Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Matthew effect

The Matthew effect refers to the social process whereby initial advantages in status, resources, or performance tend to compound over time, resulting in cumulative disparities where successful entities gain disproportionate further benefits while others lag behind, akin to the biblical principle "for unto every one that hath shall be given."^[1] Coined by sociologist Robert K. Merton in 1968, the term draws from the Gospel of Matthew (25:29) to explain how eminent scientists often receive undue credit for collaborative discoveries, overshadowing lesser-known contributors and perpetuating inequality in recognition and rewards.^[2] In scientific research, empirical analyses of citation patterns and career trajectories demonstrate this dynamic, with early successes correlating to accelerated publication rates, funding allocations, and impact metrics, as modeled in stochastic progress frameworks.^[3] Beyond academia, the effect manifests in economics through market dominance reinforcing monopolistic tendencies, in education via widening skill gaps from early reading proficiency, and in broader sociology where social capital begets further opportunities, though evidence varies by domain with some studies revealing conditional or absent amplification under equalizing interventions.^[4] Merton's formulation highlights not mere chance but psychosocial mechanisms, such as attribution biases favoring the prominent, challenging assumptions of meritocratic equity in achievement distributions.^[5]

Origins and Conceptual Foundations

Biblical and Etymological Roots

The Matthew effect draws its name from the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament, particularly verse 25:29, which in the King James Version reads: "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath."^[6] This statement concludes the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14–30), wherein a master distributes talents—units of currency—to his servants according to their abilities before departing on a journey. The servants who invest and multiply their talents receive commendation and additional responsibility upon the master's return, while the one who buries his talent out of fear has it confiscated and is cast out.^[6] Etymologically, the term reflects the biblical principle of disproportionate reward and penalty based on initial stewardship, illustrating a dynamic where possession or productivity begets further accrual, and inaction leads to loss.^[2] Similar phrasing appears elsewhere in Matthew, such as 13:12—"For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath"—reinforcing the motif across parables on reception of the word of God. These verses, attributed to Jesus' teachings circa 30 CE, underscore a causal mechanism of amplification from starting conditions, predating modern sociological applications by nearly two millennia.

Robert Merton's Sociological Formulation

Robert K. Merton introduced the term "Matthew effect" in his 1968 paper published in Science, framing it as a psychosociological process in the sociology of science whereby eminent scientists receive disproportionate recognition for contributions, particularly in collaborations or independent multiple discoveries.^[7] This formulation draws directly from the biblical verse in Matthew 25:29—"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath"—to illustrate how initial advantages in reputation accumulate further rewards, while lesser-known contributors face diminished visibility.^[1] Merton emphasized that this effect operates through the institutional structures of science, including its reward system (where credit allocation favors prestige) and communication system (where famous names amplify the diffusion of ideas).^[7] In Merton's analysis, the mechanisms manifest in skewed attribution: for instance, in joint authorship, readers disproportionately recall and credit the prominent co-author, as one Nobel laureate observed, "When people see my name on a paper, they are apt to remember it and not to remember the other names."^[1] Similarly, in cases of multiple independent discoveries—a common pattern in scientific progress due to convergent problem-solving—the credit often consolidates with the already established figure, overshadowing precursors or rivals.^[7] Merton linked this to psychosocial factors, such as the self-assurance of eminent scientists enabling them to pursue high-risk, significant problems, which in turn garners social validation and reinforces their focalizing role in directing scientific attention.^[1] Sociologically, Merton argued that while the Matthew effect can enhance the visibility of validated contributions—benefiting science's cumulative knowledge—it perpetuates inequities by concentrating resources, talent, and opportunities among elites.^[7] For example, data from studies of Nobel laureates showed that top institutions, producing about 70% of future prizewinners, retain talent through this reputational compounding, widening gaps in career trajectories and funding allocation.^[1] This formulation underscores the interplay between individual achievement and social structure, revealing how science's purported meritocracy is modulated by status hierarchies, a theme Merton revisited in his 1988 elaboration on cumulative advantage.^[7]

Core Mechanisms and Theoretical Underpinnings

Cumulative Advantage Dynamics

The cumulative advantage dynamic underlying the Matthew effect describes a self-reinforcing process whereby initial advantages in resources, status, or performance generate disproportionate further gains, amplifying disparities over time. This mechanism posits that entities with early leads receive preferential access to opportunities, such as funding, collaborations, or recognition, which in turn enhance their capacity for additional success, creating a compounding trajectory akin to exponential growth in favorable conditions. Robert K. Merton formalized this as a generator of inequality in scientific stratification, where "the rich get richer at a rate that makes the poor become relatively poorer," driven by social and institutional structures that reward established performers.^[8] Empirical models quantify this through stochastic processes, such as those incorporating preferential attachment, where the probability of gaining new advantages scales with existing ones, leading to power-law distributions in outcomes like citations or wealth.^[3] At its core, the dynamic relies on feedback loops: past achievements signal reliability or prestige, prompting resource allocators—be they grant committees, investors, or networks—to direct disproportionate support toward the already advantaged, irrespective of marginal talent differences. This is not mere correlation but a causal chain, as demonstrated in longitudinal analyses of career trajectories, where early publications predict exponentially higher future output due to amplified visibility and resources. For instance, simulations of cumulative advantage show that even modest initial heterogeneity in ability or luck evolves into stark inequality under repeated preferential reinforcement, aligning with observed skewness in scientific productivity.^[4] Critics note potential countervailing forces like regression to the mean or institutional corrections, yet the persistence of the effect in diverse domains underscores its robustness as a generative process rather than an artifact of selection bias.^[9] Mathematically, cumulative advantage can be modeled via equations like P(k) \propto k^{\alpha}, where success probability P grows with prior successes k, yielding heavy-tailed distributions empirically verified in citation networks and funding allocations. This dynamic extends beyond individuals to systems, as aggregated micro-level preferences yield macro-level polarization, challenging assumptions of meritocratic equilibrium in competitive fields. While heterogeneity in advantage rates can modulate outcomes—e.g., slower compounding for the disadvantaged—the baseline mechanism implies widening gaps absent deliberate interventions.^[10]

Feedback Loops and Causal Realism

The Matthew effect manifests through positive feedback loops, where initial advantages in resources, recognition, or performance generate amplified opportunities that further entrench disparities. Sociologist Robert K. Merton described this in 1968 as a process in scientific communities wherein established researchers receive disproportionate credit and support for contributions, leading to heightened productivity and visibility that attract additional collaborations, grants, and citations.^[1] This compounding dynamic aligns with broader cumulative advantage principles, observed across domains: a small edge, such as early publication success, triggers mechanisms like preferential resource allocation, where evaluators favor proven entities over equals due to perceived lower risk.^[11] Causal realism in these loops emphasizes verifiable mechanisms over correlational patterns, tracing how status signals causally influence outcomes rather than assuming random diffusion. For instance, empirical analyses of citation data demonstrate preferential attachment, a network-level process where nodes (e.g., authors or papers) with higher initial connectivity draw disproportionately more links, modeled mathematically as growth rates proportional to existing degree: \frac{d k_i}{d t} = m \frac{k_i}{\sum k}, where k_i is the degree of node i and m is a constant addition per step.^[4] In organizational contexts, psychological processes like status bias amplify this: decision-makers exhibit heightened attribution of merit to high-status actors, even for equivalent outputs, fostering self-perpetuating hierarchies through repeated interactions.^[12] These loops exhibit path dependence, where early contingencies—such as institutional affiliations or mentorship—initiate trajectories resistant to reversal without exogenous shocks. Studies in innovation networks reveal that while Matthew effects enhance efficiency by concentrating efforts on high-potential agents, they can distort meritocracy when visibility overrides quality, as evidenced by experiments showing 20-30% higher funding rates for identical proposals from prestigious origins.^[13] Causal interventions, like anonymized evaluations, disrupt loops only partially, as residual signals (e.g., prior records) persist, underscoring the need for systemic redesigns grounded in mechanism-specific evidence rather than equity assumptions.^[14]

Empirical Evidence in Scientific and Academic Contexts

Research Funding and Career Trajectories

In research funding allocation, the Matthew effect operates through prior success enhancing the probability of future awards, often via increased application rates and reputational signals. Analysis of a major Dutch funding program revealed that researchers narrowly crossing the funding threshold for early-career grants accumulated over twice as much additional funding—€180,000 more on average—over the subsequent eight years compared to observationally similar non-recipients.^[15] Early winners in this program were 2.5 times more likely to secure mid-career grants, achieving a 26% success rate versus 10% for non-winners, with the effect partly attributable to higher participation rates among prior recipients (59% versus 40%).^[15] This pattern extends broadly, as demonstrated by a 2025 replication study encompassing over 100,000 applications from six organizations across Europe and North America, which found early grant success to be a robust predictor of subsequent funding across all examined funders, countries, and disciplines.^[16] The persistence of this dynamic contributes to resource concentration, where established researchers receive disproportionate shares, potentially at the expense of novel or high-risk proposals from newcomers.^[15]^[16] In academic career trajectories, cumulative advantage yields highly skewed achievement distributions, amplifying initial differences into long-term disparities. A dataset of 412,498 publications from 23 high-impact journals, spanning 258,626 scientists, exhibited Gini coefficients of 0.48 for productivity and 0.73 for citations, levels exceeding income inequality in many developing economies, with the top 1% of researchers capturing 22–26% of total citations.^[17] High achievers experience accelerating trajectories, as inter-publication intervals shorten progressively—from 3.6 years for initial outputs to approximately 1 year by the 20th publication in natural sciences—reflecting feedback from enhanced resources, collaborations, and visibility.^[17] These mechanisms entrench inequality by favoring those with early momentum, leading to a small elite dominating positions, grants, and influence while marginalizing others despite comparable talent.^[17] Empirical distributions align with models of preferential attachment, where success begets further opportunities, rather than merit-alone explanations.^[17]

Citation Networks and Recognition Bias

In scientific citation networks, the Matthew effect operates through cumulative advantage, where researchers with early successes accumulate disproportionate citations, amplifying their visibility and influence over time. Empirical analyses of large-scale bibliometric data reveal power-law distributions in citation counts, with a small fraction of papers or authors receiving the majority of citations, consistent with "rich-get-richer" dynamics rather than pure quality differences.^[4] For instance, a 2014 study modeling citation processes across disciplines found that initial citation advantages persist and grow exponentially, driven by preferential attachment where highly cited works attract further references independently of intrinsic merit.^[14] Recognition bias exacerbates this effect by favoring citations to prestigious or familiar authors, often irrespective of the specific paper's novelty or rigor. A decomposition of citation advantages identifies prestige as a key component, alongside networking and quality, where works from high-status individuals receive 20-50% more citations than equivalent outputs from lesser-known peers in controlled experiments.^[14] Post-award surges provide stark evidence: Nobel Prize winners experience a 30-100% increase in citations to prior and contemporaneous works, with effects strongest for publications within five years before the award, indicating retrospective recognition amplification rather than solely prospective impact.^[18] Longitudinal tracking of scientist careers further quantifies the bias, showing that past productivity and longevity predict future citation rates beyond current output quality, with top performers gaining citations at rates 2-5 times higher than median peers over decades.^[3] In network terms, this creates feedback loops where central nodes (high-prestige authors) dominate information flow, marginalizing peripheral contributions and perpetuating inequality; simulations confirm that removing prestige cues reduces disparity by up to 40%.^[17] Recent demonstrations in informetrics datasets affirm that well-known scientists' new works garner elevated recognition metrics, underscoring the effect's persistence in modern publication ecosystems.^[19]

Applications in Economics and Markets

Wealth and Success Compounding

In economics, the Matthew effect operates through mechanisms where initial wealth enables access to higher-yield investments, leveraged borrowing, and informational advantages, leading to compounded growth that outpaces that of smaller portfolios. Larger asset bases facilitate diversification, economies of scale in transaction costs, and tolerance for higher-risk opportunities with greater expected returns, creating self-reinforcing cycles of accumulation.^[20] Empirical analyses confirm that affluent households systematically achieve superior financial returns; for instance, data from the Italian Survey on Household Income and Wealth (SHIW) spanning 1991 to 2016 show wealthier deciles earning disproportionately higher yields on financial assets.^[20] Financial development exacerbates this dynamic by channeling benefits unevenly: expanded banking infrastructure and fintech adoption, such as remote services, boost returns across wealth levels but amplify gains for the top deciles, thereby intensifying inequality.^[20] In the United States, life-course patterns reveal cumulative advantage driving late-life wealth disparities, with Gini coefficients for those aged 65-74 rising from 0.393 in 1983-1984 to 0.429 by 2010, and for those 75+ from 0.415 to 0.446.^[21] Concurrently, the top income quintile's share among seniors increased to 48% (65-74) and 50% (75+), while the bottom 40%'s fell to 14%, reflecting how early advantages in earnings and savings compound into entrenched elderly wealth gaps.^[21] Success compounding extends to market influence, where established wealth signals reliability, attracting partnerships, venture capital, and policy favors that further entrench dominance. Cross-national studies of wealth trajectories affirm the "rich get richer" pattern, with initial endowments predicting accelerated growth via preferential resource allocation, though bounded by institutional factors like taxation or market saturation.^[22] This process underscores causal feedback loops, independent of merit alone, where scale generates momentum absent in lower starting positions. In competitive markets, social influence amplifies the Matthew effect by channeling participant attention and resources toward initially advantaged options, creating feedback loops where visibility breeds further adoption and success. This dynamic often manifests through herding behavior, network externalities, and recommendation mechanisms, where early popularity signals—such as downloads, ratings, or endorsements—disproportionately boost subsequent engagement, leading to heightened inequality and reduced outcome predictability compared to independent choice environments. A key empirical illustration is the 2006 MusicLab experiment by Salganik, Dodds, and Watts, involving 14,341 participants in an online platform simulating a music download market with 48 songs. In "social influence" worlds, users viewed aggregate download counts from prior participants, resulting in significantly greater inequality (Pareto index rising from approximately 0.3 in independent worlds to 1.2 or higher in influenced ones) and a pronounced cumulative advantage: songs achieving early downloads received exponentially more subsequent plays, with success rates correlating strongly to initial traction rather than intrinsic quality. Independent worlds, lacking these signals, showed flatter distributions and higher predictability aligned with average preferences.^[23] Subsequent modeling of MusicLab data confirms the Matthew mechanism emerges sporadically under social influence, occurring in about 25% of simulated "worlds" due to localized popularity cascades propagating through participant sequences, rather than uniform rich-get-richer processes. In real-world extensions, such as online recommendation-driven markets, these effects contribute to "winner-take-all" concentration, where algorithms prioritizing high-engagement items reinforce disparities; for instance, analyses of cultural goods platforms reveal social signals increasing the variance in adoption rates by factors of 2-3 over baseline models. Interventions like randomizing visibility or capping influence have been proposed to mitigate this, though empirical tests show persistent amplification in networked settings.^[24]^[25]

Education and Skill Acquisition

In the domain of reading acquisition, the Matthew effect describes how early proficient readers experience accelerated development in vocabulary, comprehension, and knowledge acquisition due to greater voluntary reading exposure, while struggling readers fall further behind from reduced practice and motivational deficits. Keith Stanovich's 1986 analysis posits that individual differences in initial literacy skills trigger feedback loops: fluent decoding enables more text engagement, fostering syntactic knowledge, background schema, and orthographic processing, which in turn reinforce reading fluency.^[26] This dynamic, drawn from longitudinal data on phonological awareness and word recognition, predicts diverging trajectories where advantaged readers compound gains at rates exceeding their peers by factors observed in vocabulary growth disparities of up to 4,000 words by adolescence.^[27] Empirical evidence from meta-analyses confirms a Matthew effect primarily in reading comprehension and vocabulary, where good comprehenders show annual gains 1.5 to 2 times higher than poor ones, attributable to self-reinforcing reading volume differences exceeding 100 hours yearly.^[28] However, for decoding accuracy, results are inconsistent: a 25-year review of 37 studies found only one instance of divergence versus eight showing stable gaps or convergence, suggesting initial deficits persist without amplification in basic phonics skills.^[29] This pattern holds in controlled longitudinal cohorts, where prior word-learning abilities, rather than reading alone, predict vocabulary trajectories, controlling for pre-literacy factors like maternal education.^[30] Extending to broader skill acquisition, cumulative advantage operates through selective allocation of resources and opportunities; high-achieving students in tracked systems receive enriched curricula and peer reinforcement, accelerating competence in domains like mathematics and science by 0.2 to 0.5 standard deviations more than low achievers over middle school.^[31] In STEM skill development, early aptitude leads to compounded expertise via deliberate practice differentials, with top performers logging 20-30% more hours in advanced tasks, as tracked in graduate cohorts from 2000-2015.^[32] Yet, some large-scale analyses, including enrollment timing studies across ethnic groups, detect no path-dependent fanning in core academic skills, attributing persistent inequalities more to fixed socioeconomic inputs than dynamic amplification.^[33] For at-risk learners, one-sided effects emerge, where early interventions mitigate divergence, but untreated gaps in executive functions exacerbate skill stagnation.^[34]

Life Course and Intergenerational Effects

The Matthew effect manifests in life course dynamics through processes where early advantages, such as superior educational attainment or initial occupational status, generate subsequent opportunities that amplify disparities over an individual's trajectory. For instance, individuals with higher initial socioeconomic status experience compounding benefits in health and wealth accumulation, as early resources enable investments in human capital that yield returns like better job prospects and networks, leading to greater intra-cohort inequality with age. Empirical analysis of U.S. elderly populations has shown that cumulative advantages in income and assets widen economic gaps within birth cohorts as people age, with those starting advantaged pulling further ahead due to differential access to pensions, housing equity, and medical care. Similarly, in career progression, initial successes foster reputation effects that attract further resources, as observed in longitudinal studies of professional trajectories where early publications or promotions correlate with exponentially higher lifetime outputs.^[35]^[9] Intergenerationally, the effect operates via the transmission of advantages across family lines, where parental resources—such as education, wealth, or social capital—provide offspring with superior starting conditions that compound into persistent inequality. Data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics indicate that grandparents' educational attainment significantly influences grandchildren's schooling outcomes, with effects mediated through parental investments and stronger in stable two-parent households, illustrating how advantages accrue across three generations. In educational contexts, children from high-socioeconomic families receive disproportionate benefits from policies like early childhood education, as advantaged parents leverage subsidies for quality care that enhances cognitive skills, while disadvantaged families underutilize them, exacerbating gaps; a review of European family policies found this "Matthew effect" in subsidized childcare, where higher-income households gain more developmental boosts. Peer-reviewed analyses further reveal that parental birth order indirectly shapes offspring education via inherited socioeconomic status, with first-born advantages translating into higher child attainment rates, perpetuating cycles.^[36]^[37]^[38] These effects are not universal, as aggregate empirical tests, such as time-series data on U.S. disposable income from 1947 to 2015, have failed to detect a strong macro-level Matthew mechanism driving overall inequality divergence, suggesting bounded influences like institutional interventions or regression to the mean can temper compounding in some domains. Nonetheless, micro-level family studies consistently document intergenerational persistence, with initial family capital yielding multiplicative returns in offspring outcomes, underscoring causal pathways rooted in resource allocation rather than mere correlation.^[9]^[36]

Extensions to Other Fields

Network Science and Connectivity

In network science, the Matthew effect manifests as preferential attachment, a mechanism whereby nodes in a growing network are more likely to form connections with existing high-degree nodes, thereby amplifying connectivity disparities. This dynamic, often termed the "rich-get-richer" process, underlies the emergence of scale-free network topologies characterized by power-law degree distributions, where a small number of hubs dominate connections while most nodes remain sparsely linked. Empirical observations in systems such as the World Wide Web, where highly linked pages attract disproportionate new links, and scientific citation networks, where prominent papers garner more citations, illustrate this effect's role in fostering heterogeneous connectivity patterns.^[4]^[39] The Barabási–Albert model formalizes this process through two core principles: continuous network growth via addition of new nodes, and preferential attachment probability proportional to a node's current degree. Introduced in 1999, the model predicts that the probability \Pi(k) of a new link attaching to a node of degree k scales as \Pi(k) = \frac{k}{\sum k_i}, yielding an asymptotic degree distribution P(k) \sim k^{-\gamma} with \gamma \approx 3. Simulations and real-world validations, including internet router topologies and protein interaction networks, confirm that this mechanism generates robust yet vulnerable structures, as hubs enhance overall connectivity but create single points of failure. Nonlinear variants of preferential attachment can further intensify the effect, producing super-hubs or constraining extreme degrees depending on the attachment exponent.^[39] This connectivity bias extends to dynamic networks, where temporal data reveal that early advantages in degree predict sustained growth, as seen in collaboration networks among actors or researchers. For instance, in evolving social media graphs, users with initial high follower counts experience accelerated link acquisition, perpetuating influence asymmetries. While preferential attachment explains much of observed scale-freeness, critiques note that real networks often incorporate fitness parameters or aging effects that modulate the pure Matthew dynamic, preventing unbounded hub dominance. Nonetheless, the mechanism underscores causal pathways from initial connectivity to amplified network centrality, informing models of information diffusion and resilience in complex systems.^[4]^[40]

Physical and Cosmological Analogues

In cosmology, the Matthew effect analogue arises during the formation of large-scale cosmic structure through gravitational instability. Primordial density fluctuations, on the order of 10^{-5} in amplitude from cosmic inflation and quantified by the cosmic microwave background (CMB) power spectrum, seed regions of slightly higher density. These overdensities gravitationally attract surrounding matter, amplifying perturbations via Jeans instability and leading to runaway collapse where denser regions accrete more mass, while underdense voids expand and dilute further—a dynamic explicitly likened to "the rich get richer."^[41] ^[42] This hierarchical process, occurring over billions of years post-Big Bang recombination at z ≈ 1100 (approximately 380,000 years after the Big Bang), results in the observed filamentary web of galaxies, clusters, and superclusters, with dark matter halos growing via mergers and accretion following power-law mass functions.^[43] In physical systems, preferential attachment mechanisms produce similar cumulative advantage dynamics, particularly in growing spatial networks that model real-world phenomena like fracture propagation or deposition processes. For instance, in simulations of network growth where new nodes connect preferentially to high-degree existing nodes within spatial constraints, the probability of attachment scales with degree, yielding scale-free degree distributions and hub-dominated structures akin to Matthew effect amplification.^[44] Such models, rooted in stochastic processes rather than social recognition, demonstrate how initial connectivity advantages propagate without external bias, as validated in empirical fits to physical networks like the Internet backbone or biological vasculatures, though applications to purely non-living systems emphasize geometric and probabilistic drivers over reputational ones.^[45] These analogues highlight causal mechanisms—gravity in cosmology and probabilistic reinforcement in physics—that operate independently of human judgment, contrasting with sociological Matthew effects tied to perception and credit allocation. Empirical verification in cosmology relies on N-body simulations (e.g., Millennium Simulation, resolving structures to 1 kpc scales) matching observed galaxy clustering via two-point correlation functions with ξ(r) ∝ r^{-1.8}.^[46] In physical models, mean-field approximations confirm power-law tails emerging from linear preferential rules, with sublinear variants fitting bounded growth scenarios.^[47]

Critiques, Limitations, and Debates

Mixed Empirical Findings

Empirical investigations into the Matthew effect across domains have produced inconsistent results, with some studies supporting cumulative advantage and others finding limited or context-dependent evidence. In educational psychology, particularly reading development, Keith Stanovich's 1986 hypothesis posited that early skilled readers gain accelerating advantages through increased exposure and motivation, but longitudinal analyses have often failed to confirm a widening performance gap. For instance, a 2014 review of multiple studies concluded that while initial differences exist, subsequent trajectories do not consistently show fan-spread divergence, attributing inconsistencies to psychometric measurement challenges rather than absence of the effect. Similarly, a 2015 study on early reading skills using fan-spread models—defining high and low performers based on growth rather than initial levels—yielded mixed evidence, with no robust Matthew effect observed in vocabulary or comprehension trajectories among U.S. elementary students tracked from kindergarten to fifth grade.^[48]^[34] In scientific research and citations, Robert Merton's original formulation emphasized reputational advantages accruing to established scholars, yet rigorous econometric analyses have challenged its universality. A 2014 NBER working paper examining Nobel Prizes and citation returns found a status boost effect but no differential marginal returns across the prestige distribution, concluding that empirical support for self-reinforcing advantages is weak and potentially a "fable" in high-status contexts like elite science. This aligns with findings in retraction studies, where retracted work by high-status authors experiences a reverse Matthew effect—slower citation decay compared to low-status peers—but overall impact diminishes without perpetuating advantages. Funding evaluations also show variability; while some grant panels exhibit halo effects favoring prior recipients, others reveal diminishing returns or null effects after controlling for quality.^[49]^[50] Economic applications, such as wealth accumulation or market competition, similarly reveal mixed patterns. Agent-based models and firm-level data sometimes demonstrate compounding success for leaders, but empirical tests in venture capital or innovation networks often uncover threshold effects or regression to the mean, where initial advantages do not predict sustained outperformance absent ongoing quality inputs. A 2012 analysis of ethnic inequality trajectories rejected path-dependent Matthew dynamics, finding instead convergence or stability inconsistent with pure cumulative models. These discrepancies highlight that the effect's presence depends on institutional factors, measurement of "success," and time horizons, with stronger evidence in opaque or winner-take-all systems but attenuation in meritocratic or regulated ones.^[33]

Reverse Matthew Effect and Corrective Mechanisms

The reverse Matthew effect refers to scenarios where disadvantages compound more severely for initially less advantaged actors, contrasting the standard cumulative advantage. In scientific collaboration, retractions of co-authored papers disproportionately penalize less eminent authors' prior work, with citations to their earlier publications declining by approximately 10% annually post-retraction, while eminent co-authors experience negligible losses. This asymmetry arises because readers attribute blame more to junior or obscure team members, amplifying career setbacks for those without reputational buffers. A Bayesian updating model interprets this as communities discounting prior achievements of the vulnerable while shielding established figures, observed in a dataset of over 3,000 retraction events from 1945 to 2011.^[51]^[50] Similar dynamics appear in talent development domains, where performance ceilings constrain gains for top performers, yielding a reversed pattern of smaller improvements at elite levels. Empirical analysis of top-100 chess players in 2011 showed a positive correlation (r=0.35, p<0.01) between ranking and subsequent rating changes, indicating diminishing marginal returns for leaders due to proximity to skill limits. In national soccer teams (top-50), a comparable correlation (r=0.28, p<0.05) confirmed reduced advancement for frontrunners, supported by models of expertise acquisition where initial advantages saturate. This suggests inherent stabilizing forces against indefinite compounding, though it does not eliminate baseline inequalities.^[52] Corrective mechanisms aim to mitigate standard Matthew effects through deliberate interventions, often targeting resource allocation to underperformers, with mixed empirical outcomes. In research funding, grant lotteries—randomly awarding to qualified but lower-scoring applicants—have been piloted to bypass reputational biases favoring incumbents; a 2018 analysis of European Research Council data found such approaches reduce persistence of success rates by 15-20% compared to merit-only systems, though overall innovation impacts remain inconclusive due to small sample sizes. Blinded peer review processes, implemented in agencies like the National Institutes of Health since 2010, diminish halo effects from prior grants, equalizing evaluation by 8-12% for early-career applicants in controlled trials.^[53]^[54] In educational and skill contexts, targeted early interventions for disadvantaged groups can partially offset cumulative disadvantage, but long-term reversal requires sustained input. Longitudinal studies of skill acquisition programs show that allocating resources to lower-quartile performers yields 2-3 times greater relative gains than to elites, aligning with reversed effect ceilings; however, without ongoing support, initial boosts fade, as evidenced by chess training cohorts where unmaintained interventions led to 40% reversion to baseline hierarchies within five years. Policy efforts like progressive taxation or affirmative action in hiring exhibit limited efficacy against compounding; U.S. data from 1980-2020 indicate income inequality metrics (Gini coefficient rising from 0.40 to 0.41) persist despite such measures, attributable to endogenous behaviors like reduced application rates among non-recipients. These findings underscore that while reverse effects and interventions can temper extremes, they seldom eradicate underlying dynamics without addressing participation barriers.^[52]^[9]

Overemphasis in Inequality Narratives

In analyses of socioeconomic disparities, the Matthew effect is frequently portrayed as a dominant mechanism amplifying initial advantages into entrenched inequality, particularly in progressive policy discourses that emphasize structural interventions over individual agency.^[55] However, this framing risks overstatement, as empirical investigations reveal inconsistent support for the effect's role in widening gaps across key domains. A comprehensive 2014 review of 25 years of longitudinal studies on reading development found mixed evidence, with absolute Matthew effects (where skilled readers pull further ahead) appearing sporadically in early primary years but often absent or reversed in later stages, challenging assumptions of inexorable divergence.^[56] Similarly, a 2012 analysis of Dutch student cohorts from ages 4 to 12 detected no Matthew effect in either reading or mathematics trajectories, instead identifying compensatory patterns that narrowed initial deficits for lower performers, including ethnic minorities.^[57] Such findings underscore limitations in generalizing the effect to broader inequality narratives, where it is invoked to attribute persistent wealth or status differences primarily to feedback loops rather than stable predictors like cognitive ability or productivity variations. For instance, while capital returns exhibit cumulative dynamics—as modeled in analyses where rates exceed growth (r > g), sustaining top-end concentration—evidence indicates that much inequality arises from skill-biased technological shifts rewarding high human capital, with top earners' advantages rooted in outsized contributions rather than mere incumbency.^[20] Critiques of this overreliance highlight how environmentalist interpretations, prevalent in academia despite systemic preferences for nurture over nature explanations, undervalue heritability estimates for outcomes like income (around 40-50% from twin studies), which suggest underlying traits causally drive differential success independently of amplification processes.^[58] In policy contexts, emphasizing the Matthew effect to justify redistributive measures overlooks cases where inequality reflects efficient resource allocation to superior performers, as in Pareto-distributed outcomes where a minority generates disproportionate value—a pattern observed consistently in markets from sales to innovation.^[58] This perspective aligns with causal analyses prioritizing comparative advantage and merit-based selection, countering narratives that pathologize natural variation as self-perpetuating pathology requiring override. Empirical inconsistencies, coupled with these alternative mechanisms, indicate that the effect's invocation often serves rhetorical ends over precise causal accounting, potentially misdirecting focus from enhancing opportunity through competition to dampening rewards for excellence.^[59]

Recent Developments and Emerging Insights

Post-2020 Funding and Career Studies

A 2025 replication study analyzing 109,624 early- and later-career grant applications from 2001 to 2024 across six funders—including the Wellcome Trust, Austrian Science Fund (FWF), and Canadian agencies—confirmed the Matthew effect's robustness, with early-career funding recipients showing a 26% later-career success rate compared to 15% for non-recipients, yielding a causal increase of about 3 percentage points driven mainly by elevated reapplication rates rather than higher peer review scores.^[60] This pattern held consistently across most funders and generalized beyond threshold-adjacent applicants to the broader population, using regression discontinuity designs and Bayesian modeling to control for latent research quality.^[60] A parallel 2025 investigation by the Research on Research Institute, drawing on over 100,000 applications from 14 programs across four countries, reinforced these findings, attributing the effect primarily to prior winners' increased propensity to reapply for funding later in careers, rather than systemic reviewer bias favoring incumbents.^[16] Near-miss applicants (those just below funding thresholds) did not exhibit robust compensatory success upon reapplication, challenging narratives of resilience from setbacks and highlighting selection biases in observed citation gains.^[16]^[60] In U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant dynamics, a 2023 econometric model of lab-level allocations from 1980 onward—updated with post-2020 budget expansions—demonstrated that the Matthew effect correlates with sustained productivity advantages for previously funded teams, as initial grants enable scaling that perpetuates funding inflows and output disparities. Pandemic-era reallocations, with NIH budgets surging to $45 billion by 2021, crowded out non-COVID research and likely intensified cumulative advantages for established principal investigators in virology and related fields, reducing new investigator awards by up to 37% in neuroscience by fiscal year 2025.^[61]^[62] Career trajectory analyses post-2020 frame these funding patterns as systemic enablers of cumulative advantage, where highly productive researchers actively craft networks and strategies to amplify early gains, as evidenced in organizational studies merging job crafting theory with funding data.^[63] Such mechanisms suggest policy levers like bridge funding for near-misses could mitigate entrenched hierarchies without undermining merit-based allocation.^[16]^[60]

Applications in AI and Digital Economies

In digital economies, the Matthew effect manifests through network effects and scale advantages that favor incumbent platforms, leading to winner-take-all market structures. Early leaders in sectors like search engines and social media accumulate users, data, and advertising revenue at accelerating rates, creating feedback loops that deter entrants. For example, dominant firms leverage vast datasets to refine algorithms, enhancing user retention and monetization, which further widens gaps with competitors. This dynamic aligns with empirical observations in online markets, where social influence amplifies initial popularity into market dominance.^[64]^[25] Firm-level digitalization exhibits similar patterns, with higher-productivity enterprises deriving greater labor productivity gains from information and communication technologies (ICT) adoption compared to less productive ones, thereby exacerbating productivity dispersion. A study of European firms found that ICT diffusion reinforces this asymmetry, as resource-rich entities invest more effectively in digital tools, outpacing laggards in efficiency improvements. In digital finance, regional development shows a pronounced Matthew effect, where advanced areas attract disproportionate fintech investments, perpetuating spatial inequalities in access and innovation.^[65]^[66] In artificial intelligence, the Matthew effect intensifies due to high barriers in compute, data, and talent, concentrating advancements among a few leading organizations. Successful models, such as those from major labs, draw escalating funding and partnerships, enabling iterative improvements that compound advantages—evident in the 2023-2025 surge where top AI firms secured billions in venture capital while smaller developers faced resource scarcity. This mirrors broader science funding trends, where prior grant recipients apply more frequently and capture a larger share of subsequent awards, as confirmed in a 2025 analysis of over 100,000 researchers across disciplines including AI. AI-driven recommendation systems in research further entrench this by prioritizing high-citation works, systematically boosting established authors over newcomers.^[16]

Broader Implications

Causal Insights into Merit and Competition

The Matthew effect operates as a causal amplifier in merit-driven systems, where initial achievements secure enhanced resources, visibility, and networks that disproportionately elevate future performance relative to competitors. In competitive arenas, this manifests through feedback loops: success begets opportunities for refinement and exposure, widening gaps even among agents of comparable baseline ability. Empirical studies employing quasi-experimental designs demonstrate that these dynamics arise not solely from superior output but from status-mediated evaluations, introducing path dependence that conditions outcomes on early breaks rather than ongoing merit alone.^[15] Causal evidence from science funding illustrates this in high-stakes merit competitions. A regression discontinuity analysis of the Netherlands' Innovation Research Incentives Scheme, comparing applicants near grant approval thresholds based on peer review scores, found that winners accumulated over twice the subsequent funding (€180,000 more over eight years) than non-winners, despite negligible quality differences at the margin. Early-career grant recipients were 2.5 times more likely to secure mid-career awards (26% versus 10%), with the effect driven by reduced application rates among non-winners (40% versus 59%) and heightened evaluator favoritism toward prior successes, rather than grant-induced productivity gains. This indicates that funding labels causally signal status, skewing resource allocation toward incumbents and compressing competition for newcomers.^[15] In labor and performance markets, similar mechanisms entrench hierarchies. An examination of NBA All-Star elections from 1983 to 2016 revealed that prior nominations boosted re-nomination probabilities by 4.8 percentage points, controlling for performance and situational factors, with direct status bias accounting for 2.4 points—independent of post-nomination productivity improvements. Cumulative prior status further amplified odds by 0.4 points per additional nomination, decoupling selection from current metrics and perpetuating elite persistence, as seen in cases like Kobe Bryant's late-career inclusions despite subpar stats. Across scientific careers, analyses of over 400,000 researchers in top journals showed initial publications causally extending longevity via reputation effects, with progress rates monotonically increasing with established position, yielding power-law distributions that favor early winners in zero-sum publication and grant races.^[12]^[3] These insights reveal tensions in meritocracy: under uncertainty about quality, status can efficiently proxy and reinforce true ability, as theoretical models predict amplified effects when signals align with skill. Yet, deviations in data—such as status biases persisting absent quality correlations—suggest over-reinforcement, where random initial advantages compound into durable leads, eroding competitive purity by rewarding inertia over iterative merit assessment. In aggregate, the effect fosters concentration, enhancing efficiency in identifying outliers but at the cost of broader talent mobilization, as non-merit factors like visibility thresholds exclude late bloomers.^[49]^[67]

Mitigation Approaches and Their Evidence

Modified lotteries for research funding, where grants are randomly allocated among proposals passing a minimal quality threshold, represent a proposed mechanism to disrupt cumulative advantage by decoupling allocation from past success indicators. Simulations of funding dynamics demonstrate that such lotteries can reduce the rate at which resources concentrate among high performers, potentially flattening inequality trajectories over time.^[68] Empirical implementations remain limited; for instance, small-scale trials in agencies like Austria's FWF have provided causal estimates of funding impacts but have not yielded conclusive evidence of sustained reductions in researcher inequality or enhanced diversity in outputs.^[69] Critics note that lotteries may undermine incentives for rigorous proposal development, with surveys of scientists indicating concerns over diminished overall research quality.^[70] Double-blind peer review in journals and grants seeks to neutralize reputational biases that amplify the Matthew effect during evaluation. Experimental and observational studies confirm that single-blind processes confer advantages to papers from famous authors or prestigious institutions, with scores 10-20% higher on average when identities are known.^[71] ^[72] Switching to double-blind has been shown to lower these inflated ratings for established names and improve review quality in specific journals, though aggregate effects on acceptance rates or long-term citation disparities are modest due to persistent signals like institutional affiliation.^[73] ^[74] A field experiment in grant blinding found reduced disparities in early-stage advancement for lesser-known applicants, but downstream career advantages from prior outputs still accrued.^[75] In educational settings, targeted early interventions—such as intensive tutoring for low achievers—aim to halt diverging skill trajectories underlying the Matthew effect in learning. Longitudinal analyses indicate that well-timed, teacher-led support can elevate performance and prevent persistent gaps, particularly in literacy where cumulative reading deficits otherwise compound.^[76] However, broader empirical reviews of the effect in education reveal weak support for inevitable divergence, with many studies showing stable or converging gaps post-intervention, suggesting contextual factors like instructional quality moderate outcomes more than inherent advantage accumulation.^[77] Evidence for these mitigations' long-term efficacy remains constrained by the Matthew effect's multifactorial nature, including unobserved talent differences and network effects; institutional adoption has not eradicated observed persistence in funding success or productivity disparities across cohorts.^[60] ^[53]

References

[1]
[PDF] The Matthew Effect in Science by Robert K. Merton
ways in which certain psychosociai ., processes affect the allocation of re- wards to scientists for their contribu-. \ tjons- an allocation which in turn ...
[2]
Matthew Effect - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
The major hypothesis of CA/DT was developed by Robert Merton (1968), who called it the Matthew Effect, based on a verse in the Gospel of Matthew (13:12). The ...
[3]
Quantitative and empirical demonstration of the Matthew effect in a ...
The criteria for the Matthew effect to apply is that the progress rate be monotonically increasing with career position, so that g(x + 1) > g(x). In this paper, ...
[4]
The Matthew effect in empirical data | Journal of The Royal Society ...
Sep 6, 2014 · The Matthew effect describes the phenomenon that in societies, the rich tend to get richer and the potent even more powerful.Introduction · Socio-technical and biological... · Scientific progress and impact
[5]
[PDF] The Role of the Matthew Effect in Science - Michael Strevens
Robert Merton observed that better-known scientists tend to get more credit than less well-known scientists for the same achievements; he called.
[6]
Matthew 25:29 For everyone who has will be given more ... - Bible Hub
For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. New King James ...
[7]
The Matthew Effect in Science
This account of the Matthew effect is another small exercise in the psychosociological analysis of the workings of science as a social institution.Missing: formulation | Show results with:formulation
[8]
[PDF] The Matthew Effect in Science, II : Cumulative Advantage and the ...
Merton, “The Matthew Effect in Science,” Science, 5 January 1968, 159(3810):56-63; rpt. in Merton, The Sociology of Science, ed. Norman W. Storer (Chicago ...
[9]
Cumulative (Dis)Advantage and the Matthew Effect in Life-Course ...
Nov 25, 2015 · First, the Matthew mechanism is a process that results in increased inequality. Second, this process is ongoing and, therefore, dynamic. Third, ...
[10]
Cumulative Advantage as a Mechanism for Inequality
Aug 11, 2006 · Cumulative advantage is a general mechanism for inequality across any temporal process (eg, life course, family generations) in which a favorable relative ...
[11]
The Principle of Cumulative Advantage - Thwink.org
The Principle of Cumulative Advantage states that once a social agent gains a small advantage over other agents, that advantage will compound over time.
[12]
They Can't All Be Stars: The Matthew Effect, Cumulative Status Bias ...
Mar 22, 2023 · We demonstrate that this Matthew effect is partly explained by improved productivity after an All-Star nomination, but voters' evaluations are ...
[13]
[PDF] matthew effects and - Berkeley Haas
Underlying the Matthew Effect is an assumption that individuals are biased to positively evaluate high status individuals, and. Merton himself proposes to ...
[14]
Unpacking the Matthew effect in citations - ScienceDirect.com
On the other hand, the mechanism underlying the Matthew effect in science often involves a positive feedback loop between multiple aspects. For example ...
[15]
The Matthew effect in science funding - PNAS
Apr 23, 2018 · A classic thesis is that scientific achievement exhibits a “Matthew effect”: Scientists who have previously been successful are more likely to succeed again.
[16]
Largest study of its kind shows that the 'Matthew effect' in science ...
Jun 12, 2025 · The research team found evidence of the Matthew effect across all funders and countries, with early grant success being a strong predictor of ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
[17]
Inequality and cumulative advantage in science careers: a case ...
Oct 22, 2014 · We show that research careers exhibit the broad distributions of individual achievement characteristic of systems in which cumulative advantage plays a key ...
[18]
Matthew effects in science and the serial diffusion of ideas
Jul 15, 2021 · Based on previous research on the success of Nobel laureates after elevation, Merton coined the term Matthew effect1 to describe “the accruing ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[19]
Empirical demonstration of the Matthew effect in scientific research ...
The Matthew effect qualitatively describes the social phenomenon that the impact and recognition of well-known scientists for their new accomplishments are ...
[20]
The Matthew effect and modern finance: on the nexus between ...
Jul 6, 2020 · This paper analyses the role of financial development and financial technology in driving inequality in (returns to) wealth.
[21]
Cumulative Advantage, Cumulative Disadvantage, and Evolving ...
Mar 30, 2016 · Earlier studies have identified a pattern of cumulative advantage leading to increased within-cohort economic inequality over the life course.Figure 1 · Table 3 · Table 4<|separator|>
[22]
Matthew effect in wealth accumulation across countries - DR-NTU
Herein, we carried out study on wealth accumulation to verify the existence of Matthew Effect among countries. Furthermore, we aimed to explore the factors that ...Missing: evidence | Show results with:evidence
[23]
[PDF] Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial ...
Feb 10, 2006 · Thus, in each experiment, we can observe the effect of social influence on each song_s success, and by comparing results across the two ...
[24]
Social influence and the Matthew mechanism - ScienceDirect.com
We show that the Matthew effect, or Matthew mechanism, was present in the artificial cultural market Music Lab in one-fourth of the “worlds” when social ...
[25]
Taming the Matthew Effect in Online Markets with Social Influence
Feb 10, 2017 · Social influence has been shown to create a Matthew effect in online markets, increasing inequalities and leading to “winner-take-all” phenomena ...Missing: competitive | Show results with:competitive
[26]
[PDF] Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of - Keith Stanovich
Many researchers have discussed the rea- sons phonological awareness is important in early reading acquisition (see Gough & Hil- linger, 1980; Liberman, 1982; ...
[27]
Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual ...
Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Citation. Stanovich, K. E. (1986).
[28]
Matthew effect in vocabulary and reading: A comparison of good ...
In the present context, a Matthew effect can be described as following: children who have good reading comprehension skills experience higher gains ...
[29]
[PDF] A Review of 25 Years of Empirical Research on Matthew Effects in ...
For measures of decoding accuracy, one result indicated a Matthew effect in comparison to four results that indicated stable achievement differences and four.
[30]
The Influence of Reading on Vocabulary Growth: A Case for a ... - NIH
Second, as discussed earlier, previous studies of a Matthew effect for vocabulary did not control for word-learning skills prior to formal reading instruction.
[31]
Competence development of high achievers within the highest track ...
The Matthew effect hypothesis of academic development predicts that students with higher initial achievement will develop further skills at a faster rate ...
[32]
"Cumulative Advantage in the Skill Development of STEM Graduate ...
Feb 1, 2016 · Studies of skill development often describe a process of cumulative advantage, in which small differences in initial skill compound over time, ...
[33]
Cumulative Advantages and the Emergence of Social and Ethnic ...
May 22, 2012 · In sum, there is no empirical evidence for path-dependent processes of cumulative advantage in the development of reading or mathematics skills.<|control11|><|separator|>
[34]
Matthew Effects for Whom? - PMC - NIH
We conclude that a one-sided Matthew effect exists, and it exists for those most at risk for later being identified as learning disabled.
[35]
Cumulative Advantage/Disadvantage and the Life Course: Cross ...
The phenomenon of cumulative advantage was first articulated by the historian of science, Derek Price (1965), in his efforts to develop “bibliometrics,” a ...Missing: scientometrics | Show results with:scientometrics
[36]
Linked Lives and Cumulative Inequality: A Multigenerational Family ...
This phenomenon has also been referred to as the “Matthew effect” for its similarity to the parable of the talents found in the Gospel of Matthew: “For unto ...
[37]
[PDF] The Matthew Effect in early childhood education and care - KU Leuven
This working paper reviews the current evidence on the Matthew effect and its relevance for understanding the outcomes of present-day family policies.
[38]
The Intergenerational Effects of Birth Order on Educational Attainment
Mar 3, 2021 · Our results suggest that parental birth order influences offspring educational and socioeconomic outcomes through the parents own educational and socioeconomic ...
[39]
Chapter 5 – Network Science by Albert-László Barabási
In summary, nonlinear preferential attachment changes the degree distribution, either limiting the size of the hubs (α < 1), or leading to super- hubs (α > 1, ...
[40]
Measuring social mobility in temporal networks | Scientific Reports
Feb 18, 2025 · In complex networks, the “rich-get-richer” effect (nodes with high degree at one point in time gain more degree in their future) is commonly ...
[41]
John Mather & COBE - Astrophysics Science Division
Apr 11, 2013 · Through gravity over the course of billions of years, in a cosmic take on the rich get richer, those denser and warmer pockets attracted ...
[42]
The universe is smoother than the standard model of cosmology ...
Sep 26, 2024 · Regions of slightly lower density lost out, becoming emptier with time – a cosmic case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
[43]
Cosmology: Voids Fill in the Voids About Universal Expansion
Sep 23, 2019 · In short, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Within a few hundred million years, brilliant galaxies formed, glowing like jewels ...
[44]
Preferential attachment in growing spatial networks | Phys. Rev. E
Jul 8, 2011 · Preferential attachment has been proposed as a realistic effective mechanism of network growth for many real-world examples, from the Internet ...
[45]
Emergence of tempered preferential attachment from optimization
We show how preferential attachment can emerge in an optimization framework, resolving a long-standing theoretical controversy.
[46]
Structure Formation Mythology – Triton Station
Jun 16, 2016 · Gravity will form structure, making the over-dense patches grow ever denser, in a classic case of the rich getting richer. But gravity is ...
[47]
Continuum rich-get-richer processes: Mean field analysis with an ...
Jun 29, 2018 · These rich-get-richer models are based on classical urn models and unfold step by step in discrete time. Here, we consider a natural variation ...
[48]
In Search of Matthew Effects in Reading - Sage Journals
Nov 26, 2014 · It seems that a critical obstacle in establishing the purported Matthew effect may not be statistical in nature but, rather, psychometric.
[49]
[PDF] Matthew: Effect or Fable? - National Bureau of Economic Research
To empirically assess the Matthew Effect at the product level, it is therefore necessary to hold product quality constant. When we take a first pass at this by ...
[50]
The Reverse Matthew Effect: Consequences of Retraction in ...
Jul 1, 2019 · However, empirical evidence on the foundational question of ... inconsistent sign across specifications. Thus, prior reputation does ...
[51]
The Reverse Matthew Effect: Catastrophe and Consequence in ...
Oct 4, 2013 · This asymmetry suggests a "Reverse Matthew Effect" for team-produced catastrophes. A Bayesian model provides a candidate interpretation.
[52]
[PDF] Stabilization Effect, Reversed Matthew Effect, and Heraclitus Effect
Dec 17, 2013 · Empirical evidence. The hypotheses H5 to H9 have been tested empirically on two samples: the individual sport of chess and the team sport of ...
[53]
The Matthew effect in science funding - PMC - NIH
Apr 23, 2018 · A classic thesis is that scientific achievement exhibits a “Matthew effect”: Scientists who have previously been successful are more likely to succeed again.
[54]
The Matthew effect and the halo effect in research funding
The results show that the Matthew effect and halo effect are indeed advantageous to scholars seeking an increase in research funding, and these effects increase ...
[55]
The 'Matthew effect' and inequalities | Opinion - Daily Sabah
Jun 14, 2025 · Therefore, the most important mechanism of the Matthew effect is that it leads to cumulative advantage through positive feedback loops. In ...<|separator|>
[56]
Individual Differences in Reading Development - Sage Journals
An absolute Matthew effect describes a developmental pattern in which the students who read better show further positive reading literacy gains, whereas the ...
[57]
Matthew effects in reading and mathematics development ... - PubMed
No evidence for a Matthew effect was found in either domain. A compensation effect emerged for reading, to the benefit of ethnic minorities. A fan-spread ...
[58]
The Matthew Principle and Inequality | The Reformed Conservative
A law with a direct correlation with the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:29, “For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
[59]
What are these Matthew Effects?
Merton, the term "Matthew Effect" originates in a biblical passage from the Gospel of Matthew: "For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have ...
[60]
The Matthew effect and early-career setbacks in research funding ...
First, we suggest that policies designed to mitigate or respond to cumulative advantage may be more fruitful than those based on the idea that early-career ...
[61]
The unintended consequences of the pandemic on non-pandemic ...
Sep 15, 2021 · We found 40% of the sample agree that the pandemic has impaired their confidence in applying for non-pandemic-related grants and 'crowded out' other projects.<|separator|>
[62]
NIH awarded 37 percent fewer neuroscience-related grants in 2025 ...
Sep 29, 2025 · Total grants awarded by NIMH, NINDS. The number of new grants awarded in fiscal year 2025 dropped by 37 percent compared with previous nine-year ...Missing: Matthew effect
[63]
Crafting Cumulative Advantage: A Systemic Approach to the Career ...
Jan 20, 2025 · In this study, we employed a systemic perspective that merged organizational theories of cumulative advantage and job crafting to explore the career ...
[64]
Winner-Takes-All Market: Definition, Examples, Economic Impact
The effect is that in a winner-takes-all situation, the rich get richer and leave the rest behind. That is because stock markets and other winner-takes-all ...
[65]
The Matthew effect: Evidence on firms' digitalization distributional ...
This paper explores the relationship between Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) diffusion and labor productivity at the firm level.
[66]
Does the Matthew Effect Exist in Digital Finance Development ...
Aug 3, 2020 · We demonstrate the existence of the Matthew effect in digital financial development and study potential mechanisms. We provide a new perspective ...
[67]
Skill, status and the Matthew effect: a theoretical framework
Jul 6, 2024 · We find that the Matthew effect in status attribution is a generic property of the social influence model where skills depend on status.
[68]
Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural ...
We found that modified lotteries, which allocate funding randomly among proposals that pass a threshold for methodological rigour, effectively reduce the rate ...
[69]
impact of winning funding on researcher productivity, results from a ...
Aug 8, 2024 · The wider use of funding lotteries could provide robust estimates of the benefits of research funding to better inform science policy.Missing: inequality | Show results with:inequality
[70]
Research funding randomly allocated? A survey of scientists' views ...
Dec 31, 2021 · Our survey revealed that most participants assume science will be affected by random grant distribution.
[71]
Reviewers award higher marks when a paper's author is famous
Sep 13, 2022 · Reviewers award higher marks when a paper's author is famous. “Matthew effect” is powerful, unusually large study finds. 13 Sep 2022; 5:20 PM ET ...
[72]
Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review - PMC - NIH
Nov 14, 2017 · Our analysis shows that single-blind reviewing confers a significant advantage to papers with famous authors and authors from high-prestige institutions.Missing: mitigates | Show results with:mitigates
[73]
Does double‐blind peer review reduce bias? Evidence from a top ...
Oct 12, 2021 · Double-blind peer review has been proposed as a way to reduce reviewer bias, but the evidence for its effectiveness is limited and mixed. Here, ...
[74]
Editorial: Double‐blind review, the 'Matthew effect', equality and ...
May 29, 2025 · Our study shows that, in our setting, blinding improves the quality of reviews and that research on the effects of peer review is possible. ...
[75]
Blinding applicants in a first-stage peer-review process of ...
May 30, 2017 · The Matthew effect, or cumulative advantage, affects patterns of scientific collaboration, the growth of biological networks, the ...Blinding Applicants In A... · 3. Results · 3.1 Quantitative Analysis<|control11|><|separator|>
[76]
Breaking the Cycle: Cumulative Disadvantage in Literacy - Northrop
Jul 4, 2017 · Well-timed, targeted instruction and intervention, provided by experienced teachers, can serve as a way to nudge students from a cumulative ...Missing: reduce studies
[77]
https://arxiv.org/html/2510.18481v1