8/3/2019 Jpsp Att Ms Long1993

1/11

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1993, Vol .64 , No. 3 .442-452 Copyright 1993 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0022-3514/93/53.00

Marital Satisfaction, Depression, and Attributions: A Longitudinal AnalysisFrank D. Fincham and Thomas N. Bradbury

This study examined the longitudinal relation between causal attributions and marital satisfactionand tested rival hypotheses that might account for any longitudinal association found betweenthese variables. Data on attributions for negative partner behaviors, marital satisfaction, depres-sion, and self-esteem were provided by 130 couples at 2 points separated by 12 months. To the extentthat spouses made nonbenign attributions for negative partner behavior, their marital satisfactionwas lower a year later. Thisfindingwas not due to depression, self-esteem, or initial level of ma ritalsatisfaction, and also emerged when persons reporting chronic individual or marital disorder wereremoved. Results support a possible causal relation between attributions and marital satisfaction.

In the past decade, researchers have expended considerableeffort in trying to understand the role of attributions in closerelationships. Numerous studies now document an associationbetween relationship satisfaction and attributions for relation-ship events (for reviews, see Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Har-vey, 1987; Weiss & Heyman, 1990). Compared to happypartners, distressed partners tend to locate the causes of nega-tive relationship events in the other p erson a nd to see the ca usesof those events as stable and global; the inverse pattern of find-ings is obtained for positive events. Although this research waslargely motivated by conceptual analyses that emphasized theeffects of attributions on marital satisfaction (e.g., Baucom,1987; Epstein, 1982), surprisingly few studies have addressedthe causal status of at tributions in close relationships. In ad di-t ion, l i t t le at tempt has been made to investigate rival explana-tions for the attribution-satisfaction l ink, leaving open the pos-sibili ty that this association is an art ifact of unm easu red vari-ables. To address the causal status of at tributions, weinvestigated the longitudinal association between attributionsand marital satisfaction. A second purpose of this study is toexam ine factors that might accoun t for any conc urrent an d lon-gitudinal associations found between these two variables.

A r e A t t r i b u t i o n s C a u s a l l y R e l a t e d t o M a r i t a lSa t i s f ac t i on?

It is widely assumed that causal at tributions for maritalevents maintain, and perhaps init iate, marital distress. Thiseffect may be direct or i t may be mediated by the assumed

Preparation of this article was supported by a Faculty Scholar Awardfrom the William T. Grant F oundation and Grant R01 MH44078-01from the National Institute of Mental Health awarded to Frank D.Fincham, and by Grant F31MH 09740-01 from the National Instituteof Mental H ealth awarded to Thom as N . Bradbury. We thank SusanCampbell and Ben Karney for their helpful comments on an earlierversion of this article.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toFrank D. Fincham , Psychology Dep artm ent, University of Illinois, 603East Daniel, Cham paign, Illinois 61820, or to Thom as N . Bradbury,Psychology Department, University of California, 405 Hilgard Ave-nue, Los Angeles, California 90024.

effects of causal inferences for partner behavior on subsequentresponses to the behavior (for an integrative model relating at-tributions, behavior, and satisfaction, see Bradbury & Finc ham ,1990). Few data have been collected to examine the effect ofattribution s on satisfaction, a circu msta nce tha t may be due, inpart , to constraints on conducting experiments in this area.In one of the few experim ental studies condu cted, Seligman,Fazio, and Za nna (1980) used dating couples to show that m ak-ing salient the extrinsic causes for being in the relationshipresulted in lower scores on Rubin's (1970) Love Scale. However,the attribution manipulation did not affect scores on Rubin'sLikin g Scale or global ratings of love an d liking . These findingsare promising but need to be interpreted cautiously in view oftheir inconsistency and a failure to replicate them (Rempel,Holmes, & Zanna, 1985). In addit ion, they contrast with theresults of marital therapy outcome research showing that sup-plementing standard treatments with attributionally orientedinterventions does not enhance marital satisfaction more thansta nda rd interv ention s (e.g., Ba uco m, Saye rs, & Sher, 1990; for areview see Fincham, Bradbury, & Beach, 1990).1

As Olson and Ross (1985) noted, perhaps the most viableme ans of investigating a possible casual relation between attri-butions and ma rital satisfaction is to collect longitudinal data.The two longitudinal studies conducted to date suggest thatattributions may indeed influence relationship satisfaction.Fletcher, Fincham, Cramer, and Heron (1987) found that theextent to which dating partners (76% of the sample werewomen) attributed the maintenance of the relationship tothemselves versus their partner predicted happiness with therelationship 2 months later after init ial happiness had beenstatist ically controlled. In a similar vein, Fincham and Brad-bury (1987) assessed marriages at two points separated by a12-month interval and found that init ial at tributions predictedlater marital satisfaction. None theless, these findings m ust also

1 The results of intervention studies are perhaps not surprising inview of their limitations. These include the failure to document themanipulation of attributions, the limited nature of the attribution in-terventions, and, most importantly, the power of the studies to detectdifferences between treatments (see Fincham, Bradbury, & Beach,1990).442

8/3/2019 Jpsp Att Ms Long1993

2/11

LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF MARRIAGE 443be viewed with caution because only one of two relevant analy-ses revealed a significant longitudina l relation in Fletcher et al.'sstudy and the longitudinal association in Fincham and Brad-bury's study was obtained for wives but not husbands. The latterfinding is consistent with the hypothesis that women are ba-rometers of relationship well-being (Ickes, 1985).Available data relevant to assessing the indirect effects ofattributions on satisfaction (e.g., by demonstrating the effect ofattributions on behavior) are similarly limited. Experimental(Fincham & Bradbury, 1988) and correlational data documentan association between attributions and observed behavior(Bradbury & F incham, 1991; Doherty, 1982; Miller, Lefcourt,Holmes, Ware, & Saleh, 1986; Sillars, 1985). However, in Do-herty's study the attribution-behavior link was found only forwomen. Although a reliable association appears to exist be-tween attributions and behavior, additional data are needed tounderstand more precisely the causal nature of this relation.In summary, several lines of evidence are consistent with thehypothesis that attributio ns influence relationship satisfaction.However, both within and across studies, the results are notuniformly supportive of this hypothesis. Even if these studiesdid show a consistent effect, it might be artifactual because ofunconsidered variables. This points to the importance of rivalhypotheses for the attribution-satisfaction link, a topic towhich we now turn.Is the Attribution-Satisfaction Association an Artifact?

In the discussion below, we consider two important threats tothe validity of past research on attributions in relationships.First, the consistent relation obtained between attributions andsatisfaction may simply reflect their joint association withsome third variable. Second, the longitudin al association couldresult from the failure to exclude from the sample p ersons withchronic disorders.Depression and Self-Esteem

In view of the association between attributions and depres-sion (see Robins, 1988) and between depression and maritaldistress (see Beach, Sandeen, & O'Leary, 1990), it is possiblethat depression accounts for the attribution-satisfaction link.Three stu dies have addressed this possibility. Fincham, Beach,and Bradbury (1989) conducted two studies that investigatedwives' responsibility attributions. Unlike causal attributions,which pertain to who or what produced an outcome or event,responsibility attributions concern accountability for the out-come and determine liability for sanctions (for further discus-sion see Bradbury & Fincham , 1990; Shaver, 1985). In their firststudy, Fincham et al. (1989) examined a community sample andfound that when depression scores and responsibility attribu-tions (indices comprising judgm ents of blame, motivation, andintent) were simultaneously entered into a regression equ ation,only the latter predicted m arital satisfaction. The second studyincluded wives with clinically diagnosed levels of depressionand showed that the attributions of depressed and nonde-pressed wives who were maritally distressed did not differ butthat both groups differed from happily married wives.Fletcher, Fitness, and Blampied (1990) found that, in datingcouples, relationship happiness accounted for unique variance

in spontaneou s and elicited attributions when depression scoreswere statistically controlled.Several factors need to be considered in evaluating the stud-ies described above. First, none addressed the role of depres-sion in the longitudina l relation between attribution s and satis-faction. Secon d, the need to study both hu sbands and wives isself-evident. Th ird, because attributiona l m odels of depressionpertain to causal attributions, this type of attribution requiresfurther study; although Fletcher et a l. (1990) examined causalattributions, they combined them with responsibility attribu-tion dimensions to form an overall attribution index, and theyomitted ratings of the self as causal locus from the index. T hesignificance of this omission is addressed below.Although attribution al models of depression and of relation-ship satisfaction are similar in their predictions for stable andglobal attributions, they differ in the prediction s they make forcausal locus. According to these models, depressed spousesshould view themselves as the cause of negative relationshipevents, whereas maritally distressed spouses should see theirpartners as the cause of such events. In each case the spousemakes nonben ign attributio ns tha t apply either to the self or tothe pa rtner an d are likely to accentuate the impact of the nega-tive event.These differential predictions highlight a fundamental prob-lem with the analysis of the locus dimension in prior relation-ship research. Specifically, self and partner have been used asendpoints in assessments of the locus dimension. This impliesan inverse relation between the two loci that runs counter todata on this issue (e.g., Fincham, 1985; Taylor & Koivumaki,1976). Independent assessments that have been obtained typi-cally have been analyzed separately. The problem with thispractice is that spou ses' responses are likely to be guided by theextent to which the partner is seen as the cause relative to theself. For example, a husband who locates the cause in hispartner and does not see himself as a causal locus is likely toreact differently to the partner's behavior than is a husbandwho similarly locates the cause in the partner but also seeshimself as a cause of the behavior. In the latter case, the dis-counting principle should lead him to m oderate his reactions tothe partner's behavior. Alternatively, he may be more tolerant ofsuch behavior to avoid possible censure for his own role inproducing it. In light of such observations, Bradbury and Fin-cham (1990) have argued that future research must examineseparate locus dimen sions relative to one another. Therefore, inthe present study we examine the utility of this comparativeconception of causal locus.

A second variable that may account for the attribution-satis-faction link is self-esteem. The attribution pattern associatedwith depression has also been related to self-esteem (Ickes,1988; Ickes & Layden, 1978). Self-esteem, in turn, is widelythought to be influenced by marital quality, a viewpoint thathas gained some em pirical su pport. For example, receiving af-firmation in a marital relationship has been related to higherlevels of self-esteem (Vanfossen, 1986). To date, no data havebeen collected to test the hypothesis that self-esteem accountsfor the attribution-satisfaction link.Because loss of self-esteem is often a symptom of depression,it seems reasonable to ask whether the findin gs outlined abovefor studies of depression and attributions in marriage can begeneralized to self-esteem. At least two factors caution against

8/3/2019 Jpsp Att Ms Long1993

3/11

444 FRANK D. FINCHAM AND THOMAS N. BRADBURYsuch generalizations. First, loss of self-esteem can occu r inde-pendently of depression, suggesting that the correlation be-tween the two constructs is likely to be m oderate. Second, posi-tive aspects of well-being, such as self-esteem, may have differ-ent correlates than negative aspects, such as depression (cf.Zautra & Reich, 1983). Zautra, Guenther, and Chartier (1985)provided empirical support for this view that is particularlygermane in the present context; they found that casual attribu -tion dimensions relating to positive events correlated signifi-cantly with self-esteem but not with depression. In view ofthese observations, depression and self-esteem should not beconsidered to have equivalent relations with attributions, a nd asa consequence, we examine them separately in the presentstudy.Finally, several considerations point to a possible sex differ-ence in the magnitude of th e correlations involving depression,self-esteem and marital satisfaction, including the higher inci-dence of depression among wives than husbands (Gotlib &McCabe, 1990) and the widespread belief that women valueintimate relationships m ore than men (e.g., Fitzpatrick, 1988),that wives more comm only feel una ppreciated by their spousesthan do husbands (Noller, 1987), and tha t wives tend to be moreself-critical than their husbands (Carver & Ganellen, 1983).These considerations, together with the growing literature ongender differences in marriage (see Baucom, Notarius, Bur-nett, & Haefner, 1990) and the studies noted earlier in whichattribution findings obtained only for wives (Doherty, 1982;Fincham & Bradbury, 1987), emphasize the importance of ex-amining relations separately for hu sbands and wives.

Chronic DisorderDepue and Monroe (1986) noted tha t, in life stress research,the most powerful predictor of subsequent disorder is prior

disorder. Furthermore, they showed that most people whoscore high on measures of psychological distress in general pop-ulation samples have stable disturbances and that this can leadto artifactual longitudinal relations between distress and itscorrelates. One means of addressing this problem is to statisti-cally control for initial distress. However, this solution is lessthan optim al because longitudinal relations and the underlyingprocesses that give rise to the relations may differ for chronicand ac ute psychological distress. Forexample, attributions mayplay different roles in th e initiation of disorde r tha n they do inthe maintenance of disorder. A more desirable means of ad-dressing such problems is to increase the homogeneity of thesample studied . Accordingly, in the present study we examinedthe effect of excluding persons with high disorder scores on thelongitudinal relations studied.Overview

The primary goal of our study was to examine the longitu-dinal relation between causal attribution s and m arital satisfac-tion. Such information is crucial for addressing the assumedcasual relation between these two variables that is basic to theo-retical analyses in this area and to attributionally oriented treat-ment outcome research. A second goal was to test rival hypothe-ses for any concurrent and longitudinal associations found be-tween these two variables. Ruling out rival hypotheses is critical

to understanding existing data that document a link betweenattributions and marital satisfaction. A final goal was to repli-cate findings concerning the correlates of marital satisfactionand to examine the longitudinal relation between depressionand marital satisfaction. To address these goals, we collecteddata from married couples at two points 12 months apart.M ethod

SubjectsWe initially recruited 130 married couples through advertisementsin local newspapers. Couples had been married an average of9.4 (SD = 9.9) years and averaged 1.5 (SD = 1.6) children. Gross familyincome was $25,OOO-$3O,OOO. Of the wives, 97% were White and 55%chose Protestant as their religious preference (Catholic = 19%; other =17%; no religious preference = 9%). Wives averaged 32.0 (S D = 9.8)years of age, 14.3 (SD = 2.2) years of education, and obtained a meanscore of 111.1 (SD = 22.9) on the Marital Adjustment Test (MAT;Locke & Wallace, 1959). Husbands were also predominantly White(97%) and Protesta nt (54%; Catholic = 14%; other = 17%; no religiouspreference = 15%). Husbands averaged 34.0 (S D = 10.2) years of age,

14.5 (SD = 2.6) years of education, and a score of 110.4 (SD =21.7) onthe MAT.At 12 months after the first phase of the study, we attempted torecontact couples, and obtained data from 106 couples. We conductedmultivariate t tests to examine whe ther spouses who provided data forthe first phase of the data collection differed from those w ho provideddata for both phases of the study. The two groups did not differ interms of demographics or any of the v ariables investigated in the study,indicating that attrition did not bias the sample providing longitudinaldata.Procedure

At both ph ases of the project, c ouples received two sets of materialsby mail, together with separate postage-paid return envelopes and acover letter that thanked them for their participation in the project andinstructed them on their task. They were asked to complete the mate-rials independently and to seal the completed materials in separateenvelopes before talking about the project. Couples were paid $15.00upon receipt of the completed materials.Measures

Marital satisfaction. The MAT (Locke & Wallace, 1959) is a widelyused measure of marital satisfaction that yields a score ranging from 2to 158. It has adequate reliability (split half = .90) and discriminatesbetween nondistressed spouses and spouses who have documentedmarital problems (Locke & Wallace, 1959). Scores on this instrumentalso correlate with clinicians' judgments of marital discord (Crowther,1985).Depressive symptoms. We assessed depressive symptoms using theBeck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck & Beamesderfer, 1974). Thisscale reliably measures the severity of affective, cognitive, motiva-tional, and physical (vegetative) symptoms of depression in nonpsy-chiatric samples (mean level of internal consistency over 15 samples =.81, range = .73 to .92). The BDI correlates highly with clinical ratingsand other measures of depression and differentiates depression fromanxiety (Beck, S teer, & Garbin, 1988).Self-esteem. The Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale is a 10-itemmeasure that reliably assesses self-esteem (2-week test-retest reliabil-ity is .85). This scale also correlates (.56 to .83) with other similar mea-sures and w ith clinical assessments of self-concept problems (Silber &Tipp ett, 1965).

8/3/2019 Jpsp Att Ms Long1993

4/11

LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF MARRIAGE 445Attributions. We assessed attributions for negative events becausethey appea r to be related more consistently and m ore strongly to ma ri-tal satisfaction than attributions for positive events (e.g., Fincham,Beach, & Nelson, 1987; Baucom, Sayers, & Duhe, 1989), they havebeen implicated in theoretical attempts to understand the negativebehavior exchanges that are the hallmark of marital distress (Fincham& Bradbury, 1991), and they are most relevant in the clinical context.

The decision to focus on attributions for negative events was alsoguided by two well-established findings in the broader m arital litera-turethat negative behaviors have a far greater impact on themarriage than positive behaviors, and that this impact occurs indepen-dently of positive events (see Weiss & Heym an, 1990).We used four common partner behaviors as stimuli to obtain attri-bution judgments ("Your wife/husband criticizes somethin g you say,""Your wife/husband begins to spend less time with you," "Your wife/husband does not pay attention to what you are saying," "\bu r wife/husband is cool and distant"). We used hypothetical behaviors becauseof the advantages conferred by standard stimuli across spouses andbecause the pattern of responses to such behaviors is similar to thatfound for attributions for marital difficulties (Fincham & Beach,1988). The behaviors used as stimuli were selected to be commonenough to permit virtually all spouses to imagine them occurring in

their relationship.For each partner behavior, we asked respondents to rate their agree-ment with attribution statements about three causal attribution di-mensions. Two statements assessed causal locus and inquired aboutthe extent to which the cause rested in the partner ("My husband'sbehavior was due to some thing about him [e.g., the ty pe of person he is,the mood he was in]"), and rested in themselves ("My husband's behav-ior was due to some thing abou t me [e.g., what I said or did, the kind ofperson I am]"). The remaining two questions assessed the stability andglobality of causal dimensions, respectively. The stability item in-quired about the extent to which the cause was likely to change ("Thereason my husband criticized me is something that is no t likely tochange") and the globality item assessed the extent to which the causeaffected other areas of the marriage ("The reason my husband criti-cized me is something that affects other areas of our marriage").Spouses rated the statements after imagining that the stimulus behav-ior had just occurred in their marriage.

Ratings were made using a 6-point scale on which each scale pointwas labeled (ranging from disagree strongly to agree strongly) to makethe task as concrete as possible. We summed responses to correspond-ing statements across the four stimulus events and computed coeffi-cient alpha for each attribution dimension (pa rtner locus: husbands =.70, wives = .63; self locus: husbands = .58, wives = .63; stability: hus-bands = .65, wives = .76; globality: husbands = .78, wives = .75). For thetwo locus dimension items, higher scores indicated tha t the respon-dent was more likely to locate the cause in the partner and in the self,respectively. Higher stability scores indicated that the cause was seenas more stable and higher globality scores reflected the perception thatthe cause was m ore global.To examine partner attributions relative to self-attributions, wecombined the responses to the two causal locus questions to obtain asingle locus score by subtracting self-ratings from p artn er ratings (coef-ficient alpha, husbands = .64, w ives = .63). Higher scores indicatedthat th e spouse was more likely tha n th e self to be viewed as the locusof the cause.In the marital literature, hypotheses specific to individual attribu-tion dim ensions are ra re (cf. Bradb ury & Fincham, 1990). Instead, thetheoretical focus has been on responses across causal dimensions lead-ing some investigators to use an overall comp osite index of attributio ns(e.g., Fincham & Bradbury, 1987). Because the re is some debate regard-ing the use of individual attribution dimension scores instead of acomposite a ttribution index that sums across individual dimensions(Carver, 1989; Fincham & Bradbury, 1992), we examined both in the

present study. As all three attribution dimension indices were scored inthe same direction (with higher scores reflecting attributions that arelikely to be negatively related to satisfaction), a composite attributionindex was computed by simply summ ing the locus, stability, and global-ity scores (a for wives = .73, for husbands = .71). This score thereforeconstitutes an index of relationship negative attributions.Results

Consistent with past research and the rationale outlined inthe introduction, separate analyses are reported for husbandsand wives. Unless otherwise specified, the results reported per-tain to the husbands ( = 96) and wives ( = 94) who providedcomplete data on all the variables investigated.Attributions, Depression, Self-Esteem, and ConcurrentMarital Satisfaction

Table 1 shows the concurrent correlations among the vari-ables at Time 1 and Time 2. Several prior findings were repli-cated, including the association between marital satisfactionand depressive symptoms, self-esteem, and attributions. How-ever, the depression-attribution association was inconsistentand varied across attribution dimensions and gender. As antici-pated, the magnitude of the correlation between depressionscores and self-esteem was moderate, supporting the decisionto measure these two constructs independently.

We conducted regression analyses for husbands and for wivesto determine whether depressive symptoms and self-esteemmight account for the concurrent relation between marital satis-faction and attributions. Marital satisfaction served as the de-pendent variable and the three attribution dimensions, depres-sion scores, and self-esteem served as predictor variables thatwere entered simultaneously into the regression equation. Totest the hypothesis that the "third variables" (depression andself-esteem) account for the attribution-marital satisfaction re-lation, we computed the unique variance associated with theattribution dimensions. This variance is the amount R2 woulddrop if the attribution dimensions were omitted and the regres-sion equation was recomputed. We also computed the uniquevariance associated with depression and self-esteem.

Table 2 shows the R2 associated with the regression equationsfor wives and husbands at Time 1 and Time 2 as well as theunique variance associated with the attribution dimensionsand the variables of depression and self-esteem. The results areconsistent across time and gender. Overall, the predictor vari-ables accounted for a significant portion of the variance in mar-ital satisfaction (M= 29.7%). In each equation, the attributiondimensions accounted for a significant portion of unique vari-ance in satisfaction; hence the attribution-satisfaction relationdoes not simply reflect level of depressive symptoms or self-es-teem.

Because it has been recommended that research reports in-clude findings for both individual attribution dimensions andthe attribution indices used in prior research (Carver, 1989;Fincham & Bradbury, 1992), we computed an identical set ofregression equations using the composite measure of causal at-tributions in place of the three individual attribution dimen-sions. We obtained the same pattern of results, and percentagesof variance accounted for were very close to those reported inTable 2 (in no case was the difference greater than 3%).

8/3/2019 Jpsp Att Ms Long1993

5/11

446 F R A N K D . F I N C H A M A N D T H O M A S N . B R A D B U R YTab le 1Concurrent Correlations Among Measures for W ives (Above Diagonal) and Husband s (Below Diagonal) at Time 1 and Time 2

M easure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Time 1

1. M A T2. BDI3. RSES4. Locus5. Stability6. Globality7. Composi te

1. M A T2. BD I3. RSES4. Locus5. Stability6. Globality7. Composi te

- . 3 8 * *. 31*- . 1 0- . 3 8 * *- . 3 3 * *- . 3 7 * *

- . 3 7 * *.34**- . 0 2- . 4 5 * *- . 3 5 * *- . 4 1 * *

- . 4 1 * *- . 5 6 * *- . 0 1.18.15.1 5

- . 3 7 * *- . 5 5 * *- . 2 1.28*.31*.19

.22- . 5 6 * *.08- . 1 5- . 2 4- . 1 4

Time 2.29*- . 6 6 * *.1 4- . 3 3 * *- . 3 2 * *- . 2 6 *

- . 1 8.04.09.05.05.56**

- . 1 6- . 0 7.17.01- . 1 4.44**

- . 4 4 * *.20- . 0 1.1 0.63**.77**

- . 3 2 * *.1 6- . 1 7.2 3.61**.81**

- . 4 9 * *.46**- . 2 2.17.55**.79**

- . 4 5 * *.29*- . 3 5 * *.01.41**.74**

- . 5 1 * *.32**- . 0 6.60**.75**.80**

- . 4 5 * *.18- . 1 6.64**.74**.70**Note. MAT = Marital Adjustment Test (Locke & Wallace, 1959); BDI = Beck Depression Inventory (Beck & Beamesderfer, 1974); RSES =Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965).* p < .01 one-tailed. ** p < .001 one-tailed.

Attributions, Depression, Self-Esteem, and FutureMarital SatisfactionWe conducted longitudinal analyses with the complete sam-ple and w ith a subset of the sample that excluded persons who

Table 2Variance in Marital Satisfaction Accounted for Overall andUnique Variance Associated W ith Attribution Dimensions andWith Depression and Self-Esteem at Time 1 and Time 2

Predictors

OverallAttribution dimensionsLocusStabilityGlobalityBDI and RSESBDIRSES

OverallAttr ibut ion dimensionsLocusStabilityGlobalityBDI and RSESBDIRSES

Ti m eR 2

Wives.3 4.17.01.05.02.06.0 3.00