World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Psychology 31 11090 10375 5797 5289 88 6547

Edward T. Cokely publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Edward T. Cokely between 2006 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Edward T. Cokely published across 20 years, from 2006 to 2025, averaging 5.5 papers a year. Output peaked at 12 publications in 2015. 10 of the 110 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2006 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 12. Peak 12 publications in 2015. 2006: 2 publications 2007: 7 publications 2008: 2 publications 2009: 11 publications 2010: 7 publications 2011: 5 publications 2012: 10 publications 2013: 3 publications 2014: 10 publications 2015: 12 publications 2016: 6 publications 2017: 9 publications 2018: 5 publications 2019: 3 publications 2020: 1 publication 2021: 3 publications 2022: 1 publication 2023: 3 publications 2024: 8 publications 2025: 2 publications
2006 2025

110 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Edward T. Cokely: publications per year, 2006 to 2025
Year Publications
2006 2
2007 7
2008 2
2009 11
2010 7
2011 5
2012 10
2013 3
2014 10
2015 12
2016 6
2017 9
2018 5
2019 3
2020 1
2021 3
2022 1
2023 3
2024 8
2025 2
Total 110
Download as CSV

Edward T. Cokely publication distribution in Psychology in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Psychology in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Edward T. Cokely sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600
Bar chart with 69 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 31–40 to 705+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 736. Most scientists, 736, have 101–110 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 705 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 81–90 publications, is where this scientist sits. 31–40 publications: 6 scientists 41–50 publications: 52 scientists 51–60 publications: 138 scientists 61–70 publications: 299 scientists 71–80 publications: 461 scientists 81–90 publications: 605 scientists 91–100 publications: 713 scientists 101–110 publications: 736 scientists 111–120 publications: 686 scientists 121–130 publications: 670 scientists 131–140 publications: 644 scientists 141–150 publications: 597 scientists 151–160 publications: 576 scientists 161–170 publications: 477 scientists 171–180 publications: 450 scientists 181–190 publications: 397 scientists 191–200 publications: 343 scientists 201–210 publications: 328 scientists 211–220 publications: 313 scientists 221–230 publications: 283 scientists 231–240 publications: 226 scientists 241–250 publications: 196 scientists 251–260 publications: 201 scientists 261–270 publications: 171 scientists 271–280 publications: 151 scientists 281–290 publications: 139 scientists 291–300 publications: 113 scientists 301–310 publications: 102 scientists 311–320 publications: 100 scientists 321–330 publications: 76 scientists 331–340 publications: 92 scientists 341–350 publications: 85 scientists 351–360 publications: 69 scientists 361–370 publications: 71 scientists 371–380 publications: 63 scientists 381–390 publications: 58 scientists 391–400 publications: 57 scientists 401–410 publications: 43 scientists 411–420 publications: 33 scientists 421–430 publications: 50 scientists 431–440 publications: 41 scientists 441–450 publications: 32 scientists 451–460 publications: 27 scientists 461–470 publications: 28 scientists 471–480 publications: 25 scientists 481–490 publications: 28 scientists 491–500 publications: 20 scientists 501–510 publications: 23 scientists 511–520 publications: 26 scientists 521–530 publications: 17 scientists 531–540 publications: 21 scientists 541–550 publications: 14 scientists 551–560 publications: 16 scientists 561–570 publications: 10 scientists 571–580 publications: 22 scientists 581–590 publications: 9 scientists 591–600 publications: 14 scientists 601–610 publications: 9 scientists 611–620 publications: 11 scientists 621–630 publications: 4 scientists 631–640 publications: 7 scientists 641–650 publications: 5 scientists 651–660 publications: 10 scientists 661–670 publications: 8 scientists 671–680 publications: 8 scientists 681–690 publications: 4 scientists 691–700 publications: 3 scientists 701–704 publications: 4 scientists 705+ publications: 100 scientists
31–40 publications 705+

This scientist: 88 publications — 13th percentile

13% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 705 publications or more.

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Psychology scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 11,416 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
31–40 6
41–50 52
51–60 138
61–70 299
71–80 461
81–90 605 88
91–100 713
101–110 736
111–120 686
121–130 670
131–140 644
141–150 597
151–160 576
161–170 477
171–180 450
181–190 397
191–200 343
201–210 328
211–220 313
221–230 283
231–240 226
241–250 196
251–260 201
261–270 171
271–280 151
281–290 139
291–300 113
301–310 102
311–320 100
321–330 76
331–340 92
341–350 85
351–360 69
361–370 71
371–380 63
381–390 58
391–400 57
401–410 43
411–420 33
421–430 50
431–440 41
441–450 32
451–460 27
461–470 28
471–480 25
481–490 28
491–500 20
501–510 23
511–520 26
521–530 17
531–540 21
541–550 14
551–560 16
561–570 10
571–580 22
581–590 9
591–600 14
601–610 9
611–620 11
621–630 4
631–640 7
641–650 5
651–660 10
661–670 8
671–680 8
681–690 4
691–700 3
701–704 4
705+ 100
Download as CSV

Edward T. Cokely D-index placement in Psychology in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Psychology scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Edward T. Cokely sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600
Bar chart with 58 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 30–31 to 144+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 702. Most scientists, 702, have 32–33 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 144 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 30–31 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 30–31 D-Index: 398 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 702 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 671 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 659 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 641 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 671 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 617 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 558 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 495 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 487 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 445 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 390 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 408 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 345 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 325 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 321 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 248 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 290 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 218 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 219 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 215 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 183 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 169 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 132 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 137 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 120 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 112 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 86 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 101 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 83 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 77 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 70 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 78 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 58 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 53 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 57 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 48 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 53 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 46 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 24 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 35 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 27 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 32 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 31 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 22 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 16 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 24 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 18 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 11 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 19 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 10 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 16 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 10 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 12 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 8 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 5 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 12 scientists 144+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30–31 D-Index 144+

This scientist: 31 D-Index — 3rd percentile

3% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 144 D-Index or more.

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Psychology scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 11,416 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
30–31 398 31
32–33 702
34–35 671
36–37 659
38–39 641
40–41 671
42–43 617
44–45 558
46–47 495
48–49 487
50–51 445
52–53 390
54–55 408
56–57 345
58–59 325
60–61 321
62–63 248
64–65 290
66–67 218
68–69 219
70–71 215
72–73 183
74–75 169
76–77 132
78–79 137
80–81 120
82–83 112
84–85 86
86–87 101
88–89 83
90–91 77
92–93 70
94–95 78
96–97 58
98–99 53
100–101 57
102–103 48
104–105 53
106–107 46
108–109 24
110–111 35
112–113 27
114–115 32
116–117 31
118–119 22
120–121 16
122–123 24
124–125 18
126–127 11
128–129 19
130–131 10
132–133 16
134–135 10
136–137 12
138–139 8
140–141 5
142–143 12
144+ 98
Download as CSV

Overview

Edward T. Cokely is affiliated with the University of Oklahoma in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on psychology, with significant contributions to cognitive neuroscience, sociology and political science, clinical psychology, applied psychology, and social psychology.

Thematic concentrations in their work include climate change communication and perception, free will and agency, risk perception and management, behavioral health and interventions, human-automation interaction and safety, occupational health and safety research, and risk and safety analysis.

Frequent collaborators in their research are Adam Feltz, Rocío García-Retamero, Jinhyo Cho, Jinan N. Allan, and Dafina Petrova.

Recent publications by Edward T. Cokely cover a range of topics and venues:

  1. Measuring feelings about choices and risks: The Berlin Emotional Responses to Risk Instrument (BERRI), 2022, Risk Analysis
  2. Numeracy does not polarize climate change judgments: Numerate people are more knowledgeable and knowledge is power., 2023, Decision
  3. Parental Risk Literacy is Related to Quality of Life in Spanish Families of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder, 2020, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
  4. An Eye Tracking Based Framework for Safety Improvement of Offshore Operations, 2023, Journal of Eye Movement Research
  5. Risk Literacy Promotes Representative Understanding: Numerate People are Less Biased, More Knowledgeable, and More Concerned about Climate Change, 2021, Research Square (Research Square)

Edward T. Cokely's work is often published in venues such as PsycTESTS Dataset, Decision, Risk Analysis, Journal of Eye Movement Research, and Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

Best Publications

  • The making of an expert.

    K. Anders Ericsson;Michael J. Prietula;Edward T. Cokely

  • Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin numeracy test

    Edward T. Cokely;Mirta Galesic;Eric Schulz;Saima Ghazal

  • Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk : A protocol analysis and process model evaluation

    Edward T. Cokely;Colleen M. Kelley

  • Communicating Health Risks With Visual Aids

    Rocio Garcia-Retamero;Edward T. Cokely

  • Designing Visual Aids That Promote Risk Literacy: A Systematic Review of Health Research and Evidence-Based Design Heuristics.

    Rocio Garcia-Retamero;Edward T Cokely

  • Effective communication of risks to young adults: using message framing and visual aids to increase condom use and STD screening.

    Rocio Garcia-Retamero;Edward T. Cokely

  • Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition

    Saima Ghazal;Edward T. Cokely;Rocio Garcia-Retamero

  • Do judgments about freedom and responsibility depend on who you are? Personality differences in intuitions about compatibilism and incompatibilism.

    Adam Feltz;Edward T. Cokely

  • Individual Differences in Graph Literacy: Overcoming Denominator Neglect in Risk Comprehension

    Yasmina Okan;Rocio Garcia-Retamero;Edward T. Cokely;Antonio Maldonado

  • Persistent bias in expert judgments about free will and moral responsibility: a test of the expertise defense.

    Eric Schulz;Edward T. Cokely;Adam Feltz

  • Using Visual Aids to Improve Communication of Risks about Health: A Review

    Rocio Garcia-Retamero;Yasmina Okan;Edward T. Cokely

  • Sources of individual differences in working memory: contributions of strategy to capacity.

    Edward T. Cokely;Colleen M. Kelley;Amanda L. Gilchrist

  • Individual differences, judgment biases, and theory-of-mind: Deconstructing the intentional action side effect asymmetry

    Edward T. Cokely;Adam Feltz

  • Understanding the harms and benefits of cancer screening: A model of factors that shape informed decision making

    Dafina Petrova;Rocio Garcia-Retamero;Edward T. Cokely;Edward T. Cokely;Edward T. Cokely

  • The fragmented folk : More evidence of stable individual differences in moral judgments and folk intuitions

    Adam Feltz;Edward T. Cokely

  • The Influence of Skills, Message Frame, and Visual Aids on Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases

    Rocio Garcia-Retamero;Edward T. Cokely

  • Skilled decision theory: From intelligence to numeracy and expertise.

    Edward T. Cokely;Adam Feltz;Saima Ghazal;Jinan N. Allan

  • An Anomaly in Intentional Action Ascription: More Evidence of Folk Diversity

    Adam Feltz;Edward T. Cokely

  • Naturalistic Heuristics for Decision Making

    Niklas Keller;Edward T. Cokely;Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos;Odette Wegwarth

  • The Philosophical Personality Argument

    Adam Feltz;Edward T. Cokely

Frequent Co-Authors

Rocio Garcia-Retamero
Rocio Garcia-Retamero University of Granada
Paul Ward
Paul Ward Torrens University Australia
Gregory D. Myer
Gregory D. Myer Emory University
K. Anders Ericsson
K. Anders Ericsson Florida State University
Mirta Galesic
Mirta Galesic Santa Fe Institute
Wändi Bruine de Bruin
Wändi Bruine de Bruin University of Southern California
Andrés Catena
Andrés Catena University of Granada
Gerd Gigerenzer
Gerd Gigerenzer Max Planck Institute for Human Development
Hank C. Jenkins-Smith
Hank C. Jenkins-Smith University of Oklahoma

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

Pursuing a degree in psychology opens up diverse online study options and career paths, from counseling to specialized behavioral roles. Many students interested in working with individuals with behavior challenges consider becoming a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA). While a master’s degree in psychology or a related field is usually required, the certification process and specific educational requirements vary by location.

For example, those researching how to become a bcba in Honolulu will find details tailored to Hawaii’s guidelines. Similarly, if you’re evaluating bcba certification requirements in Houston, you’ll discover information on Texas-specific pathways. Students in the southern United States often explore steps for becoming a bcba in Huntsville, while those in the Midwest may need to review Indianapolis bcba education requirements.

Online degree programs in psychology offer flexible learning and help meet coursework requirements for BCBA pathways. No matter where you study, it’s important to research local licensing and certification rules to ensure a smooth journey toward your desired career in psychology and behavioral analysis.

Best Scientists Citing Edward T. Cokely

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles