IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/18625.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Matthew: Effect or Fable?

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre Azoulay
  • Toby Stuart
  • Yanbo Wang

Abstract

In a market context, a status effect occurs when actors are accorded differential recognition for their efforts depending on their location in a status ordering, holding constant the quality of these efforts. In practice, because it is very difficult to measure quality, this ceteris paribus proviso often precludes convincing empirical assessments of the magnitude of status effects. We address this problem by examining the impact of a major status-conferring prize that shifts actors' positions in a prestige ordering. Specifically, using a precisely constructed matched sample, we estimate the effect of a scientist becoming a Howard Hughes Medical Investigator (HHMI) on citations to articles the scientist published before the prize was awarded. We do find evidence of a post-appointment citation boost, but the effect is small and limited to a short window of time. Consistent with theories of status, however, the effect of the prize is significantly larger when there is uncertainty about article quality, and when prize-winners are of (relatively) low status at the time of election to HHMI.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre Azoulay & Toby Stuart & Yanbo Wang, 2012. "Matthew: Effect or Fable?," NBER Working Papers 18625, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:18625
    Note: PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18625.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David M. Waguespack & Olav Sorenson, 2011. "The Ratings Game: Asymmetry in Classification," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 541-553, June.
    2. Peter W. Roberts & Adina D. Sterling, 2012. "Network Progeny? Prefounding Social Ties and the Success of New Entrants," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(7), pages 1292-1304, July.
    3. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(3), pages 527-554, September.
    4. Matthew S. Bothner & Joel M. Podolny & Edward Bishop Smith, 2011. "Organizing Contests for Status: The Matthew Effect vs. the Mark Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 439-457, March.
    5. repec:bla:jfinan:v:59:y:2004:i:4:p:1805-1844 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Peter W. Roberts & Mukti Khaire & Christopher I. Rider, 2011. "Isolating the Symbolic Implications of Employee Mobility: Price Increases after Hiring Winemakers from Prominent Wineries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 147-151, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2013. "The role of statistics in establishing the similarity of citation distributions in a static and a dynamic context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 173-181, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pierre Azoulay & Toby Stuart & Yanbo Wang, 2014. "Matthew: Effect or Fable?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 92-109, January.
    2. Matteo Prato & Fabrizio Ferraro, 2018. "Starstruck: How Hiring High-Status Employees Affects Incumbents’ Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 755-774, October.
    3. Giacomo Negro & Ming D. Leung, 2013. "“Actual” and Perceptual Effects of Category Spanning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 684-696, June.
    4. Ufuk Akcigit & Murat Celik & Daron Acemoglu, 2014. "Young, Restless and Creative: Openness to Disruption and Creative Innovations," 2014 Meeting Papers 377, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    5. David M. Waguespack & Robert Salomon, 2016. "Quality, Subjectivity, and Sustained Superior Performance at the Olympic Games," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(1), pages 286-300, January.
    6. Englmaier, Florian & Grimm, Stefan & Schindler, David & Schudy, Simeon, 2018. "The Effect of Incentives in Non-Routine Analytical Team Tasks – Evidence from a Field Experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168286, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    7. Bartels, Charlotte & Jäger, Simon & Obergruber, Natalie, 2020. "Long-Term Effects of Equal Sharing: Evidence from Inheritance Rules for Land," IZA Discussion Papers 13665, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Alex Bell & Raj Chetty & Xavier Jaravel & Neviana Petkova & John Van Reenen, 2019. "Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 647-713.
    9. Stefano Bianchini & Moritz Müller & Pierre Pelletier, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention," Post-Print hal-03958025, HAL.
    10. Chen, Clara Xiaoling & Lill, Jeremy B. & Lucianetti, Lorenzo, 2023. "Performance measurement system diversity and product innovation: Evidence from longitudinal survey data," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    11. He, Jie (Jack) & Tian, Xuan, 2013. "The dark side of analyst coverage: The case of innovation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 856-878.
    12. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt-Padickakudy & Anna Strauss-Kollin, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664, April.
    13. Julian Kolev & Yuly Fuentes-Medel & Fiona Murray, 2019. "Is Blinded Review Enough? How Gendered Outcomes Arise Even Under Anonymous Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 25759, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Y. Sekou Bermiss & Benjamin L. Hallen & Rory McDonald & Emily C. Pahnke, 2017. "Entrepreneurial beacons: The Yale endowment, run‐ups, and the growth of venture capital," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 545-565, March.
    15. Michael Gibbs & Susanne Neckermann & Christoph Siemroth, 2017. "A Field Experiment in Motivating Employee Ideas," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(4), pages 577-590, July.
    16. Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso & Brito, Ricardo, 2018. "Technological research in the EU is less efficient than the world average. EU research policy risks Europeans’ future," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 718-731.
    17. Marco Cozzi, 2020. "Public Funding of Research and Grant Proposals in the Social Sciences: Empirical Evidence from Canada," Department Discussion Papers 1809, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    18. Quentin Plantec & Benjamin Cabanes & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2021. "Market-Pull Or Research Push? Effects Of Research Orientations On University-Industry Collaborative Ph.D. Projects' Performances," Post-Print halshs-03190142, HAL.
    19. Michael Pirson, 2019. "A Humanistic Perspective for Management Theory: Protecting Dignity and Promoting Well-Being," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 39-57, September.
    20. Chen, Jie & Leung, Woon Sau & Evans, Kevin P., 2016. "Are employee-friendly workplaces conducive to innovation?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 61-79.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:18625. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.