The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Matthew S. Bothner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Matthew Effect as an unjust competitive advantage implications for competition near status boundaries
Journal of Management Inquiry, 2018Co-Authors: Henning Piezunka, Wonjae Lee, Richard Haynes, Matthew S. BothnerAbstract:Merton often envisioned status growth as a process of stepping across a boundary between one status grade and another more elite status grade. Such boundaries include the border between graduate school and a top academic department that young researchers try to traverse, or the frontier between scientists outside the French Academy and scientists inside the French Academy. As it is now common to measure status continuously using network data, the behavioral ramifications of status boundaries have been understudied in recent research. In this essay, we focus on competitive behaviors that emerge near a status boundary because of the desirability—as well as the “double injustice”—of the Matthew Effect. Offering insights for future research, we discuss how these competitive behaviors are likely to delay, or even derail, status growth for those who are near a status boundary.
-
the Matthew Effect as an unjust competitive advantage implications for competition near status boundaries
Social Science Research Network, 2017Co-Authors: Henning Piezunka, Wonjae Lee, Richard Haynes, Matthew S. BothnerAbstract:Merton often envisioned status growth as a process of stepping across a boundary between one status grade and another, more elite status grade. Such boundaries include the border between graduate school and a top academic department that young researchers try to traverse, or the frontier between scientists outside the French Academy and scientists inside the French Academy. Since it is now common to measure status continuously using network data, the behavioral ramifications of status boundaries have been understudied in recent research. In this essay, we focus on competitive behaviors that emerge near a status boundary because of the desirability — as well as the “double injustice” — of the Matthew Effect. Offering insights for future research, we discuss how these competitive behaviors are likely to delay, or even derail, status growth for those who are near a status boundary.
-
Organizing Contests for Status: The Matthew Effect vs. the Mark Effect
Management Science, 2011Co-Authors: Matthew S. Bothner, Joel M. Podolny, Edward Bishop SmithAbstract:What is the best way to design tournaments for status, in which individuals labor primarily for the esteem of their peers? What process, in other words, should organizers of status-based contests impose upon those who covet peer recognition? We propose a formal model of status-based competition that contrasts two competing alternatives. The first, following Merton, is the “Matthew Effect,” according to which a tournament's architect directs slack resources to elite actors and thus widens the distribution of rewards by favoring cumulative advantage. The second is the “Mark Effect,” under which a tournament's designer instead pushes slack resources to marginal actors and thus tightens the distribution of rewards. Our results suggest that although the Mark Effect is better for the social welfare of most tournaments, the Matthew Effect is preferable in two distinct contexts: in small tournaments where variation in underlying ability translates into acute advantages for the most capable contestants; and in large tournaments whose contestants face constant, rather than rising, marginal costs---a condition we relate to contestants' perception of their work as intrinsically valuable. Our contributions are twofold: We find, counter to the thrust of Merton's work, that cumulative advantage is not invariably optimal for the functioning of status contests; and we identify circumstances in which the production of superstars is likely to make contests for status better off in aggregate. Implications for future research on status and management are discussed. This paper was accepted by Olav Sorenson, organizations and social networks.
-
Organizing Contests for Status: The Matthew Effect Versus the Mark Effect
2010Co-Authors: Matthew S. Bothner, Joel M. Podolny, Edward Bishop SmithAbstract:What is the best way to design tournaments for status, where individuals labor primarily for the esteem of their peers? What process, in other words, should organizers of status-based contests impose upon those who covet peer recognition? We propose a formal model of status-based competition that contrasts two competing alternatives. The first, following Merton (1968), is the "Matthew Effect," according to which a tournament’s architect directs slack resources to elite actors, and thus widens the distribution of rewards by favoring cumulative advantage. The second is the "Mark Effect," under which a tournament’s designer instead pushes slack resources to marginal actors, and thus tightens the distribution of rewards. Our results suggest that although the Mark Effect is better for the social welfare of most tournaments, the Matthew Effect is preferable in two distinct contexts: in small tournaments where variation in underlying ability translates into acute cost advantages for the most capable contestants; and in large tournaments whose contestants face constant, rather than rising, marginal costs. Our contributions are twofold: We find, counter to the thrust of Merton’s (1968) work, that cumulative advantage is not invariably optimal for the functioning of status contests; and we identify circumstances in which the production of superstars is likely to make contests for status better off in aggregate. Implications for future research on status and management are discussed.
-
organizing contests for status the Matthew Effect versus the mark Effect
69th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management AOM 2009, 2009Co-Authors: Matthew S. Bothner, Joel M. Podolny, Edward SmithAbstract:The article presents management science research on competition between individuals within the same organization for status. A mathematical model is created to assess the value of two means to manage such competition, which are termed the "Matthew Effect," in which status rewards are disproportionately distributed to the high end of the competition, and the "Mark Effect" in which they are distributed more evenly. Empirical testing of the models is said to find that while the Mark Effect creates better social welfare outcomes in most cases, competitions within elite organizations perform better under the Matthew Effect.
Jon Frost - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Matthew Effect and modern finance on the nexus between wealth inequality financial development and financial technology
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Jon Frost, Leonardo Gambacorta, Romina GambacortaAbstract:This paper analyses the role of financial development and financial technology in driving inequality in (returns to) wealth. Using micro data from the Survey on Household Income and Wealth (SHIW) conducted by the Bank of Italy for the period 1991-2016, we find evidence of the "Matthew Effect" - a capacity of wealthy households to achieve higher returns than other households. With an instrumental variable approach, we find that financial development (number of bank branches) and financial technology (use of remote banking) both have a positive association with households' financial wealth and financial returns. While households of all wealth deciles benefit from the Effects of financial development and financial technology, these benefits are larger when moving toward the top of the wealth distribution. Still, the economic significance of this gap fell in the last part of the sample period, as remote banking became more widespread.
-
the Matthew Effect and modern finance on the nexus between wealth inequality financial development and financial technology
Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers), 2020Co-Authors: Jon Frost, Leonardo Gambacorta, Romina GambacortaAbstract:This paper analyses the role of financial development and financial technology in inequality in (returns to) wealth. Using micro data from the Survey on Household Income and Wealth (SHIW) conducted by the Bank of Italy over the period 1991-2016, we find that financial development (number of bank branches) and financial technology (use of remote banking) both have a positive association with households’ financial wealth and financial returns. By applying an instrumental variable approach to control for endogeneity, we find that the two variables are, by and large, substitutes. The economic significance of both decreased in the last part of the sample period, as remote banking became more widespread. Finally, other things equal, the Effects of financial development and financial technology increase when moving toward the top of the wealth distribution. This is in line with the so-called “Matthew Effect” (Merton, 1968), or the capacity of wealthy households to achieve higher returns than other households.
Jesus Fernandezvillaverde - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Matthew Effect and market concentration search complementarities and monopsony power
2021Co-Authors: Jesus Fernandezvillaverde, Federico S Mandelman, Francesco ZanettiAbstract:This paper develops a dynamic general equilibrium model with heterogeneous firms that face search complementarities in the formation of vendor contracts. Search complementarities amplify small differences in productivity among firms. Market concentration fosters monopsony power in the labor market, magnifying profits and further enhancing high-productivity firms’ output share. Firms want to get bigger and hire more workers, in stark contrast with the classic monopsony model, where a firm aims to reduce the amount of labor it hires. The combination of search complementarities and monopsony power induces a strong “Matthew Effect” that endogenously generates superstar firms out of uniform idiosyncratic productivity distributions. Reductions in search costs increase market concentration, lower the labor income share, and increase wage inequality.
-
the Matthew Effect and market concentration search complementarities and monopsony power
Social Science Research Network, 2021Co-Authors: Jesus Fernandezvillaverde, Federico S Mandelman, Francesco ZanettiAbstract:This paper develops a dynamic general equilibrium model with heterogeneous firms that face search complementarities in the formation of vendor contracts. Search complementarities amplify small differences in productivity among firms. Market concentration fosters monopsony power in the labor market, magnifying profits and further enhancing high-productivity firms' output share. Firms want to get bigger and hire more workers, in stark contrast with the classic monopsony model, where a firm aims to reduce the amount of labor it hires. The combination of search complementarities and monopsony power induces a strong “Matthew Effect” that endogenously generates superstar firms out of uniform idiosyncratic productivity distributions. Reductions in search costs increase market concentration, lower the labor income share, and increase wage inequality. Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.
Thomas Li-ping Tang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Corporate Social Responsibility Excites ‘Exponential’ Positive Employee Engagement: The Matthew Effect in CSR and Sustainable Policy
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2017Co-Authors: Zucheng Zhou, Ben Nanfeng Luo, Thomas Li-ping TangAbstract:Corporate social responsibility (CSR) captures an organization's commitment to and engagement with multiple stakeholders; integrates economic, social, and environmental concerns into sustainable policies; and enhances employee perceptions, emotions, long-term value creation, and financial success. Most researchers have reported linear relationships between CSR and employee attitudes. Here, we test a new theory: After surpassing an upper bar, employee-perceived CSR exponentially stimulates their organizational pride. Organizational pride has a positive and linear direct impact on job satisfaction and affective commitment, respectively. Perceived CSR exponentially excites job satisfaction and affective commitment indirectly through organizational pride. Data collected from 296 managers and employees in 12 diverse companies in China support our theory. Policymakers must develop a sustainable policy, nourish a conducive environment, and pursue CSR as a competitive advantage because at a high level, perceived CSR exponentially reaps intangible rewards, creating the positive Matthew Effect in CSR and sustainable policy. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
-
materialism and the bright and dark sides of the financial dream in spain the positive role of money attitudes the Matthew Effect
Applied Psychology, 2014Co-Authors: Thomas Li-ping Tang, Roberto Lunaarocas, Ismael Quintanilla Pardo, Theresa Lina TangAbstract:Research suggests that materialism leads to the dark side of the financial dream. In this study, we treat love of money as a mediator and test a theoretical model's direct path (Materialism to Financial Satisfaction) and indirect path (Materialism to Love of Money to Financial Satisfaction) simultaneously using the whole sample and across several demographic variables based on 1,011 citizens in Spain. Results for the whole sample showed that the positive indirect Effect suppressed the negative direct Effect creating an overall small positive Effect. Furthermore, we found a significant negative direct path for rural dwellers, the 30–44-year-old age group, and married people, but a positive indirect path for rural residents, the 45–59-year-old age group, married, males, and urban dwellers. Overall, those in the 30–44 age group, rural residents, and married people experienced the dark side of the financial dream, whereas old (over-60 age group), unmarried, urban, and young people (18–29 age group) enjoyed the bright side of their financial optimism. People's money attitudes and demographic variables play a positive role in our understanding of materialism and financial satisfaction, i.e. the Matthew Effect. Our novel, counterintuitive, and original theoretical, empirical, and practical contributions foster theory development and testing and improved practice.
-
a cross cultural comparison of pay differentials as a function of rater s sex and money ethic endorsement the Matthew Effect revisited
Personality and Individual Differences, 2000Co-Authors: Thomas Li-ping Tang, Adrian Furnham, Grace Meitzu Wu DavisAbstract:Abstract This research extends Tang's [Tang, T. L. P. (1996). Pay differentials as a function of rater's sex, money ethic and job incumbent's sex: a test of the Matthew Effect. Journal of Economic Psychology , 17, 127–144] original study of the Matthew Effect in internal equity to an international setting and examines employees in three countries: Taiwan, the USA and the UK. Results showed that Chinese workers allocated more money to different positions than did their American and British counterparts. Chinese also created a larger pay differential for the top position and smaller pay differentials for the bottom positions than their counterparts. Further, males tended to have a significantly higher top/bottom pay differential (2.44) than females (2.39). For the whole sample, there was a significant difference in pay differentials between male participants with high and low Money Ethic endorsement, supporting the Matthew Effect. This study reveals both culture-specific ( emic ) differences in pay differentials and culture-free ( etic ) findings from all three countries.
-
pay differentials as a function of rater s sex money ethic and job incumbent s sex a test of the Matthew Effect
Journal of Economic Psychology, 1996Co-Authors: Thomas Li-ping TangAbstract:Abstract A hypothetical organization chart was adopted to examine the relative worth of five positions and pay differentials as a function of rater's sex, Money Ethic endorsement, and job incumbent's sex. Results show that job incumbent's sex has no impact on pay allocations in the present study. Significant two-way interaction Effects between subject's sex and Money Ethic endorsement were found. Further analyses showed that men with high Money Ethic endorsement allocated significantly more money to the highest position and significantly less money to the lowest positions than did those with low Money Ethic endorsement. However, women's allocations of money were not affected by their endorsement of the Money Ethic. Thus, men's allocation of position worth supports the Matthew Effect.
Arnout Van De Rijt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Matthew Effect in science funding
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018Co-Authors: Thijs Bol, Mathijs De Vaan, Arnout Van De RijtAbstract:A classic thesis is that scientific achievement exhibits a “Matthew Effect”: Scientists who have previously been successful are more likely to succeed again, producing increasing distinction. We investigate to what extent the Matthew Effect drives the allocation of research funds. To this end, we assembled a dataset containing all review scores and funding decisions of grant proposals submitted by recent PhDs in a €2 billion granting program. Analyses of review scores reveal that early funding success introduces a growing rift, with winners just above the funding threshold accumulating more than twice as much research funding (€180,000) during the following eight years as nonwinners just below it. We find no evidence that winners’ improved funding chances in subsequent competitions are due to achievements enabled by the preceding grant, which suggests that early funding itself is an asset for acquiring later funding. Surprisingly, however, the emergent funding gap is partly created by applicants, who, after failing to win one grant, apply for another grant less often.