m. at the Innovation Center at UH Technology Bridge, Building 4. Register here.

Feb. 18-20 — TMC AI Summit

UTHealth Houston and Texas Children’s Hospital are bringing back the TMC AI Summit for its third year. This event is focused on translating advanced AI innovations into practical, real-world solutions for the biomedical and healthcare industries. It will be broken up into three tracks and will feature poster and oral presentations, workshops and tutorials, industry talks and student research showcases.

The event begins Wednesday, Feb. 18, at the Duncan Neurological Research Institute. Register here.

Feb. 26 — Transition on Tap

Greentown Labs’ signature networking event returns in February to foster conversations and connections within Houston's climate and energy transition ecosystem. Entrepreneurs, investors, students, philanthropists and more are invited to attend, meet colleagues, discuss solutions and engage with the growing community.

The event begins Monday, Feb. 26, from 5:30-7:30 p.m. at Greentown Labs. Register here.

Feb. 26 — NASA Tech Talk

Every fourth Thursday of the month, NASA experts, including longtime engineer Montgomery Goforth, present on technology development challenges NASA’s Johnson Space Center and the larger aerospace community are facing, and how they can be leveraged by Houston’s innovation community. Stick around after for drinks and networking at Second Draught.

This event is Thursday, Feb. 26, from 6-7 p.m. at the Ion. Register here.