World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
36
Citations
7251
World Ranking
9409
National Ranking
4982

Fredda Blanchard-Fields 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 Fredda Blanchard-Fields sits on this spectrum.

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 publications 705+

This scientist: 84 publications — 10th percentile

10% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Fredda Blanchard-Fields 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 Fredda Blanchard-Fields sits on this spectrum.

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 D-Index 144+

This scientist: 36 D-Index — 19th percentile

19% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Fredda Blanchard-Fields was affiliated with the Georgia Institute of Technology in the United States. The academic record shows a focus on research activities connected to this institution.

During their career, Blanchard-Fields did not have listed recent papers, co-authors, publication venues, or books documented in the available data. Similarly, there are no identified main fields of study, subfields, or main topics attributable to their research contributions in this record.

There are no recorded awards associated with Blanchard-Fields within the provided data.

The absence of published papers, co-authors, and specific research topics in the data limits a detailed summary of their academic output or research focus. The record confirms that Blanchard-Fields is deceased, which situates all professional activities in past tense.

Best Publications

  • Role of Implicit and Explicit Processes in Learning From Examples: A Synergistic Effect

    Robert C. Mathews;Ray R. Buss;William B. Stanley;Fredda Blanchard-Fields

  • Everyday Problem Solving and Emotion An Adult Developmental Perspective

    Fredda Blanchard-Fields

  • Age Differences in Everyday Problem-Solving Effectiveness: Older Adults Select More Effective Strategies for Interpersonal Problems

    Fredda Blanchard-Fields;Andrew Mienaltowski;Renee Baldi Seay

  • Effects of regulating emotions on cognitive performance: What is costly for young adults is not so costly for older adults.

    Susanne Scheibe;Fredda Blanchard-Fields

  • Age Differences in Emotion-Regulation Strategies in Handling Everyday Problems

    Fredda Blanchard-Fields;Renee Stein;Tonya L. Watson

  • Social Cognition and Aging

    Thomas M. Hess;Fredda Blanchard-Fields

  • Age differences in problem-solving style: the role of emotional salience.

    Fredda Blanchard-Fields;Heather Casper Jahnke;Cameron Camp

  • Adult Development and Aging

    John C. Cavanaugh;Fredda Blanchard-Fields

  • Linking Process and Outcome in the Study of Emotion and Aging.

    Derek M. Isaacowitz;Fredda Blanchard-Fields

  • Everyday problem solving across the adult life span: influence of domain specificity and cognitive appraisal.

    Fredda Blanchard-Fields;Yiwei Chen;Lisa Norris

  • The experience of anger and sadness in everyday problems impacts age differences in emotion regulation.

    Fredda Blanchard-Fields;Abby Heckman Coats

  • Age differences in emotional responses to daily stress: The role of timing, severity, and global perceived stress

    Stacey B. Scott;Martin J. Sliwinski;Fredda Blanchard-Fields

  • Reasoning on social dilemmas varying in emotional saliency: An adult developmental perspective.

    Fredda Blanchard-Fields

  • Emotion regulation in interpersonal problems: the role of cognitive-emotional complexity, emotion regulation goals, and expressivity.

    Abby Heckman Coats;Fredda Blanchard-Fields

  • Age-related differences in altruism across adulthood: making personal financial gain versus contributing to the public good.

    Alexandra M. Freund;Fredda Blanchard-Fields

  • Perspectives On Cognitive Change In Adulthood and Aging

    Fredda Blanchard-Fields;Thomas M. Hess

  • Cognitive Ageing and Psychological Growth

    Gisela Labouvie-Vief;Fredda Blanchard-Fields

  • Moderating effects of age and context on the relationship between gender, sex role differences, and coping

    Fredda Blanchard-Fields;Lorne Sulsky;Susan Robinson-Whelen

  • The effects of age-stereotype priming on the memory performance of older adults.

    Renee Stein;Fredda Blanchard-Fields;Christopher Hertzog

  • Challenges older adults face in detecting deceit: The role of emotion recognition.

    Jennifer Tehan Stanley;Fredda Blanchard-Fields

Frequent Co-Authors

Christopher Hertzog
Christopher Hertzog Georgia Institute of Technology
Cameron J. Camp
Cameron J. Camp University of New Orleans
Susanne Scheibe
Susanne Scheibe University of Groningen
Christiane A. Hoppmann
Christiane A. Hoppmann University of British Columbia
Mo Wang
Mo Wang University of Florida
Alexandra M. Freund
Alexandra M. Freund University of Zurich
Ulman Lindenberger
Ulman Lindenberger Max Planck Institute for Human Development
Paul B. Baltes
Paul B. Baltes Max Planck Institute for Human Development
Rose T. Zacks
Rose T. Zacks Michigan State University
William E. Haley
William E. Haley University of South Florida

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

Psychology is a versatile field with numerous online degree options and career pathways. Many students pursue careers in counseling, therapy, or mental health services, and becoming a Marriage and Family Therapist (MFT) is a popular choice. Requirements for becoming an MFT can vary based on location. For example, the mft requirements in Toledo include specific educational and licensure steps, while those looking into the Tucson mft education requirements will find unique local regulations to follow.

If you’re interested in working in Oklahoma, you may want to read about how to become an mft in Tulsa. Similarly, aspiring professionals in Virginia have their own Virginia Beach mft education requirements to consider.

Online psychology programs can prepare you for these roles, offering flexible study options and the necessary coursework to meet local requirements. Exploring these pathways ensures you’re on track to meet your state’s needs and helps you plan a fulfilling career in mental health.

Best Scientists Citing Fredda Blanchard-Fields

Recently Published Articles