The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Status Seekers: Chinese and Russian Responses to U.S. Primacy
Abstract
The United States needs support from other states to carry out global governance, particularly from rising powers such as China and Russia. Securing cooperation from China and Russia poses special problems, however, because neither state is part of the liberal Western community, ruling out appeals to common values and norms. Nevertheless, an alternative approach that is rooted in appreciation of China's and Russia's heightened status concerns may be viable. Since the end of the Cold War, Chinese and Russian foreign policy has been shaped by the goal of restoring both countries' great power status, which received major blows after China's Tiananmen Square repression and the Soviet Union's breakup and loss of empire. This desire for status can be explained by social identity theory, which argues that social groups strive for a distinctive, positive identity. Social identity theory provides a typology of strategies that states may use to enhance their relative status and suggests appropriate responses to status concerns of rising powers. Redirecting scholarly attention to status considerations and incentives could contribute to a diplomatic strategy for engaging rising powers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Social psychology of intergroup relations
Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,577
(1978) · Cited by 5,009
War and Change in World Politics
Gilpin, R. (1981) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511664267 · Cited by 4,020
The tragedy of Great Power politics
(2002) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.39-5464 · Cited by 3,594
In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis.
Brewer, M. B. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307 · Cited by 3,411
Social Identity and Intergroup Relations.
Glassner, B., & Tajfel, H. (1985) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2069233 · Cited by 3,214
Emotion knowledge: further exploration of a prototype approach
Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O'Connor, C. (1987) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1061 · Cited by 3,072
Hirsch, F., & Lamberton, D. M. (1977) · Economic Analysis and Policy · doi:10.1016/s0313-5926(77)50008-2 · Cited by 2,759
The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics
Walker, R. B. J., & Bull, H. (1978) · International Journal · doi:10.2307/40201670 · Cited by 2,742
Greenstein, F. I., & Polsby, N. W. (1975) · Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. eBooks · Cited by 2,305
Cited by
Reputation and Status as Motives for War
Dafoe, A., Renshon, J., & Huth, P. (2014) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-071112-213421 · Cited by 322
Making the World Safe for Dictatorship
Dukalskis, A. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197520130.001.0001 · Cited by 151
Öniş, Z., & Yılmaz, Ş. (2016) · Third World Quarterly · doi:10.1080/01436597.2015.1086638 · Cited by 117
Decoding Turkey's Rise: An Introduction
Oğuzlu, T., & Parlar Dal, E. (2013) · Turkish Studies · doi:10.1080/14683849.2013.861112 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Larson, D. W., & Shevchenko, A.
- Venue
- International Security
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2010-04
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 63-95
- ISSN
- 0162-2889 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-4804
- OpenAlex
- W2004962569
- Cited by
- 531
- References
- 61
- FWCI
- 81.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Status Seekers: Chinese and Russian Responses to U.S. Primacy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/isec.2010.34.4.63
- The paper
- Larson, D. W., & Shevchenko, A. (2010). Status Seekers: Chinese and Russian Responses to U.S. Primacy. International Security. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2010.34.4.63
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.