The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research.
Impact in
- Authors
- John A. BarghTanya L. Chartrand
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w79324474 →Countries where authors are citing The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research.
This map shows the geographic impact of The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity 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 The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research.
This network shows the impact of The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research..
About The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research.
This paper, published in 2000, received 913 indexed citations . Written by John A. Bargh and Tanya L. Chartrand. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Social Psychology (443 citations), Sociology and Political Science (390 citations), Applied Psychology (270 citations), Cognitive Neuroscience (259 citations) and Experimental and Cognitive Psychology (188 citations).
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/w79324474.