World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
78
Citations
39342
World Ranking
1544
National Ranking
921

Samuel L. Gaertner 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 Samuel L. Gaertner 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: 161 publications — 55th percentile

55% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Samuel L. Gaertner 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 Samuel L. Gaertner 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: 78 D-Index — 87th percentile

87% 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

  • 1988 - Fellow of the American Psychological Association (APA)

Overview

Samuel L. Gaertner is affiliated with the University of Delaware in the United States. Their research spans several fields, including Social Sciences, Psychology, and Neuroscience, with particular attention to subfields such as Sociology and Political Science, Political Science and International Relations, Social Psychology, and Cognitive Neuroscience.

The scientist's published work addresses topics across Social and Intergroup Psychology, Political Philosophy and Ethics, Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies, Cultural Differences and Values, and the Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment.

Among the recent papers authored, one notable publication is "Little "we's": How common identities improve behavior differently for ethnic majority and minority children," published in 2020 in the journal Group Processes & Intergroup Relations.

  • John F. Dovidio
  • Adam R. Pearson
  • Fabian M. H. Schellhaas
  • Louis A. Penner
  • Rita Guerra

  • Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Samuel L. Gaertner received recognition as a Fellow of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1988.

Best Publications

  • The aversive form of racism.

    Samuel L. Gaertner;John F. Dovidio

  • Reducing Intergroup Bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model

    Samuel L. Gaertner;John F. Dovidio

  • Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction.

    John F. Dovidio;Kerry Kawakami;Samuel L. Gaertner

  • Aversive Racism and Selection Decisions: 1989 and 1999:

    John F. Dovidio;Samuel L. Gaertner

  • Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes: A Meta-Analytic Review

    Blake M. Riek;Eric W. Mania;Samuel L. Gaertner

  • The Common Ingroup Identity Model: Recategorization and the Reduction of Intergroup Bias

    Samuel L. Gaertner;John F. Dovidio;Phyllis A. Anastasio;Betty A. Bachman

  • Prejudice, discrimination, and racism.

    John F. Dovidio;Samuel L. Gaertner

  • Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization.

    Samuel L. Gaertner;Jeffrey Mann;Audrey Murrell;John F. Dovidio

  • Intergroup Contact: The Past, Present, and the Future

    John F. Dovidio;Samuel L. Gaertner;Kerry Kawakami

  • Why can't we just get along? Interpersonal biases and interracial distrust.

    John F. Dovidio;Samuel E. Gaertner;Kerry Kawakami;Gordon Hodson

  • Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: Historical trends and contemporary approaches.

    John F. Dovidio;Samuel L. Gaertner

  • Commonality and the Complexity of “We”: Social Attitudes and Social Change:

    John F. Dovidio;Samuel L. Gaertner;Tamar Saguy

  • Extending the Benefits of Recategorization: Evaluations, Self-Disclosure, and Helping

    John F. Dovidio;Samuel L. Gaertner;Ana Validzic;Kimberly Matoka

  • Intergroup bias : Status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity

    John F. Dovidio;Samuel L. Gaertner;Ana Validzic

  • Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity

    John F. Dovidio;Samuel L. Gaertner;Tamar Saguy

  • Disparities and distrust: The implications of psychological processes for understanding racial disparities in health and health care

    John F. Dovidio;Louis A. Penner;Terrance L. Albrecht;Wynne E. Norton

  • The Nature of Contemporary Prejudice: Insights from Aversive Racism

    Adam R. Pearson;John F. Dovidio;Samuel L. Gaertner

  • How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias

    Samuel L. Gaertner;Jeffrey A. Mann;John F. Dovidio;Audrey J. Murrell

  • Perspective and Prejudice: Antecedents and Mediating Mechanisms

    John F. Dovidio;Marleen ten Vergert;Tracie L. Stewart;Samuel L. Gaertner

  • The Contact Hypothesis: The Role of a Common Ingroup Identity on Reducing Intergroup Bias

    Samuel L. Gaertner;Mary C. Rust;John F. Dovidio;Betty A. Bachman

  • Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The induction of a common ingroup identity☆☆☆

    Samuel L. Gaertner;John F. Dovidio;Betty A. Bachman

  • Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes: A Meta-Analytic Review: Appendix

    Blake M. Riek;Eric W. Mania;Samuel L. Gaertner

Frequent Co-Authors

John F. Dovidio
John F. Dovidio Yale University
Tamar Saguy
Tamar Saguy Reichman University
Eric Hehman
Eric Hehman McGill University
Gordon Hodson
Gordon Hodson Brock University
Louis A. Penner
Louis A. Penner Wayne State University
Tessa V. West
Tessa V. West New York University
Terrance L. Albrecht
Terrance L. Albrecht Wayne State University
Ángel Gómez
Ángel Gómez National University of Distance Education
Daan Scheepers
Daan Scheepers Leiden University
J. Nicole Shelton
J. Nicole Shelton Princeton University

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

Today’s evolving landscape of psychology careers provides a range of online degrees and professional opportunities. Many students choose flexible, accredited online psychology programs to help meet both educational and state licensing requirements in different locations.

Preparing for a career as a licensed therapist often requires specific coursework, supervised clinical hours, and exams that vary by state. For instance, the El Paso licensed therapist requirements focus on graduate-level education and hands-on training, while the Fort Wayne licensed therapist education requirements highlight their own set of academic and supervised practice criteria.

Similarly, students exploring the Fort Worth licensed therapist education requirements or the Fremont licensed therapist requirements will discover variations in licensure steps and local regulations.

An online degree in psychology or counseling can be a powerful first step toward entering this rewarding profession. It’s essential to research your target state’s requirements to ensure your education and training meet all necessary standards for licensure and long-term career advancement.

Best Scientists Citing Samuel L. Gaertner

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles