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.
To Do or to Have? That Is the Question.
2003677 citationsLeaf Van Boven, Thomas Gilovichprofile →
Perceiving Political Polarization in the United States
Countries citing papers authored by Leaf Van Boven
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Leaf Van Boven'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 Leaf Van Boven with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Leaf Van Boven more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Leaf Van Boven. 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 Leaf Van Boven. The network helps show where Leaf Van Boven may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Leaf Van Boven
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Leaf Van Boven.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Leaf Van Boven 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 Leaf Van Boven. Leaf Van Boven is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Dickert, Stephan, Kimin Eom, Gabriela M. Jiga‐Boy, et al.. (2022). Politicians polarize and experts depolarize public support for COVID-19 management policies across countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119(3).80 indexed citations breakdown →
Chan, Cindy, Leaf Van Boven, Eduardo B. Andrade, & Dan Ariely. (2013). Moral violations reduce oral consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 24(3). 381–386.40 indexed citations
11.
Boven, Leaf Van, et al.. (2012). The Illusion of Courage in Self-Predictions: Mispredicting One's Own Behavior in Embarrassing Situations. SSRN Electronic Journal.1 indexed citations
12.
Boven, Leaf Van, et al.. (2009). Feeling Close: the Emotional Nature of Psychological Distance. ACR North American Advances.2 indexed citations
13.
McGraw, A. Peter, et al.. (2009). Whom to Help? Immediacy Bias in Humanitarian Aid Allocation. ACR North American Advances.
14.
Ashworth, Laurence & Leaf Van Boven. (2007). Looking Forward, Looking Back: Anticipation is More Evocative than Retrospection. SSRN Electronic Journal.17 indexed citations
15.
Boven, Leaf Van & George Loewenstein. (2005). Empathy Gaps in Emotional Perspective Taking.. SSRN Electronic Journal.49 indexed citations
16.
Loewenstein, George & Leaf Van Boven. (2003). Social Projection of Transient Drive States. SSRN Electronic Journal.13 indexed citations
17.
Epley, Nicholas & Leaf Van Boven. (2003). The Unpacking Effect in Evaluative Judgments: When the Whole is Less than the Sum of its Parts. SSRN Electronic Journal.12 indexed citations
18.
Boven, Leaf Van. (2003). Learning Negotiation Skills: Four Models of Knowledge Creation and Transfer. SSRN Electronic Journal.11 indexed citations
19.
Boven, Leaf Van. (2003). To Do or to Have? That is the Question. SSRN Electronic Journal.44 indexed citations
20.
White, Katherine, et al.. (2003). Intuitions About Situational Correction in Self and Others. SSRN Electronic Journal.3 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.