The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Online Political Mobilization from the Advocacy Group's Perspective: Looking Beyond Clicktivism
Abstract
Academic observers and public intellectuals frequently criticize mass email action alerts as “slacktivism” or “clicktivism,” arguing that the lowered transaction costs of the medium produce a novel form of activism that carries with it hidden costs and dangers for the public sphere. This article challenges those claims, relying on a combination of personal observation within the advocacy community and on a new quantitative dataset of advocacy group email activity to articulate three points. First, that mass emails are functionally equivalent to the photocopied and faxed petitions and postcards of “offline” activism, and represent a difference‐of‐degree rather than a difference‐in‐kind. Second, that such low‐quality, high‐volume actions are a single tactic in the strategic repertoire of advocacy groups, thus reducing cause for concern about their limited effect in isolation. Third, that the empirical reality of email activation practices has little in common with the dire predictions offered by common critiques. The article responds to a previous Policy & Internet article: “The Case Against Mass E‐mails.” 1 (1).
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
Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-2454 · Cited by 28,789
Putnam, R. (2000) · doi:10.1145/358916.361990 · Cited by 17,114
Olson, M. (1965) · doi:10.4159/9780674041660 · Cited by 14,191
The Logic of Collective Action.
Golembiewski, R. T., & Olson, M. (1966) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091298 · Cited by 11,364
Movements, Countermovements, and the Structure of Political Opportunity
Meyer, D. S., & Staggenborg, S. (1996) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/230869 · Cited by 1,498
Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M., Leech, B. L., & Kimball, D. C. (2009) · University of Chicago Press · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226039466.001.0001 · Cited by 1,296
Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements
Walker, J. (1991) · University of Michigan Press eBooks · doi:10.3998/mpub.12845 · Cited by 837
The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior.
Martin, R. C., & Kaufman, H. (1961) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2390746 · Cited by 668
Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why
Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M., Leech, B. L., & Kimball, D. C. (2009) · Cited by 609
The power and politics of blogs
Farrell, H., & Drezner, D. W. (2007) · Public Choice · doi:10.1007/s11127-007-9198-1 · Cited by 572
Cited by
Social media and the formation of organizational reputation
Etter, M., Ravasi, D., & Colleoni, E. (2019) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0280 · Cited by 428
Clicktivism: A Systematic Heuristic
Halupka, M. (2014) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/1944-2866.poi355 · Cited by 262
Metadata
- Authors
- Karpf, D.
- Venue
- Policy & Internet
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-12
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 7-41
- ISSN
- 1944-2866 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1972363002
- Cited by
- 335
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 37.77
- 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: Online Political Mobilization from the Advocacy Group's Perspective: Looking Beyond Clicktivism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2202/1944-2866.1098
- The paper
- Karpf, D. (2010). Online Political Mobilization from the Advocacy Group's Perspective: Looking Beyond Clicktivism. Policy & Internet. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1098
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.