[3][4] The Matthew effect may largely be explained by preferential attachment, whereby wealth or credit is distributed among individuals according to how much they already have.
[5] Early studies of Matthew effects were primarily concerned with the inequality in the way scientists were recognized for their work.
"In the sociology of science, "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.
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 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.
[23] An example of the Matthew Effect's role on social influence is an experiment by Salganik, Dodds, and Watts in which they created an experimental virtual market named MUSICLAB.
To summarize the experiment's findings, the performance rankings had the largest effect boosting expected downloads the most.
[25] Abeliuk et al. (2016) also proved that when utilizing "performance rankings", a monopoly will be created for the most popular songs.