Something that many social scientists have asked is why those people who are attributed certain material or immaterial benefits, end up actually receiving such benefits. And the same thing, but in reverse: how is it that people who are associated with fewer benefits, also have less possibilities to access them.

Many concepts and theories have been developed to provide answers to the above. These concepts and theories have been thought and applied from different areas. For example, social psychology, organizational psychology, economics or social policy, among others. One of those that have been used since the middle of the 20th century in psychology and sociology is the Matthew Effect . We will now explain what this effect consists of and how it has been applied to explain different phenomena.

Why is it called the Matthew Effect?

The Matthew Effect is also known as the St. Matthew Effect. It is so called because a biblical passage from the Gospel of Matthew has been taken and reread. Specifically, it is from verse 13, chapter 19, which says that “to him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not even that which he hath shall be taken away.

Many interpretations have been made in his re-reading. Some have used it to justify the attribution and unequal distribution of material and immaterial benefits; and some have used it in the opposite sense, to denounce such distribution. In the specific case of the scientific field , the passage has been reread to explain the phenomenon in the sociology of science; a question that we will explain in detail towards the end of this text.

Dimensions of this social phenomenon

As we have said, different disciplines, both from psychology and from related areas, have tried to explain the process of social distribution of material and immaterial benefits . Some of the most popular are, for example, the pygmalion effect, the snowball effect or the cumulative effect, among others.

In his case, the Mateo Effect has allowed us to pay attention not only to the decision-making process in the selection and distribution of benefits based on categorization criteria (social stratification), but also to think about how this is connected to the structuring of an individual psychological perception, from which we attribute to certain people a series of values that justify the selection and distribution of benefits.

In this sense, the Mathew Effect occurs through two interrelated dimensions: the process of selection and distribution; and the process of individual perception, related to the activation of our memory and attribution strategies .

1. Selection and distribution processes

There are people or groups of people whose qualities are those we consider necessary to access different benefits. Depending on the context, we may ask ourselves which values are considered relevant for the distribution of material and immaterial benefits, and based on what criteria are different benefits distributed?

In pyramidal structures and meritocratic models this is quite visible, as a person or entity is attributed the power to be a creditor of the benefits. That person or entity is the one who is recognized first, and sometimes only, in terms of actions and values. This also reduces the chances of benefits and their conditions of possibility being equitably distributed.

2. Individual perception processes

Broadly speaking, these are values based a priori on associating a person or group of people with a material or immaterial benefit. It is frequent the overvaluation of the parameters, where even individually we tend to perceive the top of the pyramid as the most valuable , and from there we also justify that the distribution is decided in benefit of some and not of others.

Individual perception is influenced by the decision process, and ends up justifying the sharing of benefits among “the best”.

Among other things, the Matthew Effect links decisions on the distribution of benefits with a social prestige that is attributed a priori to certain persons or groups of persons. Likewise , the concept has allowed thinking about the gaps in social stratifications , that is, how the above has the effect of reducing the benefits of those who do not correspond to certain values (for example, prestige).

Inequality in Sociology of Science

The Matthew Effect was used by the American sociologist Robert Merton in the 1960s to explain how we attribute the merit of scientific research to a single person, even if other people have participated in greater proportion .

In other words, it has served to explain how scientific genius is attributed to some people and not to others. And how, from this, certain possibilities of action and knowledge production are determined for some and not for others.

Mario Bunge (2002) tells us that in fact different experiments on the Mateo Effect have been carried out in this context. For example, in the 1990s, a group of researchers selected fifty scientific articles , changed their title and name (to that of an unknown researcher) and sent them for publication to the same journals where they had originally been published. Almost all were rejected.

It is common for our memory to function on the basis of the names of those who already have some scientific or academic recognition, and not on the basis of the names of those who we do not associate with values such as prestige. In the words of the Argentine epistemologist: “If a Nobel Prize winner says a “gansada”, it seems in all the newspapers, but an obscure researcher has a stroke of genius, the public does not know” (Bunge, 2002, pp.1).

Thus, the Matthew Effect is one of those that contribute to the social stratification of scientific communities , which can also be visible in other environments. For example, in the same context the term Matilda Effect has been used to analyse the social and gender stratification of science.

Bibliographic references:

  • Jiménez Rodríguez, J. (2009). The Mateo effect: a psychological concept. 30(2): 145-154.
  • Bunge, M. (2002). The San Mateo effect. Polis, Latin American magazine [Online]. Published November 26, 2012, accessed July 2, 2018. Available at https://journals.openedition.org/polis/8033.