World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
58
Citations
16418
World Ranking
3825
National Ranking
2146

Steven D. Penrod 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 Steven D. Penrod 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: 160 publications — 54th percentile

54% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Steven D. Penrod 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 Steven D. Penrod 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: 58 D-Index — 67th percentile

67% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Steven D. Penrod is affiliated with John Jay College of Criminal Justice in the United States. Their academic work focuses on several intersecting fields including Psychology, Social Sciences, and Neuroscience. Within these areas, they have contributed specifically to Cognitive Neuroscience, Law, Social Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, and Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

The main topics addressed in their research include:

  • Jury Decision Making Processes
  • Memory Processes and Influences
  • Deception Detection and Forensic Psychology
  • Face Recognition and Perception
  • Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Law in Society and Culture

Their recent peer-reviewed publications highlight diverse lines of inquiry. These include:

  • How to measure lineup fairness: concurrent and predictive validity of lineup-fairness measures, 2024, Psychology Crime and Law
  • Three-level meta-analysis of the other-race bias in facial identification, 2022, Applied Cognitive Psychology
  • Improving juror sensitivity to specific eyewitness factors: judicial instructions fail the test, 2020, Psychiatry Psychology and Law
  • Validity of mock-witness measures for assessing lineup fairness, 2021, Psychology Crime and Law
  • Eyewitnesses in the courtroom: a jury-level experimental examination of the impact of the Henderson instructions, 2020, Journal of Experimental Criminology

These publications appear across various venues, with multiple papers published in Psychology Crime and Law as well as contributions to Applied Cognitive Psychology, Psychiatry Psychology and Law, Journal of Experimental Criminology, and THE KOREAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY.

Steven D. Penrod collaborates regularly with several co-authors, including:

  • Jungwon Lee
  • Angela M. Jones
  • Amanda N. Bergold
  • Jamal K. Mansour
  • Marlee Kind Dillon

Best Publications

  • Inside the jury

    Reid Hastie;Steven D. Penrod;Nancy Pennington

  • Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads

    Gary L. Wells;Mark A. Small;Steven D. Penrod;Roy S. Malpass

  • Meta-analysis of facial identification studies.

    Peter N. Shapiro;Steven Penrod

  • CHOOSING, CONFIDENCE, AND ACCURACY : A META-ANALYSIS OF THE CONFIDENCE-ACCURACY RELATION IN EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION STUDIES

    Siegfried Ludwig Sporer;Steven Penrod;Don Read;Brian Cutler

  • A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory.

    Kenneth A. Deffenbacher;Brian H. Bornstein;Steven D. Penrod;E. Kiernan McGorty

  • Eyewitness Evidence Improving Its Probative Value

    Gary L. Wells;Amina Memon;Steven D. Penrod

  • Mistaken Identification: The Eyewitness, Psychology and the Law

    Brian L. Cutler;Steven D. Penrod

  • Social Influence Model: A formal integration of research on majority and minority influence processes.

    Sarah Tanford;Steven Penrod

  • Effects of long-term exposure to violent and sexually degrading depictions of women.

    Daniel G. Linz;Edward Donnerstein;Steven Penrod

  • The Question of Pornography: Research Findings and Policy Implications

    Edward I. Donnerstein;Daniel Linz;Steven Penrod

  • Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their forensic relation.

    Steven Penrod;Brian Cutler

  • The reliability of eyewitness identification: The role of system and estimator variables.

    Brian L. Cutler;Steven D. Penrod;Todd K. Martens

  • The Effects of Multiple Exposures to Filmed Violence Against Women

    Daniel G. Linz;Edward Donnerstein;Steven Penrod

  • Juror Decision Making in Eyewitness Identification Cases

    Brian L. Cutler;Steven D. Penrod;Thomas E. Stuve

  • Juror Sensitivity to Eyewitness Identification Evidence

    Brian L. Cutler;Steven D. Penrod;Hedy Red Dexter

  • Reinstatement of context in a field experiment on eyewitness identification.

    Carol Krafka;Steven Penrod

  • Mugshot Exposure Effects: Retroactive Interference, Mugshot Commitment, Source Confusion, and Unconscious Transference

    Kenneth A. Deffenbacher;Brian H. Bornstein;Steven D. Penrod

  • Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation.

    Brian L. Cutler;Steven D. Penrod

  • THE EFFECTS OF DAUBERT ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY IN STATE AND FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASES

    Jennifer L. Groscup;Steven D. Penrod;Christina A. Studebaker;Matthew T. Huss

  • Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Putting context into context.

    Brian L. Cutler;Steven D. Penrod;Todd K. Martens

  • Inside the Jury.

    V. Lee Hamilton;Reid Hastie;Steven D. Penrod;Nancy Pennington

Frequent Co-Authors

Brian L. Cutler
Brian L. Cutler University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Reid Hastie
Reid Hastie University of Chicago
Daniel Linz
Daniel Linz University of California, Santa Barbara
Brian H. Bornstein
Brian H. Bornstein Arizona State University
Gary L. Wells
Gary L. Wells Iowa State University
Edith Greene
Edith Greene University of Colorado Colorado Springs
Eugene Borgida
Eugene Borgida University of Minnesota
Edward Donnerstein
Edward Donnerstein University of Arizona
Valerie P. Hans
Valerie P. Hans Cornell University
Neil Vidmar
Neil Vidmar Duke 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

Exploring a psychology degree online opens up a diverse range of career pathways. Graduates can pursue roles in clinical psychology, counseling, research, education, or organizational development. A key issue in selecting an online psychology program is finding one that balances flexibility with strong academic credentials and networking opportunities.

Geography can play a role in program availability and reputation. The top psychology degrees in Virginia often offer robust online options with respected faculty. If you’re in a specific city, consider programs tailored to regional needs, like the top psychology programs in Virginia Beach or the best psychology program rankings in Waco for Texas learners.

For those seeking a metropolitan experience, the best psychology program rankings in Washington, D.C. highlight programs that prepare students for federal or policy-related careers. Ultimately, researching rankings, accreditation, and each program’s career support can help you choose the best online path for psychology success.

Best Scientists Citing Steven D. Penrod

Trending Scientists