Merton’s famous essay on recognition and rewards in scientific careers, “The Matthew Effect in Science”, has reached middle age. This Dialog reflects on established research that separates the origins and the consequences of status, and recent contributions regarding the constraints of status advantages. In doing so, this collection responds to a growing scholarly debate about the returns to high status. The authors engage with Merton’s cumulative status advantage, and go further to identify downsides of increased recognition both for individuals and for the status system itself. The six articles in this Dialog evaluate the progress made towards Merton’s proposed research agenda and highlight opportunities for its extension.
AllisonP. D.LongJ. S.KrauzeT. K. (1982). Cumulative advantage and inequality in science. American Sociological Review, 47, 615-625.
2.
AllisonP. D.StewartJ. A. (1974). Productivity differences among scientists: Evidence for accumulative advantage. American Sociological Review, 39, 596-606.
3.
AskinN.BothnerM. S. (2016). Status-aspirational pricing: The “Chivas Regal” strategy in U.S. higher education, 2006–2012. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61, 217-253.
4.
AxelrodR.HamiltonW. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211, 1390-1396.
5.
AzoulayP.GanguliI.Graff ZivinJ. S. (2016). The mobility of elite life scientists: Professional and personal determinants. Research Policy, 46, 573-590.
6.
AzoulayP.LiuC.StuartT. E. (2016). Social influence given (partially) deliberate matching: Career imprints in the creation of academic entrepreneurs. American Journal of Sociology, 122, 1223-1271.
7.
BenderskyC.ShahN. P. (2012). The cost of status enhancement: Performance effects of individuals’ status mobility in task groups. Organization Science, 23, 308-322.
8.
BothnerM. S.HaynesR.LeeW.SmithE. B. (2010). When do Matthew Effects occur?The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 34, 80-114.
9.
BothnerM. S.KimY.-K.SmithE. B. (2012). How does status affect performance? Status as an asset vs. status as a liability in the PGA and NASCAR. Organization Science, 23, 416-433.
10.
BothnerM. S.PodolnyJ. M.SmithE. B. (2011). Organizing contests for status: The Matthew Effect vs. the Mark Effect. Management Science, 57, 439-457.
11.
ChanH. F.GleesonL.TorglerB. (2014). Awards before and after the Nobel Prize: A Matthew Effect and/or a ticket to one’s own funeral?Research Evaluation, 23, 210-220.
12.
CharnessG.MascletD.VillevalM. C. (2014). The dark side of competition for status. Management Science, 60, 38-55.
13.
ColeJ. R.ColeS. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
14.
ColeS.ColeJ. R. (1968). Visibility and the structural bases of awareness of scientific research. American Sociological Review, 33, 397-413.
15.
ConnellyB. L.TihanyiL.CrookT. R.GangloffK. A. (2014). Tournament theory: Thirty years of contests and competitions. Journal of Management, 40, 16-47.
16.
DiPreteT. A.EirichG. M. (2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 271-297.
17.
ErtugG.CastellucciF. (2012). Getting what you need: How reputation and status affect team performance, hiring, and salaries in the NBA. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 407-431.
18.
GeorgeG.DahlanderL.GraffinS. D.SimS. (2016). Reputation and status: Expanding the role of social evaluations in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1-13.
19.
GouldR. V. (2002). The origins of status hierarchies: A formal theory and empirical test. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 1143-1178.
20.
GraffinS. D.BundyJ.PoracJ. F.WadeJ. B.QuinnD. P. (2013). Falls from grace and the hazards of high status: The 2009 British MP expense scandal and its impact on parliamentary elites. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 313-345.
21.
HalevyN.ChouE. Y.CohenT. R.LivingstonR. W. (2012). Status conferral in intergroup social dilemmas: Behavioral antecedents and consequences of prestige and dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 351-366.
22.
JensenM.KimH. (2015). The real Oscar curse: The negative consequences of positive status shifts. Organization Science, 26, 1-21.
23.
KilduffM.KrackhardtD. (1994). Bringing the individual back in: A structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 87-108.
24.
KimJ. W.KingB. G. (2014). Seeing stars: MatthewEffects and status bias in major league baseball umpiring. Management Science, 60, 2619-2644.
25.
MarrJ. C.ThauS. (2014). Falling from great (and not-so-great) heights: How initial status position influences performance after status loss. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 223-248.
26.
MertonR. K. (1949). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
27.
MertonR. K. (1967). On the shoulders of giants. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
28.
MertonR. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in science. Science, 159, 56-63.
29.
MertonR. K. (1988). The Matthew Effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79, 606-623.
30.
PettitN. C.SivanathanN.GladstoneE.MarrJ. C. (2013). Rising stars and sinking ships: Consequences of status momentum. Psychological Science, 24, 1579-1584.
31.
PodolnyJ. M.PhillipsD. J. (1996). The dynamics of organizational status. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5, 453-471.
