The concept is named according to two of the
parables of Jesus in the
synoptic Gospels (Table 2, of the
Eusebian Canons). The concept concludes both synoptic versions of the
parable of the talents: The concept concludes two of the three synoptic versions of the parable of the
lamp under a bushel (absent in the version of Matthew): The concept is presented again in Matthew outside of a parable during
Christ's explanation to his disciples of the purpose of parables: ==Sociology of science==
Cumulative advantage In the
sociology of science, the first description of the Matthew effect was given by
Price in 1976. (He referred to the process as a "cumulative advantage" process.) His was also the first application of the process to the growth of a network, producing what would now be called a
scale-free network. It is in the context of network growth that the process is most frequently studied today. Price also promoted preferential attachment as a possible explanation for power laws in many other phenomena, including
Lotka's law of scientific productivity and
Bradford's law of journal use.
Coining the "Matthew effect" "Matthew effect" was a term coined by
Robert K. Merton and
Harriet Anne Zuckerman to describe how, among other things, eminent scientists will often get more credit than a comparatively unknown researcher, even if their work is similar; it also means that credit will usually be given to researchers who are already famous. For example, a prize will almost always be awarded to the most senior researcher involved in a project, even if all the work was done by a
graduate student. This was later formulated by
Stephen Stigler as
Stigler's law of eponymy – "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer" – with Stigler explicitly naming Merton as the true discoverer, making his "law" an example of itself. Merton and Zuckerman further argued that in the scientific community the Matthew effect reaches beyond simple reputation to influence the wider communication system, playing a part in social selection processes and resulting in a concentration of resources and talent. They gave as an example the disproportionate visibility given to articles from acknowledged authors, at the expense of equally valid or superior articles written by unknown authors. They also noted that the concentration of attention on eminent individuals can lead to an increase in their self-assurance, pushing them to perform research in important but risky problem areas. In addition to its influence on recognition and productivity, the Matthew Effect can also be observed in the distribution of scientific resources, such as funding. A large Matthew effect was discovered in a study of science funding in the Netherlands, where winners just above the funding threshold were found to accumulate more than twice as much funding during the subsequent eight years as non-winners with near-identical review scores that fell just below the threshold. ==Education==