World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Ruth M. J. Byrne

Ruth M. J. Byrne

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
38
Citations
10560
World Ranking
8714
National Ranking
23

Ruth M. J. Byrne 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 Ruth M. J. Byrne 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: 147 publications — 47th percentile

47% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Ruth M. J. Byrne 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 Ruth M. J. Byrne 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: 38 D-Index — 24th percentile

24% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2007 - Member of the Royal Irish Academy

Overview

Ruth M. J. Byrne is affiliated with Trinity College Dublin in Ireland. Their research spans multiple interdisciplinary fields, primarily focusing on aspects of cognitive science and artificial intelligence.

The scientist's work frequently appears in academic venues such as Memory & Cognition, Cognitive Science, Thinking & Reasoning, arXiv (Cornell University), and the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. This distribution reflects a diverse engagement with both experimental and theoretical approaches within psychology and decision sciences.

Recent publications include:

  • Preference for SMS versus telephone calls in initiating romantic relationships, 2024, Swinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology)
  • Possibilities and the parallel meanings of factual and counterfactual conditionals, 2020, Memory & Cognition
  • How people reason with counterfactual and causal explanations for Artificial Intelligence decisions in familiar and unfamiliar domains, 2023, Memory & Cognition
  • Features of Explainability: How users understand counterfactual and causal explanations for categorical and continuous features in XAI, 2022, arXiv (Cornell University)
  • The Suppression of Inferences From Counterfactual Conditionals, 2020, Cognitive Science

Frequent coauthors of this researcher include:

  • Orlando Espino
  • P. N. Johnson-Laird
  • Greta Warren
  • Mark T. Keane
  • Sangeet Khemlani

Their work centers on key subfields that include:

  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Social Psychology
  • General Decision Sciences
  • Philosophy

Main topics addressed in their research cover areas such as:

  • Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
  • Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Philosophy and History of Science
  • Cognitive Science and Mapping

In 2007, this researcher was recognized as a Member of the Royal Irish Academy, an acknowledgment of their standing in the academic community.

Best Publications

  • Conditionals: A Theory of Meaning, Pragmatics, and Inference

    Philip Johnson-Laird;Ruth M. J. Byrne

  • The Rational Imagination: How People Create Alternatives to Reality

    Ruth M. J. Byrne

  • Human Reasoning: The Psychology Of Deduction

    Jonathan St. B. T. Evans;Stephen E. Newstead;Ruth M. J. Byrne

  • Suppressing valid inferences with conditionals

    Ruth M.J. Byrne

  • Propositional reasoning by model.

    Philip N. Johnson-Laird;Ruth M. Byrne;Walter Schaeken

  • Counterfactual Thought.

    Unknown

  • Mental models and counterfactual thoughts about what might have been

    Ruth M.J. Byrne

  • Counterfactuals in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Evidence from Human Reasoning.

    Ruth M. J. Byrne

  • 'If' and the problems of conditional reasoning.

    Ruth M.J. Byrne;P.N. Johnson-Laird

  • Deductive reasoning with factual, possible, and counterfactual conditionals.

    Ruth M. J. Byrne;Alessandra Tasso

  • Counterexamples and the Suppression of Inferences

    Ruth M.J. Byrne;Orlando Espino;Carlos Santamaria

  • Reasoning by model: The case of multiple quantification.

    P. N. Johnson-Laird;Ruth M. J. Byrne;Patrizia Tabossi

  • Cognitive Processes in Counterfactual Thinking about what Might Have Been

    Ruth M.J. Byrne

  • Counterfactual thinking about actions and failures to act.

    Ruth M. J. Byrne;Alice McEleney

  • Reasoning counterfactually: Making inferences about things that didn't happen.

    Valerie A. Thompson;Ruth M. J. Byrne

  • Counterfactual thinking about controllable events.

    Rachel McCloy;Ruth M. J. Byrne

  • Facts and Possibilities: A Model‐Based Theory of Sentential Reasoning

    Sangeet S. Khemlani;Ruth M. J. Byrne;Philip N. Johnson‐Laird;Philip N. Johnson‐Laird

  • Précis of The rational imagination: how people create alternatives to reality.

    Ruth Mary Josephine Byrne

  • Counterfactual and semifactual conditionals prime alternative possibilities.

    Carlos Santamaría;Orlando Espino;Ruth M. J. Byrne

  • The temporality effect in counterfactual thinking about what might have been

    Ruth M. J. Byrne;Susana Segura;Ronan Culhane;Alessandra Tasso

  • Can valid inferences be suppressed

    Ruth M.J. Byrne

Frequent Co-Authors

Philip N. Johnson-Laird
Philip N. Johnson-Laird Princeton University
Simon J. Handley
Simon J. Handley Macquarie University
Vittorio Girotto
Vittorio Girotto Università Iuav di Venezia
Valerie A. Thompson
Valerie A. Thompson University of Saskatchewan
Pablo Fernández-Berrocal
Pablo Fernández-Berrocal University of Malaga
Mike Oaksford
Mike Oaksford Birkbeck, University of London
Nick Chater
Nick Chater University of Warwick
Jonathan St. B. T. Evans
Jonathan St. B. T. Evans Plymouth University
Hugh Garavan
Hugh Garavan University of Vermont

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

Exploring related online degrees can open up additional career pathways if you are studying Psychology in the USA. Many students choose to combine or transition into fields like social work, which offers diverse roles in healthcare, education, and the nonprofit sector.

Several institutions provide top social work degrees in Tacoma, ideal for those looking to stay local or pursue hybrid learning options. If you want a broader perspective, you can also review the top social work degrees in USA to find nationally recognized programs with flexible online courses.

Certain states stand out for their specialized offerings. For example, programs focused on local needs can be found through the best social work degrees in Utah, while the top social work programs in Virginia provide a variety of concentrations and fieldwork opportunities. Each of these accredited programs can complement your psychology studies and expand your professional horizons.

Whether your goal is to work with vulnerable populations, influence policy, or pursue counseling, researching related online degrees will help you build the foundation needed for a rewarding and impactful career.

Best Scientists Citing Ruth M. J. Byrne

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles