CHECK OUT THIS EPISODE OF OWL HAVE YOU KNOW

Based on research by Minjae Kim and Ezra W. Zuckerman Sivan (MIT-Sloan)

Over the last decade or so, concern has grown over the tendency for Americans to support their favorite politicians even when those politicians share misinformation. A common assumption about the problem is that partisan voters are apt to believe what they should question (and vice versa). And research backs up the idea that voters are “factually flexible,” either due to laziness or bias.

But what if factual flexibility isn't the whole story? What if a key part of the story is that partisan voters are also “morally flexible” — that they hold opposition politicians to strict standards of factuality but allow their favorite politicians to share misinformation — even socially divisive misinformation. For morally flexible voters, such statements are permissible because they articulate a “deeper truth” that captures their grievances.

This is the message of a new study forthcoming in the American Journal of Sociology, “When Truth Trumps Facts: Studies on Partisan Moral Flexibility in American Politics,” written by Minjae Kim, assistant professor of organizational behavior at Rice Business (Jones), and Ezra W. Zuckerman Sivan, professor of strategy and entrepreneurship at MIT Sloan School of Management.

Along with Oliver Hahl from Carnegie Mellon University Tepper School of Business and Ethan Poskanzer from University of Colorado-Boulder Leeds School of Business, Kim and Zuckerman Sivan found that when American voters evaluate statements made by politicians they support, they tend to be less concerned about whether those statements are based on objective evidence. What matters more is the “deeper truth,” or the overarching message, the statements express.

According to Kim, “People insist on strict factuality when it comes to politicians they don’t favor. They don’t give the opposite partisans the same leeway, in part because they don’t like their message. People shift their standards as it suits their partisan interests.”

To arrive at their findings, the researchers conducted a series of six online surveys of American voters: five during the last two and half years of Republican President Donald Trump’s administration, and one in the spring of 2023, during Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration.

Five of the surveys asked respondents to evaluate divisive, fact-flouting statements made by Trump. Two compared responses to similar statements by a Republican politician (either Trump or Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis) and a Democratic politician (either U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. or Biden). The statements pertained to such hot-button political issues as immigration, the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, the COVID-19 pandemic, and Trump’s “Big Lie” that the 2020 U.S. presidential election was “rigged” or “stolen.”

“There is no doubt that partisans are factually flexible,” said Zuckerman Sivan. “Supporters of a politician are much more likely to say that one of these statements is based on objective evidence than are opponents of that politician. But we also found consistent evidence of partisan moral flexibility — that voters distinguish between ‘objective evidence’ and ‘truth’ — and that when you consider who is morally flexible, you’re better able to predict who supports divisive misinformation than if you focus on factual flexibility alone.”

The researchers found that voters care more about truth when evaluating favored politicians. But they care more about facts when evaluating disfavored ones. This effect is slightly stronger for Republican voters, but it applies to Democrats, too.

Participants in each study were shown a divisive statement made by a politician, along with a note that clarified that the statement had been verified as non-factual by a third-party fact-checking organization. For each statement, participants indicated whether they thought the statement was based on objective evidence or subjective impressions; whether the statement was “true” and whether it was more important for the statement to be based on objective evidence or “to send the right message about American priorities.”

For example, in a survey called the “Caravan,” the researchers showed participants a real post from Trump that was not factual — that there were criminals and unknown Middle Easterners mixed in “the Caravan heading to the Southern Border of the United States” that “Mexico’s Police and Military are unable to stop.”

Across the five studies that included such statements, Trump supporters were more likely than non-supporters to say that the statement was based on “objective evidence,” giving an average rating of 3.65 based on a 7-point scale. This was 0.9 points higher than the average given by non-supporters. But while this gap was large, the gap grew to three times larger when respondents rated the truth of these statements. Across the five studies, Trump supporters gave an average rating of 5.2 for truth. Non-supporters averaged 2.2.

A similar gap was found in responses to a statement from Biden that stated erroneously that the COVID vaccines were effective in stopping “the spread of disease to anyone else.” In a follow-on question, one Biden voter explained their rationale for affirming Biden’s false statement:

In a public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, it was more important for President Biden to appeal to American values of patriotism and the willingness to step up for others. Most people are aware that while vaccinations greatly reduce the spread of disease, there is no vaccine that can completely, utterly stop it. However, Biden was using strong, emotional, positive language to encourage Americans to do what was morally correct and patriotic at that moment, and I feel that was entirely appropriate.

This emphasis on truth over facts gave the researchers’ article its name. But the more direct indicator of partisan moral flexibility was the preferred standard for evaluating these statements. “In short, when the statement is by a Republican, Democrats insist the statement should be evaluated on its factuality whereas Republicans say that what matters is whether it conveys an important message. And the reverse is true when the statement is by a Democrat,” Kim said.

For instance, in the “Summer of 2020” survey, participants were asked to respond to a post by Ocasio-Cortez. Like the Trump post, this statement included a line that was highly misleading: “Police brutality is now a leading cause of death for young men across the board in the US.” Democratic respondents were much more likely than Republicans to say that the statement should be evaluated on the basis of whether it sends “the right message about American priorities” than on whether it is based on “objective evidence” (3.53 on a 7-point scale for Republicans; 2.13 for Democrats).

“The study illustrates how both Democrats and Republicans shift their standards to suit their interests,” Zuckerman Sivan said. “It seems that we all do it.”

Kim and Zuckerman Sivan believe it’s important for people to recognize that moral flexibility plays a significant part in our decisions and behaviors, because coming to terms with that could ultimately lead to a different set of interventions — though exactly what those interventions might be is still unclear.

“But let’s at least get the diagnosis right before we start talking about the treatment,” Zuckerman Sivan concluded. “Our hope is that if people come to recognize the extent of partisan flexibility, then we’ll be able to start making some progress from there.”

It was March 2020 — when COVID-19 was making headlines — that the music at the Houston Symphony stopped. But that silence only lasted a short while as musicians, staff and leadership came together to innovate through the crisis, build their audience and create new performances. As they navigated the pandemic, Scott Sonenshein worked with Rice Research Analyst Kristen Nault to launch a multi-year study of two symphonies, one being Houston’s, and the ways they managed the crisis.

Here, Sonenshein talks with John Mangum, the CEO and Margaret Alkek Williams Chair of the Houston Symphony, about resilience, innovation and leadership through crisis, and the ways in which resourcefulness isn’t just a tactic for survival, but a strategic framework for stronger organizations — crisis or no crisis.

Scott Sonenshein: As I began my research, I was looking for a performing arts organization to study through the pandemic because, at that time, the industry — which depends on congregating for practices and performances — had a 65% unemployment rate. Broadway was closed — in fact, most performing arts organizations were at a complete standstill. It turned out that one of the few organizations that was still playing happened to be in my hometown in Houston.

John Mangum: We did initially shut down. As the pandemic progressed, we realized that we weren't going to have ticket revenue coming into the organization for some time. We started talking with our musicians about how we could continue our work in this new environment. We rallied around two clear points to organize our thinking. One, this is a group of incredibly skilled, incredibly gifted musicians, and they thrive on performing. Two, what we do has value. SS: I was studying a second symphony organization at the same time that took a different approach and stopped performances. What we saw in the Houston Symphony Orchestra was an organization that was relentless in its determination to keep playing. We saw a lot of innovation and creativity in finding ways — not to just put online what they were doing before — but to reinvent what they were doing so it would be suitable for the world they were operating in.

JM: Yes, we started to formulate an idea of inviting our audience into the living rooms of our musicians. We would send a camera and a microphone out to the homes of musicians, and every Friday they had carte blanche — they could play whatever they wanted, and they could talk about their work. We were giving audiences a completely different experience than they would get coming to Jones Hall to hear the symphony, and we charged a small fee for that specific performance.

SS: This approach also grew the audience because they were one of the few organizations thinking this way.

JM: The city let us get back in our hall for 4th of July weekend, and over the course of the summer, we could get the orchestra together in small groups sitting apart. Getting the orchestra back on stage and live streaming those performances was important at the time, but we also still have about a thousand households watching our live streams every weekend. So we developed this new stream of revenue that came out of the pandemic and has stuck with us as a wonderful audience development tool.

SS: Presumably you could have created these products before the pandemic, but it was only because of the constraints of the pandemic that you were forced to think differently. That's really the power of resourcefulness and why it becomes a strategic asset, not just a defensive strategy. It gives us permission to do things unconventionally — and those unconventional thoughts can take an organization beyond regular performance to exceptional performance.

JM: During the pandemic, we weren't under pressure to sell tickets — and that gave us the ability to program whatever we wanted. Another factor was the George Floyd protests in the summer of 2020 that made us aware that historically we had not been representing Hispanic or Black women on our stage with our programming. We began to program this work in a really robust way. And that, too, is something that's continued. We developed new skills around collaboration and exploration that, again, absent the pandemic and the social justice conversations, we may never have discovered.

SS: Leadership played a big role here. We matched the two symphonies we studied in just about every other way except the fact that they were performing or not performing. They were similar in revenue, similar in political environments, similar in COVID restrictions. A trust developed in the Houston Symphony between staff and musicians and leadership. The opposite was true of the other symphony. There were certainly economic hardships, but we talked about how these performers have an innate desire to perform, and there was a lot of sadness in this other symphony that was unable to deliver that experience for their staff. What we saw in the other organization was threat rigidity — an approach you often see with leaders facing crisis. It’s the idea that an organization should close up and constrict resources at a time when you really need innovation and creativity. If you want to mobilize and help an organization adapt to adversity, you need to activate all of your staff, all of your employees. And that starts by having them trust you and recognize that you've got their interests in mind; that you've got a vision in terms of being able to weather the storm, but transparency in the fact that you might not have all the answers.
 

Image

Entrepreneurs share advice for startups

Rice Business is known for building entrepreneurs — the Princeton Review and Entrepreneur magazine, for example, have ranked us No.1 for five years running. Our students have a lot going for them: for example, professors who encourage innovation and places like Liu Idea Lab and Rice Alliance that support their work.

Students also have a large alumni network. In this ongoing series, we turn to our established entrepreneurs for advice on how the next generation can successfully launch and grow their ventures.

This time, we tapped into the expertise of the 200-plus participants in Rice Alumni Entrepreneurs and Innovators roundtables — forums that foster peer-to-peer support within a small group of organization founders. We asked them: How does a founder know when to take the leap and start running their startup full time?

Here’s what these experienced entrepreneurs had to say.

How Do You Know When to Take the Leap? 

Education

University of Houston: an undergraduate degree in management
information systems.

Current Role and Career Journey

Currently, I am the director of strategy, planning and operations at AOI (Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.), a prominent semiconductor telecommunications company.

Throughout my two-decade tenure, I’ve developed a diverse skill set. Starting from the ground level in order entry in 2004, I moved to more significant roles in sales, marketing, project management and process improvement. My role expanded significantly as the company acquired two Asian manufacturing sites and established a research and development center in Atlanta, Georgia. Additionally, we went public on the NASDAQ exchange in 2013. 

During this time, I also nurtured a passion for DJing. What started as a hobby became a successful business venture for over 24 years.  DJing honed my ability to cater to diverse audiences, adapt to preferences, and strategically manage events, eventually leading me to event planning and wedding planning businesses. 

I'm also committed to community involvement. I have served in leadership capacities at non-profits like a summer camp for kids for over 26 years, a local AAPI performing arts non-profit organization for five years, and a high school Junior Achievement team (winning 2nd place at JA EnTEENpreneur Conference at Rice University this past December). 

These experiences have underscored the inter-connectedness of personal and professional growth. With the recent milestone of starting a family, I chose to pursue an Executive MBA to continue my advancement and leadership journey.

Why did you choose a Rice Business Executive MBA?

I chose Rice’s EMBA program for its strong brand reputation, focus on student diversity and convenient location. The program's prestige enhances my professional profile and networking opportunities. The diverse student body exposes me to perspectives beyond my industry experience. And the proximity to my workplace allows easy access to resources and deeper connections with classmates and alumni. Additionally, as a local alumnus, I can audit classes after graduating.

What do you enjoy the most about being a Rice MBA student?

I appreciate the program’s convenient location. The proximity has been a significant advantage, allowing me to attend more events and meet with team members more easily, enhancing my overall experience.

How does the program positively impact you at work, and can you share an example of applying what you learned on the job?

The EMBA program pairs groups with executive coaches, a valuable resource that has broadened my view on coaching and mentoring others. I’ve gained insights into effective methods for nurturing teams and mentoring students. Also, I’ve proactively sought out additional coaches to further my own development. In this way, I've gained valuable insights from seasoned executives.

Willis Chen is an Executive MBA student in the Class of 2025.

Ice cream company Protein Pints took home the grand prize at the 2024 Rice Business Plan Competition (RBPC) April 6 as the best student ventures from top universities across the world competed for prizes in front of nearly 350 angel, venture capital and corporate investors and members of the business community.

During his acceptance speech, Founder and CEO of Protein Pints Paul Reiss said, “"The love and support that we've been shown during our time here at Rice, and the relationships and the friends that we've made, is something that I know I and every other student here is going to remember for the rest of our lives."

Hosted annually by the Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship and Rice University’s Jones Graduate School of Business, the RBPC is the world’s largest and richest student startup competition.

The RBPC offers real-world opportunities to learn what’s required to successfully launch a new business. In addition to the substantial cash, investment and in-kind prizes, the heart of the competition is the mentoring from investors and experienced entrepreneurs. RBPC alumni have raised more than $6.1 billion in capital and 288 are in business or have had successful exits.

The winners were announced at the conclusion of the three-day pitching, mentoring and networking event, which included an elevator pitch competition, practice round, semifinals, wildcard and final round.

“We award the competitors $1 million in prizes, prizes that serve as foundational capital to launch their startup,” said RBPC Director Catherine Santamaria in her welcome speech at the awards gala April 6.

“That’s a large number of prizes, but the biggest thing our startups leave with is a feeling of generosity and community from this room. This community is always ready and willing to help our founders and support our vision for the competition by investing time, money and resources in these student innovators.”

The 42 competing startups represented 35 universities from four countries. They were chosen from more than 450 applicants to compete in one of five categories: energy, cleantech and sustainability; life sciences and health care solutions; consumer products and services; hard tech; and digital enterprise. Learn more about all of the startups here.

The seven finalists based on the judges’ overall scores were:

Protein Pints, Michigan State University — first place and the $150,000 GOOSE Capital Investment Grand Prize.

• Protein Pints is a high-protein, low-sugar, ice cream product designed for people who would benefit from having access to a functional ice cream and/or better tasting and more enjoyable protein options.

Somnair, Johns Hopkins University — second place and the $100,000 Investment Prize, sponsored by David Anderson, Jon Finger, Anderson Family Fund, Finger Interests, Greg Novak and Tracy Druce.  

• Somnair is a Novel Non-Invasive Neurostimulation device for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea.

Power2Polymers, RWTH Aachen University — third place and the $50,000 Rice University investment, provided by the Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship and sponsored by Finger Interests, the Anderson Family Fund at the Greater Houston Community Foundation, Greg Novak and Tracy Druce.

• Power2Polymers tackles the pressing issue of 'forever chemicals', which have been linked to over 6.5 million deaths in the U.S. alone, by offering safe alternatives free of forever chemicals.

Informuta, Tulane University — fourth place and the $5,000 prize, sponsored by Norton Rose Fulbright.

• Informuta's proprietary technology leverages DNA sequencing to predict if bacteria will respond to different antibiotics or, for the very first time, develop future resistance thus causing treatment failure.

Icorium Engineering Company, University of Kansas — fifth place and the $5,000 prize, sponsored by EY.

• Icorium Engineering Company is a chemical engineering startup and University of Kansas spinout developing technologies to make sustainable, circular economies a reality for refrigerants and other complex chemical mixtures.

EndoShunt Medical, Harvard University — sixth place and the $5,000 prize, sponsored by Chevron Technology Ventures.

• EndoShunt is transforming trauma surgery with a rapid, targeted blood flow control device.

D.Sole, Carnegie Mellon University — seventh place and the $5,000 prize, sponsored by Shell Ventures.

• D. Sole is advancing the development of remote patient monitoring in podiatry with foot insoles designed for the early detection and monitoring of diabetic foot complications, such as ulcers and deformities.

The fourth through seventh place startups were also awarded an additional investment prize of $25,000 each provided by Rice Alliance and sponsored by David Anderson, Jon Finger, Anderson Family Fund, Finger Interests, Greg Novak and Tracy Druce, bringing their finalist prize totals up to $30,000. 

Other significant prizes this year and the teams that won them include:

• $200,000 Goose Capital Investment Prize — Osphim, RWTH Aachen University
• $250,000 OWL Investment Prizes — MesaQuantum, Harvard University
• $100,000 OWL Investment Prizes — Icorium Engineering Company, University of Kansas
• $100,000 Houston Angel Network Investment Prize — Somnair, Johns Hopkins University
• $100,000 The Indus Entrepreneurs (TiE) Texas Angels Investment Prize — Protein Pints, Michigan State University
• $60,000 nCourage Courageous Women Entrepreneur Investment Prize — MesaQuantum, Harvard University
• $40,000 nCourage Courageous Women Entrepreneur Investment Prize — Icorium Engineering Company, University of Kansas
• $40,000 Pearland EDC Spirit of Entrepreneurship Cash Prize — Informuta, Tulane University
• $25,000 New Climate Ventures Sustainable Investment Prize — Oxylus Energy, Yale University
• $25,000 Dream Big Ventures Latino Entrepreneur Investment Prize — Dendritic Health AI, Northwestern University
• $25,000 NOV Energy Technology Innovation Cash Prize — LiQuidium, University of Houston
• $25,000 Urban Capital Network Diversity Investment Prize in Partnership with South Loop Venture Investment Prize — TouchStone, University of California, Berkeley
• $25,000 Southwest National Pediatric Device Consortium Pediatric Device Cash Prize — EndoShunt Medical, Harvard University
• $25,000 Jacobs, Intuitive Machines and WRX Companies Rising Stars Space Technology and Commercial Aerospace Cash Prize — MesaQuantum, Harvard University

For more information about the 2024 Rice Business Plan Competition, visit rbpc.rice.edu.