The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective
Impact in
Classified as
- Authors
- Elliot Aronson
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60075-1 →Countries where authors are citing The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective
This map shows the geographic impact of The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective. 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 The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective more than expected).
Fields of papers citing The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective
This network shows the impact of The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective.
About The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective
This paper, published in 1969, received 690 indexed citations . Written by Elliot Aronson covering the research area of General Psychology, Sociology and Political Science and Statistical and Nonlinear Physics. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Sociology and Political Science (328 citations), Social Psychology (252 citations), Applied Psychology (117 citations), Cognitive Neuroscience (115 citations) and General Decision Sciences (105 citations). Published in Advances in experimental social psychology.
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.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60075-1.