When Do Matthew Effects Occur?

Bothner, Matthew S.; Haynes, Richard W.; Lee, Won–Jae; Smith, Edward B.

doi:10.1080/00222500903310960

Cited by 38 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our measure also differs from a patronage based definition, where actors in fragile positions are likely to lose status precipitously if one or more of their patrons loses status or stops their endorsement (Bothner et al, 2010a andBothner et al, 2010b). Ours can be viewed as a more "democratic" conception: one cannot achieve high status by receiving many votes from a few people, but must instead receive single vote from a large number of people.…”

Section: Cumulative Advantage and Its Limitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead, factors such as redistributive policies (Merton, 1968), incomplete information (Collins, 2000), normative constraints (Luhmann, 1987), and the diffusion of status from elites to their associates (Bothner et al, 2010a;Bothner et al, 2010b) all prevent winner-take-all outcomes.…”

Section: Cumulative Advantage and Its Limitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research in both the status characteristics/expectations states (e.g. Cohen and Roper, 1972;Ridgeway, 1978;Ridgeway, 1982) and social network traditions (Bukowski and Newcomb, 1984;Moody, 1999;Moody et al, 2011;Bothner et al, 2010a;Bothner et al, 2010b) have similarly defined status as a function of social relationships-higher status actors receive more friendship nominations (relative to lower status actors), give advice that is followed, talk more in meetings, and so on.…”

Section: Status As Asymmetrymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 Cumulative advantage ideas were subsequently formalized (Zuckerman and Merton, 1971;Cole and Cole, 1973;Allison et al, 1982) and applied widely as an explanation for persistent or growing inequality in political, organizational, educational, economic, and even cultural (Salganik et al, 2006) realms (see DiPrete and Eirich, 2006;Bothner et al, 2010a;Bothner et al, 2010b).…”

Section: Cumulative Advantage and Its Limitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Movement without mobility: Adolescent status hierarchies and the contextual limits of cumulative advantage

Smith

Faris

2015

Social Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Cumulative Advantage and Its Limitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cumulative Advantage and Its Limitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Status As Asymmetrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cumulative Advantage and Its Limitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Movement without mobility: Adolescent status hierarchies and the contextual limits of cumulative advantage

Smith

Faris

2015

Social Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…At the same time, our results suggest that low status academics will be constrained from moving up the academic hierarchy because their high quality offerings will be consistently discounted in value, making it more difficult for them to get equal recognition for research findings of similar quality as their high status colleagues. Under-recognition, in this sense, impedes upward mobility in academic status hierarchies.Over-recognition of quality, then, initiates the Matthew Effect (Merton 1968;Bothner et al 2010;Correll et al 2011). Once an individual is marked as high status, other valued qualities become more salient, and their attractiveness as potential partners increases.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeing Stars: Matthew Effects and Status Bias in Major League Baseball Umpiring

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper tests the assumption that evaluators are biased to positively evaluate high status individuals, irrespective of quality. Using unique data from Major League Baseball umpires' evaluation of pitch quality, which allow us to observe the difference in a pitch's objective quality and in its perceived quality as judged by the umpire, we show that umpires are more likely to over-recognize quality by expanding the strike zone, and less likely to under-recognize quality by missing pitches in the strike zone for high status pitchers. Ambiguity and the pitcher's reputation as a "control pitcher" moderate the effect of status on umpire judgment. Further, we show that umpire errors resulting from status bias lead to actual performance differences for the pitcher and team.Keywords: Status, Bias, Performance Forthcoming in Management Science2 Social scientists have long understood status to be an indicator of hierarchical position and prestige that helps individuals and organizations procure resources and opportunities for advancement (e.g., Whyte 1943;Podolny 2001;Sauder, Lynn, and Podolny 2012). Status markers, like ranking systems in education (Espeland and Sauder 2007) or awards and prizes (Rossman et al. 2010), accentuate quality differences among actors and create greater socio-economic inequality. Past research has advanced our understanding of how status hierarchies emerge and persist (Berger, Rosenholtz, and Zelditch 1980;Webster and Hysom 1998;Ridgeway and Correll 2006), on the psychological rewards of status attainment (e.g., Willer 2009;Anderson et al. 2012), on the association of status with characteristics such as race and gender (Ridgeway 1991), or on status outcomes, such as the accumulation of power, price and wage differentials, and other economic and social benefits (Podolny 1993;Benjamin and Podolny 1999;Thye 2000;Correll et al. 2007;Stuart, Hoang, and Hybels 1999;Bothner, Kim, and Smith 2011;Pearce 2011;Waguespack and Sorenson, 2011).In economic sociology, the classic statement of self-reproducing advantages is Robert Merton's (1968) theory of the Matthew Effect. Underlying the Matthew Effect is an assumption that individuals are biased to positively evaluate high status individuals irrespective of quality, and that this bias, rather than actual quality differences, perpetuates inequality between high status and low status actors. Scholars in status characteristics theory have made the case that this bias results from individuals' expectations and prior beliefs about competence and quality (Anderson et al. 2001;Ridgeway and Correll 2006;Berger et al. 1977;Ridgeway and Berger 1986), and experimental and audit studies have identified status characteristics as a mechanism that underlies discriminatory evaluations of low status individuals (e.g., Correll et al. 2007).Despite the evidence emanating from the experimental research in status characteristics studies, scholars studying the Matthew Effect in real world settings have had a more difficult time demonstrating that status bias is a mech...

show abstract

Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups

Askin

Bothner

Lee

2015

Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stratification within small groups is virtually inevitable. Understanding the precise mechanisms by which it occurs and the nature of its consequences is an important sociological endeavor. Individuals' pre-existing qualities, as well as advantages emerging from intra-group interactions, affect the flows of respect and deference accruing to each member of a group. Differences in these flows in turn create a hierarchy. In this article, we first discuss foundational research on the causes and consequences of stratification before turning to more current trends. We focus on the ways in which status, the primary determinant of one's location in a group's hierarchy, is created and maintained or lost. We discuss the Matthew Effect-a process by which high-status group members receive disproportionate credit for their contributions, and also more easily maintain their status. We also address the circumstances and activities that can curb the Matthew Effect. We then move to current research, which centers on two main concepts: first, we consider peer effects, discussing the various means by which an individual's closest peers shape his or her status; second, we take a broader perspective by examining small groups as open systems. This section considers how a group's external environment, including other nearby groups, affects the level and stability of within-group stratification. We emphasize key issues and implications for future research on these topics.

show abstract

When Do Matthew Effects Occur?

Cited by 38 publications

References 32 publications

Movement without mobility: Adolescent status hierarchies and the contextual limits of cumulative advantage

Movement without mobility: Adolescent status hierarchies and the contextual limits of cumulative advantage

Seeing Stars: Matthew Effects and Status Bias in Major League Baseball Umpiring

Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About