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

Rice research breakthrough paves the way for advanced disease therapies

study up

Bioengineers at Rice University have developed a “new construction kit” for building custom sense-and-respond circuits in human cells, representing a major breakthrough in the field of synthetic biology, which could "revolutionize" autoimmune disease and cancer therapeutics.

In a study published in the journal Science, the team focused on phosphorylation, a cellular process in the body in which a phosphate group is added to a protein, signaling a response. In multicellular organisms, phosphorylation-based signaling can involve a multistage, or a cascading-like effect. Rice’s team set out to show that each cycle in a cascade can be treated as an elementary unit, meaning that they can be reassembled in new configurations to form entirely novel pathways linking cellular inputs and outputs.

Previous research on using phosphorylation-based signaling for therapeutic purposes has focused on re-engineering pathways.

“This opens up the signaling circuit design space dramatically,” Caleb Bashor, assistant professor of bioengineering and biosciences and corresponding author on the study, said in a news release. “It turns out, phosphorylation cycles are not just interconnected but interconnectable … Our design strategy enabled us to engineer synthetic phosphorylation circuits that are not only highly tunable but that can also function in parallel with cells’ own processes without impacting their viability or growth rate.”

Bashor is the deputy director for the Rice Synthetic Biology Institute, which launched last year.

The Rice lab's sense-and-respond cellular circuit design is also innovative because phosphorylation occurs rapidly. Thus, the new circuits could potentially be programmed to respond to physiological events in minutes, compared to other methods, which take hours to activate.

Rice’s team successfully tested the circuits for sensitivity and their ability to respond to external signals, such as inflammatory issues. The researchers then used the framework to engineer a cellular circuit that can detect certain factors, control autoimmune flare-ups and reduce immunotherapy-associated toxicity.

“This work brings us a whole lot closer to being able to build ‘smart cells’ that can detect signs of disease and immediately release customizable treatments in response,” Xiaoyu Yang, a graduate student in the Systems, Synthetic and Physical Biology Ph.D. program at Rice who is the lead author on the study, said in a news release.

Ajo-Franklin, a professor of biosciences, bioengineering, chemical and biomolecular engineering and a Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Scholar, added “the Bashor lab’s work vaults us forward to a new frontier — controlling mammalian cells’ immediate response to change.”

Greentown Labs names new CEO to lead pioneering climate tech incubator

Transition News

Houston and Boston climate tech incubator Greentown Labs has named Georgina Campbell Flatter as the organization’s incoming CEO.

Flatter will transition to Greentown from her role as co-founder and executive director of TomorrowNow.org, a global nonprofit that studies and connects next-generation weather and climate technologies with communities most affected by climate change.

“We are at a transformational moment in the energy transition, with an unprecedented opportunity to drive solutions in energy production, sustainability, and climate resilience,” Flatter said in a news release. “Greentown Labs is, and has always been, a home for entrepreneurs and a powerhouse of collaboration and innovation.”

Previously, Flatter worked to launch TomorrowNow out of tomorrow.io, a Boston-based AI-powered weather intelligence and satellite technology company. The organization secured millions in climate philanthropy from partners, including the Gates Foundation, which helped deliver cutting-edge climate solutions to millions of African farmers weekly.

Flatter also spent 10 years at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where she was a senior lecturer and led global initiatives at the intersection of technology and social impact. Her research work includes time at Langer Lab and Sun Catalytix, an MIT – ARPA-E-funded spin-out that focused on energy storage solutions inspired by natural photosynthesis. Flatter is also an Acumen Rockefeller Global Food Systems Fellow and was closely involved with Greentown Labs when it was founded in Boston in 2011, according to the release.

“It’s rare to find an individual who has impressive climate and energy expertise along with nonprofit and entrepreneurial leadership—we’re fortunate Georgie brings all of this and more to Greentown Labs,” Bobby Tudor, Greentown Labs Board Chair and Chairman of the Houston Energy Transition Initiative, said in a news release.

Flatter will collaborate with Kevin Dutt, Greentown’s Interim CEO, and also continue to serve on Greentown’s Board of Directors, which was recently announced in December and contributed to a successful $4 million funding round. She’s also slated to speak at CERAWeek next month.

“In this next chapter, I’m excited to build on our entrepreneurial roots and the strength of our ever-growing communities in Boston and Houston,” Flatter added in a news release. “Together, we will unite entrepreneurs, partners, and resources to tackle frontier challenges and scale breakthrough technologies.”

Greentown also named Naheed Malik its new chief financial officer last month. The announcements come after Greentown’s former CEO and president, Kevin Knobloch, announced that he would step down in July 2024 after less than a year in the role.

---

This article originally appeared on our sister site, EnergyCapital.

Houston firm invests $150M in leading 'lab on a chip' medical diagnostics co.

fresh funds

Houston-based health technology investment firm Hamershlag Private Capital Management Limited (HPCM) announced a $150.15 million venture investment in Patho Care LLC.

Patho Care is a “lab on a chip” medical diagnostics company known for its noninvasive point-of-care testing platforms, such as its Raman spectroscopy-based platform.

Its digital point-of-care testing devices are programmable, mobile, and reusable and can detect current or future respiratory bacterial or viral infections. The company says the technology is more cost-effective and provides results faster than traditional diagnostic methods.

“Patho Care LLC is a distinguished leader in healthcare diagnostics through the utilization of a novel approach with spectroscopy and this investment aligns with HPCM’s strategy of partnering with high-potential companies in dynamic industries,” L. Mychal Jefferson, Chairman of Hamershlag, said in a news release.

The transaction was structured as an acquisition and recapitalization using newly issued common stock and cash, which will work through a newly formed entity, PathoCare Holdings Inc. The deal will also facilitate the repayment of Patho Care LLC's existing financial obligations and settle Patho Care’s outstanding notes, helping ensure the company’s financial readiness, according to the release.

The investment will help Patho Care LLC improve operational efficiencies, broaden its service offerings and continue to innovate in the diagnostic testing space. The companies hope the collaboration will help “unlock new growth opportunities while maintaining the company’s legacy of excellence in an emerging technology,” according to a news release.

“Our commitment to delivering transformative value through innovative investments underscores our confidence in Patho Care’s vision and capabilities,” Jefferson added.