World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
59
Citations
18909
World Ranking
3645
National Ranking
2047

Peter D. Harms 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 Peter D. Harms 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: 167 publications — 57th percentile

57% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Peter D. Harms 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 Peter D. Harms 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: 59 D-Index — 68th percentile

68% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Peter D. Harms is affiliated with the University of Alabama in the United States and has a research focus centered primarily in the field of Psychology. Their scholarly work covers a range of subfields including Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science, and Gender Studies.

Their research themes encompass several main topics such as Personality Traits and Psychology, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior, Emotional Intelligence and Performance, Gender Diversity and Inequality, Social and Intergroup Psychology, Employment and Welfare Studies, and Information and Cyber Security.

Peter D. Harms has contributed to multiple scholarly articles published in reputable venues. Recent publications include:

  • Does leadership still not need emotional intelligence? Continuing "The Great EI Debate" (2021), The Leadership Quarterly
  • CEO dark personality: A critical review, bibliometric analysis, and research agenda (2022), Personality and Individual Differences
  • Birds of a feather?: Firm sales growth and narcissism in the upper echelons at the CEO-TMT interface (2022), The Leadership Quarterly
  • Editorial: Addressing the nurse workforce crisis: a call for greater integration of the organizational behavior, human resource management and nursing literatures (2022), Journal of Managerial Psychology
  • Leadership perceptions, gender, and dominant personality: The role of normality evaluations (2020), Journal of Research in Personality

The scientist frequently publishes in several significant scholarly venues which include:

  • Academy of Management Proceedings
  • Personality and Individual Differences
  • Journal of Managerial Psychology
  • Journal of Business Research
  • Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Collaboration has been a part of their research approach, working repeatedly with several co-authors. Among the most frequent collaborators are:

  • Dustin Wood
  • Tyler N. A. Fezzey
  • Cameron J. Borgholthaus
  • Xin Liu
  • Alaric Bourgoin

Best Publications

  • Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature.

    Marcus Credé;Michael C. Tynan;Peter D. Harms

  • Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis.

    Peter D. Harms;Marcus Credé

  • Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review.

    Emily Grijalva;Daniel A. Newman;Louis Tay;M. Brent Donnellan

  • Leadership efficacy: Review and future directions

    Sean T. Hannah;Bruce Avolio;Fred Luthans;Peter D. Harms

  • Best practice recommendations for data screening.

    Justin A. DeSimone;Peter D. Harms;Alice J. DeSimone

  • Narcissism and Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Review of Linear and Nonlinear Relationships

    Emily Grijalva;Peter D. Harms;Daniel A. Newman;Blaine H. Gaddis

  • The over-claiming technique: measuring self-enhancement independent of ability.

    Delroy L. Paulhus;Peter D. Harms;M. Nadine Bruce;Daria C. Lysy

  • The dark side of personality at work

    Seth M. Spain;Peter D. Harms;James M. Lebreton

  • An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits.

    Marcus Credé;Peter D. Harms;Sarah Niehorster;Andrea Gaye-Valentine

  • Leadership and stress: A meta-analytic review

    Peter D. Harms;Marcus Credé;Michael C. Tynan;Matthew R. Leon

  • Can resilience be developed at work? A meta-analytic review of resilience-building programme effectiveness

    Adam J. Vanhove;Mitchel N. Herian;Alycia L. U. Perez;Peter D. Harms

  • Meeting the Leadership Challenge of Employee Well-Being Through Relationship PsyCap and Health PsyCap

    Fred Luthans;Carolyn M. Youssef;David S. Sweetman;Peter D. Harms

  • Leader development and the dark side of personality

    Peter D. Harms;Seth M. Spain;Sean T. Hannah

  • What do conscientious people do? Development and validation of the Behavioral Indicators of Conscientiousness (BIC)

    Joshua J. Jackson;Dustin Wood;Tim Bogg;Kate E. Walton

  • Systems Perspective of Amazon Mechanical Turk for Organizational Research: Review and Recommendations.

    Melissa G. Keith;Louis Tay;Peter D. Harms

  • Adult attachment styles in the workplace

    Peter D. Harms

  • Reciprocal relationship between proactive personality and work characteristics: a latent change score approach

    Wen-Dong Li;Doris Fay;Michael Frese;Peter D. Harms

  • Narcissism: An Integrative Synthesis and Dominance Complementarity Model

    Emily Grijalva;Peter D. Harms

  • Mentoring Impact on Leader Efficacy Development: A Field Experiment

    Paul B. Lester;Sean T. Hannah;Peter D. Harms;Gretchen R. Vogelgesang

  • Dirty Data: The Effects of Screening Respondents Who Provide Low-Quality Data in Survey Research

    Justin A. DeSimone;P. D. Harms

  • Not all conscientiousness scales change alike: a multimethod, multisample study of age differences in the facets of conscientiousness.

    Joshua J. Jackson;Tim Bogg;Kate E. Walton;Dustin Wood

Frequent Co-Authors

Dustin Wood
Dustin Wood University of Alabama
Marcus Credé
Marcus Credé Iowa State University
Brent W. Roberts
Brent W. Roberts University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Joshua J. Jackson
Joshua J. Jackson Washington University in St. Louis
Fred Luthans
Fred Luthans University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Delroy L. Paulhus
Delroy L. Paulhus University of British Columbia
Sean T. Hannah
Sean T. Hannah Wake Forest University
Daniel A. Newman
Daniel A. Newman University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Louis Tay
Louis Tay Purdue University West Lafayette
Bruce J. Avolio
Bruce J. Avolio University of Washington

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 an online psychology degree opens up diverse academic and career opportunities. Many accredited universities across the USA now offer affordable online programs, providing flexibility for working professionals, parents, or those with other commitments.

Cost is a significant factor when choosing a program. Prospective students can explore the cheapest online psychology bachelor's in Colorado, or consider programs in the South, such as the cheapest online psychology bachelor's in Florida. Other states with affordable options include Georgia—see the most affordable online bachelor's in psychology degree programs in Georgia—and Minnesota, where students can review details on the cheapest online psychology bachelor's in Minnesota.

Graduates with an online psychology degree can pursue roles in counseling, human resources, social work, and more. Many choose to continue their education with advanced degrees, such as a master's or doctorate, to unlock further career opportunities in research, academia, or clinical practice. Online degrees can also serve as a foundation for related fields, including education, business, and health services.

Best Scientists Citing Peter D. Harms

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles