The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey
- Journal
- Journal of Consumer Research
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1086/209191 →Countries where authors are citing The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey
This map shows the geographic impact of The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey. 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 The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey more than expected).
Fields of papers citing The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey
This network shows the impact of The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey.
About The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey
This paper, published in 1989, received 1.2k indexed citations . Written by Russell W. Belk, Melanie Wallendorf and John F. Sherry covering the research area of Geography, Planning and Development, Sociology and Political Science and Health. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Marketing (689 citations), Sociology and Political Science (517 citations) and Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management (190 citations). Published in Journal of Consumer 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.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1086/209191.