Peter Lamont

598 citations
33 papers · 318 · h-index 11

Impact in

Papers in

    • Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs 11
    • Jungian Analytical Psychology 3
    • Religious Studies and Spiritual Practices 10
    • Mental Health and Psychiatry 2

Peter Lamont

28 papers receiving 296 citations

Peers

Peter Lamont
Comparison fields: 5 of 68
  • General Psychology 26
  • Social Psychology 148
  • Philosophy 77
  • Cognitive Neuroscience 112
  • Literature and Literary Theory 46
Replace John Dewey with:
John Dewey United States
Shirley Carter‐Thomas France
Eduard Marbach Switzerland
Jenefer Robinson United States
Marc Slors Netherlands
Sabine A. Döring Germany
Ayhan Aksu-Κοç Türkiye
Soyoung Suh United States
Nigel J. T. Thomas United States
Jane E. Cottrell United States
Peter Lamont relative to John Dewey United States John Dewey's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×9.2×
John Dewey · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Peter Lamont

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Peter Lamont'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 Peter Lamont with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Peter Lamont more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Peter Lamont

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Peter Lamont. 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 Peter Lamont. The network helps show where Peter Lamont may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 6 scholars most cited alongside Peter Lamont, 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 Peter Lamont Line = papers co-authored together Peter Lamont links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown

Showing the 20 most-cited of 33 papers — load more, or switch the sort, to bring in the rest.

#Work
1
Magic in Theory: An Introduction to the Theoretical and Psychological Elements of Conjuring
200555
2 200430
3
Magic in Theory
199925
4 201223
5 201021
6 201720
7 201316
8 201315
9 200715
10 200913
11 202012
12 19969
13 20158
14 20067
15 20106
16 20095
17
The Secret History of Magic: The True Story of a Deceptive Art
20185
18
The Rise of the Indian Rope Trick: How a Spectacular Hoax Became History
20045
19 20124
20 20074

About Peter Lamont

Peter Lamont is a scholar working on Social Psychology, Philosophy, Clinical Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience and General Psychology, having authored 33 papers that have together received 318 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs (11 papers), Religious Studies and Spiritual Practices (10 papers), Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology (4 papers), Folklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies (3 papers), Psychedelics and Drug Studies (3 papers), Jungian Analytical Psychology (3 papers), Mental Health and Psychiatry (2 papers) and Visual perception and processing mechanisms (2 papers). The work is most often cited by research in General Psychology (26 citations), Social Psychology (148 citations), Philosophy (77 citations), Cognitive Neuroscience (112 citations) and Literature and Literary Theory (46 citations). Peter Lamont has collaborated with scholars based in United Kingdom, United States and Russia. Frequent co-authors include Richard Wiseman, John M. Henderson, Tim J. Smith, Cláudia Coelho, Andrew McKinlay and Crispin Bates. Their work appears in journals such as Review of General Psychology, History of Psychology, Perception, Theory & Psychology and The Historical Journal.

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