In sociology, the Matthew effect (or accumulated advantage) is the phenomenon where “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” In both its original and typical usage it is meant metaphorically to refer to issues of fame or status but it may also be used literally to refer to cumulative advantage of economic capital. The term was first coined by sociologist Robert K. Merton in 1968 and takes its name from the parable of the talents in the biblical Gospel of Matthew. As a result of the Matilda effect, Harriet Zuckerman is also credited by Merton as the co-author of the Matthew effect.
Matthew effect
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect
Biblical origins
The concept is in two of the Parables of Jesus in the synoptic Gospels (Table 2, of the Eusebian Canons).
The concept concludes both synoptic versions of the parable of the talents:
The concept concludes two of the three synoptic versions the parable of the Lamp under a bushel (absent in the version of Matthew):
The concept is presented again in Matthew outside of a parable during an explanation of the purpose of parables:
The same concept is found in the noncanonical, gnostic Gospel of Thomas, saying 41.
Sociology of science
In the sociology of science, “Matthew effect” was a term coined by Robert K. Merton to describe how, among other things, eminent scientists will often get more credit than a comparatively unknown researcher, even if their work is similar; it also means that credit will usually be given to researchers who are already famous. For example, a prize will almost always be awarded to the most senior researcher involved in a project, even if all the work was done by a graduate student. This was later formulated by Stephen Stigler as Stigler’s law of eponymy — “No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer” — with Stigler explicitly naming Merton as the true discoverer, making his “law” an example of itself.
Merton furthermore argued that in the scientific community the Matthew effect reaches beyond simple reputation to influence the wider communication system, playing a part in social selection processes and resulting in a concentration of resources and talent. He gave as an example the disproportionate visibility given to articles from acknowledged authors, at the expense of equally valid or superior articles written by unknown authors. He also noted that the concentration of attention on eminent individuals can lead to an increase in their self-assurance, pushing them to perform research in important but risky problem areas.
Examples
As credit is valued in science, specific claims of the Matthew effect are contentious. Many examples below exemplify more famous scientists getting credit for discoveries due to their fame, even as other less notable scientists had preempted their work.
In science, dramatic differences in the productivity may be explained by three phenomena: sacred spark, cumulative advantage, and search costs minimization by journal editors. The sacred spark paradigm suggests that scientists differ in their initial abilities, talent, skills, persistence, work habits, etc. that provide particular individuals with an early advantage. These factors have a multiplicative effect which helps these scholars succeed later. The cumulative advantage model argues that an initial success helps a researcher gain access to resources (e.g., teaching release, best graduate students, funding, facilities, etc.), which in turn results in further success. Search costs minimization by journal editors takes place when editors try to save time and effort by consciously or subconsciously selecting articles from well-known scholars. Whereas the exact mechanism underlying these phenomena is yet unknown, it is documented that a minority of all academics produce the most research output and attract the most citations.
Education
In education, the term “Matthew effect” has been adopted by psychologist Keith Stanovich to describe a phenomenon observed in research on how new readers acquire the skills to read: early success in acquiring reading skills usually leads to later successes in reading as the learner grows, while failing to learn to read before the third or fourth year of schooling may be indicative of lifelong problems in learning new skills.
This is because children who fall behind in reading would read less, increasing the gap between them and their peers. Later, when students need to “read to learn” (where before they were learning to read), their reading difficulty creates difficulty in most other subjects. In this way they fall further and further behind in school, dropping out at a much higher rate than their peers.
In the words of Stanovich:
Network science
In network science, the Matthew effect is used to describe the preferential attachment of earlier nodes in a network, which explains that these nodes tend to attract more links early on. “Because of preferential attachment, a node that acquires more connections than another one will increase its connectivity at a higher rate, and thus an initial difference in the connectivity between two nodes will increase further as the network grows, while the degree of individual nodes will grow proportional with the square root of time.” The Matthew Effect therefore explains the growth of some nodes in vast networks such as the Internet.
科学社会学
ウィキペディア
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/科学社会学
マタイ効果 (Matthew effect)
マートンは、条件に恵まれた研究者は優れた業績を挙げることでさらに条件に恵まれる、という「利益—優位性の累積」のメカニズムを指摘した。マートンは、新約聖書のなかの文言「おおよそ、持っている人は与えられて、いよいよ豊かになるが、持っていない人は、持っているものまでも取り上げられるであろう」(マタイ福音書第13章12節)から借用してこのメカニズムを「マタイ効果」と命名した。著名科学者による科学的文献には水増しする形で承認が与えられ、無名科学者には与えられない。たとえば、ノーベル賞受賞者は、生涯ノーベル賞受賞者であるが、この受賞者は学界で有利な地位が与えられるために、科学資源の配分、共同研究、後継者の養成においてますます大きな役割を果たす。マタイ効果は科学のコミュニケーション網において迅速にかつ広範に知名度の高い科学者の貢献が組み込まれる点で、科学の発展を促進するプラスの側面を持つが、一方で、科学の権威の偶像化を招くまでになると、マートン・ノルムのうち「普遍主義Universalism」のエートスを犯すことになり(たとえば無名の新人科学者の論文は学術誌に受理されにくく、業績を発表することについて著名科学者に比べて不利な位置におかれる)、科学の発展を阻害するマイナスの側面を持っている。