Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
Perceived Risk: Further Considerations for the MarketingDiscipline
1993952 citationsRobert N. Stone, Kjell Grønhaugprofile →
Countries citing papers authored by Kjell Grønhaug
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Kjell Grønhaug'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 Kjell Grønhaug with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Kjell Grønhaug more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Kjell Grønhaug. 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 Kjell Grønhaug. The network helps show where Kjell Grønhaug may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Kjell Grønhaug
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Kjell Grønhaug.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Kjell Grønhaug 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 Kjell Grønhaug. Kjell Grønhaug is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Xie, Chunyan, et al.. (2011). An Identity Approach to Prosumption- a Case of Bacalhau Prosumption in Brazil. ACR North American Advances.3 indexed citations
2.
Jaakkola, Hannu, et al.. (2010). Information systems - fit or hit the needs. 781–788.
3.
Heide, Morten, et al.. (2008). Development of an Instrument For Measuring Consumers’ Perception of Atmosphere. ACR North American Advances.1 indexed citations
Grønhaug, Kjell, Leif E. Hem, & Herbjørn Nysveen. (2000). Reklamemarkedet : konkurransemessige synspunkter og delmarkeder. Duo Research Archive (University of Oslo).
9.
Kleppe, Ingeborg Astrid & Kjell Grønhaug. (1998). Living Standard Measurement Surveys in Developing Countries: Some Sources of Error. ACR Asia-Pacific Advances.
10.
Grønhaug, Kjell & Robert N. Stone. (1995). Why Perceived Risk Failed to Achieve Middle Range Theory Status: a Retrospective Research Note. ACR European Advances.13 indexed citations
Heide, Morten & Kjell Grønhaug. (1991). Respondents' Moods As a Biasing Factor in Surveys: an Experimental Study. ACR North American Advances.5 indexed citations
15.
Grønhaug, Kjell, et al.. (1985). Consumer Research in Norway: a Historical Perspective.1 indexed citations
Grønhaug, Kjell & Norman Kangun. (1979). Exploring Generalized and Personalized Beliefs Among Smokers and Non-Smokers: a First Look. ACR North American Advances.2 indexed citations
18.
Maddox, R. Neil, et al.. (1978). Correlates of Information Gathering and Evoked Set Size For New Automobile Purchasers in Norway and the U.S.. ACR North American Advances.19 indexed citations
19.
Grønhaug, Kjell. (1978). Participation in Organizational Buying: Some Conceptual and Methodological Problems. ACR North American Advances.3 indexed citations
20.
Grønhaug, Kjell. (1977). Exploring Consumer Complaining Behavior: a Model and Some Empirical Results. ACR North American Advances.37 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.