Who are the neighbors of those who attain high status, and what is their fate in the wake of another actor’s status elevation? In this essay, we consider the consequences of an individual’s change in status for proximate individuals and domains. Particularly, we identify two, potentially simultaneous shifts in resources: a concentration of local recognition around high-status individuals and their immediate neighbors, and an overall elevation of recognition to the domain. We identify conditions in which within-domain or between-domain reallocation will occur, and we outline opportunities for future research.
BothnerM. S.HaynesR.LeeW.SmithE. B. (2010). When do Matthew Effects occur?Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 34, 80-114.
2.
JonesB. F.WuchtyS.UzziB. (2008). Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science, 322, 1259-1262.
3.
MertonR. K. (1968). Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56-63.
4.
OtnerS. M. G. (2018a). Near-winners in status competitions: Neglected sources of dynamism in the Matthew Effect. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27, 374-377.
5.
OtnerS. M. G. (2018b). Older, but wiser? “The Matthew Effect” at 50: Introduction to the Dialog. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27, 359-361.
PodolnyJ. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 829-872.
8.
ReschkeB. P.AzoulayP.StuartT. E. (2017). Status spillovers: The effect of status-conferring prizes on the allocation of attention. Administrative Science Quarterly. Available at https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217731997
9.
SharkeyA. J. (2018). The dark side of status. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27, 368-370.
10.
SimcoeT. S.WaguespackD. M. (2011). Status, quality, and attention: What’s in a (missing) name?Management Science, 57, 274-290.
