Matthew effect: what it is and how it describes injustices

Something that many social scientists have wondered is why those people who are attribute certain material or immaterial benefits, effectively end up receiving said Benefits. And the same thing but the other way around: how is it that people who relate to fewer benefits also have fewer possibilities of accessing them.

Many concepts and theories have been developed to offer 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.. Next, we will explain what this effect consists of and how it has been applied to explain different phenomena.

• Related article: "Scientific racism: what it is and how it transforms science to legitimize itself"

Why is it called the Matthew Effect?

The Matthew Effect is also known as the Saint Matthew Effect. It is called that because a biblical passage from the Gospel of Matthew has been taken and reread. Specifically it is about verse 13, chapter 19, which says that “to him who has, more will be given, and he will have plenty; but from the one who does not have even what he has will be taken away from him.”

Many interpretations have been given in its rereading. There are those who have used it to justify the inequitable allocation and distribution of material and immaterial benefits; and there are those who have used it in the opposite direction, 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; matter that we will explain in detail towards the end of this text.

• You may be interested: "Sexist prejudice: explanatory theories"

Dimensions of this social phenomenon

As we have said, there have been different disciplines, both within psychology and related areas, that have attempted 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 Matthew Effect has made it possible to pay attention not only to decision-making in the selection and distribution of benefits based on categorization criteria (social stratification), but also allows us to think how this is connected with the structuring of a perception individual psychological, from which we attribute to certain people a series of values ​​that justify the selection and distribution of Benefits.

In this sense, the Matthew Effect occurs through two interrelated dimensions: the selection and distribution process; 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 what we consider necessary to access different benefits. Depending on the context, we can ask ourselves, what are the values ​​that are considered relevant for the distribution of material and immaterial benefits? Based on what criteria are different benefits distributed?

In pyramid structures and meritocratic models this is quite visible, since a person or entity is attributed the power to be a creditor of the benefits. That person or entity is the one that is recognized in the first, and sometimes only, place of actions and securities. This also reduces the chances that the benefits and their conditions of possibility are distributed equitably.

2. Individual perception processes

Broadly speaking, these are values ​​founded a priori to associate a person or group of people with a material or immaterial benefit. The overvaluation of the parameters is frequent, 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 for the benefit of some and not of others.

Individual perception is influenced by the decision process, and ends up justifying the distribution of benefits among "the best".

Among other things, the Matthew Effect relates decisions on the distribution of benefits, with a social prestige that is attributed a priori to certain people or groups of people. Likewise the concept has allowed us to think about the gaps in social stratification, that is, how is it that the foregoing has repercussions in 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 American sociologist Robert Merton in the 1960s. to explain how it is that we attribute the merit of scientific investigations to a single person, even when other people have participated in a greater proportion.

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

Mario Bunge (2002) tells us that in fact different experiments on the Matthew Effect have been carried out in this context. For example, in the 1990s, a group of researchers selected fifty scientific articles, they changed their title and name (for 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 work from the names of those who already have a certain scientific or academic recognition, and not the names of those we do not associate with values ​​such as the prestige. In the words of the Argentine epistemologist: "If a Nobel Prize winner says something stupid, it seems in all newspapers, but an obscure investigator has a stroke of genius, the public does not find out” (Bunge, 2002, p.1).

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