Michael Gillespie

21 papers receiving 384 citations

Peers

Michael Gillespie
Comparison fields: 5 of 79
  • Health 78
  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology 14
  • Clinical Psychology 95
  • Social Psychology 85
  • Sociology and Political Science 171
Replace Annette Scherpenzeel with:
Annette Scherpenzeel Netherlands
W. van der Vaart Netherlands
Silvia Meggiolaro Italy
Tina Kogovšek Slovenia
Hana Voňková Czechia
Susanna Zaccarin Italy
Pi‐Ju Liu United States
Aaron Maitland United States
Helena Szrek Portugal
Philip C. Sagi United States
Michael Gillespie relative to Annette Scherpenzeel Netherlands Annette Scherpenzeel's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×
Annette Scherpenzeel · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Michael Gillespie

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Michael Gillespie's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Michael Gillespie with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Michael Gillespie more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Michael Gillespie

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Michael Gillespie. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Michael Gillespie. The network helps show where Michael Gillespie may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 22 scholars most cited alongside Michael Gillespie, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Michael Gillespie Line = papers co-authored together Michael Gillespie links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 22 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1 197785
2 200344
3 200338
4 198729
5 199828
6 200425
7 198824
8
Health belief model factors in mammography screening: testing for interactions among subpopulations of Caribbean women.
200523
9 200321
10 200521
11 201320
12 198917
13 198816
14 198010
15 20039
16 19928
17 19938
18 19857
19 19697
20 19786

About Michael Gillespie

Michael Gillespie is a scholar working on Sociology and Political Science, Social Psychology, Statistics and Probability, Health and Clinical Psychology, having authored 22 papers that have together received 448 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Advanced Causal Inference Techniques (4 papers), Attachment and Relationship Dynamics (2 papers), Aging and Gerontology Research (2 papers), Psychometric Methodologies and Testing (2 papers), Social and Intergroup Psychology (2 papers), Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference (2 papers), Reproductive Health and Contraception (2 papers) and Global Cancer Incidence and Screening (2 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Health (78 citations), Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology (14 citations), Clinical Psychology (95 citations), Social Psychology (85 citations) and Sociology and Political Science (171 citations). Michael Gillespie has collaborated with scholars based in Canada, United States and Netherlands. Frequent co-authors include Carol Magai, Nathan S. Consedine, Johannes Kingma, Elisabeth M. TenVergert, Robert A. Silverman, Robert J. Brym, Rhonda Lenton, Colleen R. O’Neal, Arlene King and Alfred I. Neugut. Their work appears in journals such as American Journal of Sociology, Attachment & Human Development, The Canadian Journal of Sociology, Sociological Methods & Research and American Sociological Review.

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact