William E. Piper

7.5k citations
169 papers · 5.6k indexed · h-index 44

William E. Piper

166 papers receiving 5.0k citations

Peers

William E. Piper
Comparison fields: 5 of 129
  • Clinical Psychology 4.8k
  • Applied Psychology 628
  • General Psychology 138
  • Social Psychology 1.7k
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 820
Replace Gary M. Burlingame with:
Gary M. Burlingame United States
Louis G. Castonguay United States
J. Christopher Muran United States
Christoph Flückiger Switzerland
Jeremy D. Safran United States
Stevan L. Nielsen United States
Adele M. Hayes United States
David E. Orlinsky United States
Jon G. Allen United States
Donald J. Kiesler United States
William E. Piper relative to Gary M. Burlingame United States Gary M. Burlingame's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×
Gary M. Burlingame · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by William E. Piper

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of William E. Piper'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 William E. Piper with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites William E. Piper more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by William E. Piper

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by William E. Piper. 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 William E. Piper. The network helps show where William E. Piper may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network

The 25 scholars most cited alongside William E. Piper, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with William E. Piper Line = papers co-authored together William E. Piper links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

20 of 20 papers shown
#Work
1 20121
2 2010178
3 200978
4 20097
5
Impact of pain on the outcome of group psychotherapy
20084
6 200821
7 200764
8 200450
9 200222
10 200218
11 200170
12 200123
13 200136
14 19996
15 19994
16 199939
17
Psychological mindedness : a contemporary understanding
199782
18 19963
19 199199
20 198818

About William E. Piper

William E. Piper is a scholar working on Clinical Psychology, General Psychology and Applied Psychology, having authored 169 papers that have together received 5.6k indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications (125 papers), Personality Disorders and Psychopathology (54 papers), Attachment and Relationship Dynamics (28 papers), Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics (27 papers), Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health (27 papers), Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy (18 papers), Psychological Testing and Assessment (15 papers) and Psychiatric care and mental health services (12 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Clinical Psychology (4.8k citations), Applied Psychology (628 citations) and General Psychology (138 citations). William E. Piper has collaborated with scholars based in Canada, United States and United Kingdom. Frequent co-authors include Anthony S. Joyce, John S. Ogrodniczuk, Mary McCallum, Hassan F. A. Azim, John S. Rosie, Rene Weideman, Paul Ian Steinberg, Astrid M. Richardsen, B. Jones and Scott C. Duncan. Their work appears in journals such as Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Group Dynamics Theory Research and Practice, The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Research.

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