The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Strolovitch (2007) finds that most advocacy groups do not promote the interests of disadvantaged subgroups, such as low-income Black women, compared to those of advantaged subgroups, such as middle-class White women.”
From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Strolovitch, 2007
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tormos, F. (2017) · Politics, Groups, and Identities · doi:10.1080/21565503.2017.1385494 · Cited by 119
How to study democratic backsliding
Druckman, J. N. (2024) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12942 · Cited by 56
Strolovitch, D. Z. (2013) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592713000029 · Cited by 50
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Strolovitch, D. Z.
- Corresponding author
- Strolovitch, Dara Z.
- ORCID
- Strolovitch, Dara Z.
- Venue
- University of Chicago Press eBooks
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2007
- OpenAlex
- W4252324792
- Cited by
- 325
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 7.67
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- University of Chicago Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Race, History, and American Society
- Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Movements and Cultural Identity
- Keywords
- affirmative action, advocacy
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
