I appreciate you taking the time to substantiate this claim. I do think your approach is questionable, not only because you've moved the goal posts from "the most cited psychologist" to "still in the top 1%" to "still in the top 1% for these specific subfields," but also because you've lumped all of his citations together for each subfield that you've ranked. For example, how many of those 11067 citations are related to his research on the psychology of religion? If you only look at the publications he's authored on religious belief, would he still be the 4th most cited scholar in that particular subfield? It takes a lot more work than a google scholar search to determine someone's influence in different subfields. I would stick with "he's well-cited," rather than hack the stats to justify your claim that "he's in the top 1%."