Frank de Wit

1.8k total citations · 1 hit paper
18 papers, 1.3k citations indexed

About

Frank de Wit is a scholar working on Sociology and Political Science, Social Psychology and Gender Studies. According to data from OpenAlex, Frank de Wit has authored 18 papers receiving a total of 1.3k indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 14 papers in Sociology and Political Science, 11 papers in Social Psychology and 4 papers in Gender Studies. Recurrent topics in Frank de Wit's work include Social and Intergroup Psychology (9 papers), Cultural Differences and Values (6 papers) and Conflict Management and Negotiation (6 papers). Frank de Wit is often cited by papers focused on Social and Intergroup Psychology (9 papers), Cultural Differences and Values (6 papers) and Conflict Management and Negotiation (6 papers). Frank de Wit collaborates with scholars based in Netherlands, Australia and Germany. Frank de Wit's co-authors include Karen A. Jehn, Lindred L. Greer, Daan Scheepers, Kai Sassenberg, Naomi Ellemers, Annika Scholl, Manuela Barreto, Floor Rink, Adam K. Fetterman and Stuart J. Mills and has published in prestigious journals such as Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

In The Last Decade

Frank de Wit

17 papers receiving 1.2k citations

Hit Papers

The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. 2011 2026 2016 2021 2011 250 500 750

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name h Career Trend Papers Cites
Frank de Wit Netherlands 10 747 621 524 266 123 18 1.3k
Nicolas Roulin Canada 20 791 1.1× 562 0.9× 823 1.6× 197 0.7× 69 0.6× 70 1.7k
Andrew Li United States 19 767 1.0× 535 0.9× 1.0k 2.0× 239 0.9× 126 1.0× 44 1.6k
Haifa Sun China 15 464 0.6× 494 0.8× 405 0.8× 113 0.4× 144 1.2× 17 1.1k
Julia Levashina United States 12 553 0.7× 481 0.8× 525 1.0× 156 0.6× 47 0.4× 19 1.2k
Roderick I. Swaab United States 20 809 1.1× 524 0.8× 201 0.4× 105 0.4× 95 0.8× 42 1.3k
Christy L. De Vader United States 3 509 0.7× 867 1.4× 861 1.6× 315 1.2× 145 1.2× 5 1.7k
Sandra E. Spataro United States 11 547 0.7× 404 0.7× 341 0.7× 247 0.9× 81 0.7× 19 1.1k
Robert B. Lount United States 22 680 0.9× 542 0.9× 358 0.7× 88 0.3× 124 1.0× 49 1.4k
Devasheesh P. Bhave United States 16 646 0.9× 596 1.0× 893 1.7× 98 0.4× 59 0.5× 23 1.6k
Sean Martín United States 14 376 0.5× 303 0.5× 455 0.9× 118 0.4× 86 0.7× 26 1.0k

Countries citing papers authored by Frank de Wit

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Frank de Wit's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Frank de Wit with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Frank de Wit more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Frank de Wit

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Frank de Wit. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Frank de Wit. The network helps show where Frank de Wit may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Frank de Wit

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Frank de Wit. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Frank de Wit based on the total number of citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together. Node borders signify the number of papers an author published with Frank de Wit. Frank de Wit is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

18 of 18 papers shown
1.
Wit, Frank de & Stuart J. Mills. (2022). Arrojadite-group nomenclature: sigismundite reinstated. European Journal of Mineralogy. 34(3). 321–324.
2.
Scholl, Annika, Frank de Wit, Naomi Ellemers, et al.. (2018). The Burden of Power: Construing Power as Responsibility (Rather Than as Opportunity) Alters Threat-Challenge Responses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 44(7). 1024–1038. 32 indexed citations
3.
Wit, Frank de, Daan Scheepers, Naomi Ellemers, Kai Sassenberg, & Annika Scholl. (2017). Whether power holders construe their power as responsibility or opportunity influences their tendency to take advice from others. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 38(7). 923–949. 51 indexed citations
4.
Scholl, Annika, Kai Sassenberg, Naomi Ellemers, Daan Scheepers, & Frank de Wit. (2017). Highly identified power‐holders feel responsible: The interplay between social identification and social power within groups. British Journal of Social Psychology. 57(1). 112–129. 40 indexed citations
5.
Wit, Frank de, Karen A. Jehn, & Daan Scheepers. (2016). "Task Conflict in Decisionmaking: The Role of Interdependent Self-Construal, Stress and Emotionality". Academy of Management Proceedings. 2016(1). 12882–12882. 1 indexed citations
6.
Scholl, Annika, Kai Sassenberg, Daan Scheepers, Naomi Ellemers, & Frank de Wit. (2016). A matter of focus: Power‐holders feel more responsible after adopting a cognitive other‐focus, rather than a self‐focus. British Journal of Social Psychology. 56(1). 89–102. 37 indexed citations
7.
Wit, Frank de, et al.. (2015). Diversity and Conflict in Teams: A Meta-Analysis. Academy of Management Proceedings. 2015(1). 14259–14259. 1 indexed citations
8.
Jehn, Karen A., Frank de Wit, Manuela Barreto, & Floor Rink. (2015). Task conflict asymmetries: effects on expectations and performance. International Journal of Conflict Management. 26(2). 172–191. 22 indexed citations
9.
Wit, Frank de, Karen A. Jehn, & Daan Scheepers. (2013). Task conflict, information processing, and decision-making: The damaging effect of relationship conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 122(2). 177–189. 123 indexed citations
10.
Wit, Frank de, Lindred L. Greer, & Karen A. Jehn. (2012). A meta-analysis of the relationships between diversity, conflict, and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 92(2). 2 indexed citations
11.
Wit, Frank de, Daan Scheepers, & Karen A. Jehn. (2012). Cardiovascular reactivity and resistance to opposing viewpoints during intragroup conflict. Psychophysiology. 49(11). 1691–1699. 29 indexed citations
12.
Wit, Frank de, Karen A. Jehn, & Daan Scheepers. (2011). NEGOTIATING WITHIN GROUPS: A PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL APPROACH. 14. 4 indexed citations
13.
Wit, Frank de, Lindred L. Greer, & Karen A. Jehn. (2011). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis.. Journal of Applied Psychology. 97(2). 360–390. 857 indexed citations breakdown →
14.
Scheepers, Daan, Frank de Wit, Naomi Ellemers, & Kai Sassenberg. (2011). Social power makes the heart work more efficiently: Evidence from cardiovascular markers of challenge and threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 48(1). 371–374. 77 indexed citations
15.
Wit, Frank de, Karen A. Jehn, & Daan Scheepers. (2009). Coping with Conflict: How Cardiovascular Reactions to a Task Related Disagreement Affect Decision-Making Quality. SSRN Electronic Journal. 4 indexed citations
16.
Jehn, Karen A. & Frank de Wit. (2008). The Paradox of Intragroup Conflict. 4 indexed citations
17.
Jehn, Karen A., Frank de Wit, & Manuela Barreto. (2008). Conflict Asymmetries: Effects on Motivation, Attitudes and Performance. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2 indexed citations
18.
Wit, Frank de & Lindred L. Greer. (2008). THE BLACK-BOX DECIPHERED: A META-ANALYSIS OF TEAM DIVERSITY, CONFLICT, AND TEAM PERFORMANCE.. Academy of Management Proceedings. 2008(1). 1–6. 29 indexed citations

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026