World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Psychology

D-Index
50
Citations
16102
World Ranking
5348
National Ranking
309

Ullrich K. H. Ecker 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 Ullrich K. H. Ecker 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: 344 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: 34 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 701–705 publications: 5 scientists 706+ publications: 100 scientists
31 publications 706+

This scientist: 136 publications — 42nd percentile

42% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 706 publications or more.

Ullrich K. H. Ecker 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 Ullrich K. H. Ecker 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: 559 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: 87 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: 79 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: 50 D-Index — 54th percentile

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

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

Overview

Ullrich K. H. Ecker is affiliated with the University of Western Australia in Australia and has contributed extensively to research within the social sciences, particularly focusing on misinformation and its psychological underpinnings. Their work spans diverse topics connected to social psychology, communication, and cognitive neuroscience.

The main fields of study for Ullrich K. H. Ecker include Social Sciences with a strong emphasis on subfields such as Sociology and Political Science, Communication, Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology, and Physiology.

Their principal research topics cover:

  • Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Media and Politics
  • Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Public Relations and Crisis Communication
  • Thermoregulation and physiological responses
  • Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Media Influence and Health

Ullrich K. H. Ecker has published notable recent papers, including:

  • The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction, 2022, Nature Reviews Psychology
  • Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect, 2021, Memory & Cognition

Among other frequently cited studies in the broader research context associated with misinformation and public communication are works such as:

  • Toward effective government communication strategies in the era of COVID-19, 2021, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
  • A Public Health Research Agenda for Managing Infodemics: Methods and Results of the First WHO Infodemiology Conference, 2021, JMIR Infodemiology
  • Using the president's tweets to understand political diversion in the age of social media, 2020, Nature Communications

The scientist has collaborated repeatedly with several colleagues, including Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Sander van der Linden, Toby Prike, and Briony Swire-Thompson. These collaborations reflect a network focused on misinformation, memory, and communication strategies.

Ullrich K. H. Ecker has published extensively in journals such as PLoS ONE, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Cognitive Research Principles and Implications, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, and Nature Human Behaviour.

Their contributions extend to book publications, notably a title published by the Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece: The COVID-19 vaccine communication handbook: A practical guide for improving vaccine communication and fighting misinformation (2021).

Best Publications

  • Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing

    Stephan Lewandowsky;Ullrich K. H. Ecker;Colleen M. Seifert;Norbert Schwarz

  • Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and coping with the post-truth era

    Stephan Lewandowsky;Ullrich K.H. Ecker;John Cook

  • Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence

    John Cook;John Cook;Stephan Lewandowsky;Stephan Lewandowsky;Ullrich K. H. Ecker Ecker

  • Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation

    Ullrich K. H. Ecker;Stephan Lewandowsky;David T. W. Tang

  • Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon

    Briony Swire;Adam J. Berinsky;Stephan Lewandowsky;Ullrich K. H. Ecker

  • Toward effective government communication strategies in the era of COVID-19

    Bernadette Hyland-Wood;John Gardner;Julie Leask;Ullrich K.H. Ecker

  • Correcting false information in memory: manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction.

    Ullrich K. H. Ecker;Stephan Lewandowsky;Briony Swire;Darren Chang

  • The components of working memory updating: an experimental decomposition and individual differences.

    Ullrich K. H. Ecker;Stephan Lewandowsky;Klaus Oberauer;Abby E. H. Chee

  • The Role of Familiarity in Correcting Inaccurate Information.

    Briony Swire;Ullrich K. H. Ecker;Stephan Lewandowsky

  • The effects of subtle misinformation in news headlines.

    Ullrich K H Ecker;Stephan Lewandowsky;Ee Pin Chang;Rekha Pillai

  • Do people keep believing because they want to? Preexisting attitudes and the continued influence of misinformation

    Ullrich K H Ecker;Stephan Lewandowsky;Olivia Fenton;Kelsey Martin

  • Reminders and Repetition of Misinformation:: Helping or Hindering Its Retraction?

    Ullrich K.H. Ecker;Joshua L. Hogan;Stephan Lewandowsky

  • A working memory test battery for MATLAB.

    Stephan Lewandowsky;Klaus Oberauer;Lee-Xieng Yang;Ullrich K. H. Ecker

  • Removal of information from working memory: A specific updating process

    Ullrich K.H. Ecker;Stephan Lewandowsky;Stephan Lewandowsky;Klaus Oberauer

  • The effectiveness of short‐format refutational fact‐checks

    Ullrich K. H. Ecker;Ziggy O'Reilly;Jesse S. Reid;Ee Pin Chang

  • Political Attitudes and the Processing of Misinformation Corrections

    Ullrich K. H. Ecker;Li Chang Ang

  • Terrorists brought down the plane! --No, actually it was a technical fault: Processing corrections of emotive information

    Ullrich K. H. Ecker;Stephan Lewandowsky;Joe Apai

  • A Public Health Research Agenda for Managing Infodemics: Methods and Results of the First WHO Infodemiology Conference.

    Neville Calleja;AbdelHalim AbdAllah;Neetu Abad;Naglaa Ahmed

  • The hidden persuaders break into the tired brain

    Christina Bermeitinger;Ruben Goelz;Nadine Johr;Manfred Neumann

  • Can You Believe it? An Investigation into the Impact of Retraction Source Credibility on the Continued Influence Effect

    Ullrich K H Ecker;Luke M Antonio

  • Color and context: An ERP study on intrinsic and extrinsic feature binding in episodic memory

    Ullrich K. H. Ecker;Hubert D. Zimmer;Hubert D. Zimmer;Christian Groh-Bordin

  • Working memory updating involves item-specific removal

    Ullrich K.H. Ecker;Klaus Oberauer;Stephan Lewandowsky

Frequent Co-Authors

Stephan Lewandowsky
Stephan Lewandowsky University of Bristol
Hubert D. Zimmer
Hubert D. Zimmer Saarland University
Gilles E. Gignac
Gilles E. Gignac University of Western Australia
Klaus Oberauer
Klaus Oberauer University of Zurich
Gordon D. A. Brown
Gordon D. A. Brown University of Warwick
Gordon Pennycook
Gordon Pennycook Cornell University
David Trembath
David Trembath Griffith University
Dolores Albarracín
Dolores Albarracín University of Pennsylvania
David N. Rapp
David N. Rapp Northwestern University
David G. Rand
David G. Rand Cornell 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

Pursuing a degree in Psychology can open doors to a wide range of rewarding careers, both within and beyond traditional counseling roles. One popular option is becoming a speech-language pathologist (SLP), a profession focused on helping individuals overcome communication and swallowing disorders. The pathway to becoming an SLP often involves earning a relevant master’s degree and completing clinical experience.

If you’re interested in this career, it’s important to understand that requirements can vary by state. For example, those exploring slp requirements in Nevada should be aware of state-specific licensure steps. Similarly, the process for how to become a speech language pathologist in New Hampshire, how to become a speech language pathologist in New Jersey, or how to become a speech language pathologist in New Mexico can involve specific educational, exam, and supervised practice requirements.

Online degrees in psychology, communication sciences, or related fields can provide the flexibility you need to pursue these career pathways while preparing for the various state requirements you’ll encounter.

Best Scientists Citing Ullrich K. H. Ecker

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles