Why did the dark matter hypothesis supersede modified gravity in the 1980s?

In the 1960s and 1970s a series of observations and theoretical developments highlighted the presence of several anomalies which could, in principle, be explained by postulating one of the following two working hypotheses: (i) the existence of dark matter, or (ii) the modification of standard gravitational dynamics in low accelerations. In the years that followed, the dark matter hypothesis as an explanation for dark matter phenomenology attracted far more attention compared to the hypothesis of modified gravity, and the latter is largely regarded today as a non-viable alternative. The present article takes an integrated history and philosophy of science approach in order to identify the reasons why the scientific community mainly pursued the dark matter hypothesis in the years that followed, as opposed to modified gravity. A plausible answer is given in terms of three epistemic criteria for the pursuitworthiness of a hypothesis: (a) its problem-solving potential, (b) its compatibility with established theories and the feasibility of incorporation, and (c) its independent testability. A further comparison between the problem of dark matter and the problem of dark energy is also presented, explaining why in the latter case the situation is different, and modified gravity is still considered a viable possibility.