Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Group cohesion: A new multidimensional model

  • Special Section: International Developments in Group Psychotherapy
  • Published:
Group

Abstract

Based upon a careful perusal of all major theoretical reviews and most available controlled, empirical studies from the last 30 years, a five factor model of group cohesion is proposed. These factors are: attraction and bonding; support and caring; listening and empathy; self-disclosure and feedback; and process performance and goal attainment. To understand more fully the complex phenomenon of group cohesion, certain preconditions to the cohesive therapy group must be considered. The most significant of these are: selection of suitable participants; a balanced composition of the group; and effective orientation, training, and contracting. Important early group conditions are: resolving conflict and rebellion; constructive norming and culture building; and reducing avoidance and defensiveness. This new, generic, multidimensional model of group cohesion should prove of great value both to the clinician and the researcher in the group psychotherapy field and related areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, N. H., Linder, R., & Lopes, L. L. (1973). Integration theory applied to judgements of group attractiveness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 400–408.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bach, G. R. (1954).Intensive group psychotherapy. New York: Ronald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. P. (1974). Phases in the development of structure in therapy and encounter groups. In D. Wexler & L. N. Rice (Eds.),Innovations in client-centered therapy. New York: Wiley Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bednar, R. L., & Battersby, C. P. (1976). The effects of specific cognitive structure on early group development.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12, 513–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bednar, R. L., & Kaul, T. J. (1978). Experiential group research: Current perspectives. In S. L. Garfield & A. E. Bergin (Eds.),Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change: An empirical analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bednar, R. L., & Lawlis, F. (1971). Empirical research in group psychotherapy. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.),Handbook for psychotherapy and behavior change. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bednar, R. L., Melnick, J., & Kaul, T. J. (1974a). Risk, responsibility and structure: A conceptual framework for initiating group counseling and psychotherapy.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21, 31–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bednar, R. L., Weet, C., Evensen, P., Lanier, D., & Melnick, J. (1974b). Empirical guidelines for group therapy: Pretraining, cohesion, and modeling.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 10, 149–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennis, W. G. (1964). Patterns and vicissitudes in T-group development. In L. P. Bradford, J. R. Gibb, & K. D. Benne (Eds.),T-group theory and laboratory method: Innovation in re-education. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bion, W. R. (1961).Experiences in groups and other papers. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanck, G., & Blanck, R. (1974).Ego psychology: Theory and practice. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, S., Crouch, E., & Reibstein, J. (1981). Therapeutic factors in group psychotherapy: A review.Archives of General Psychiatry, 38, 519–526.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of working alliance.Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, & Practice, 16, 252–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braaten, L. J. (1961). The movement from non-self to self in client-centered psychotherapy.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 8, 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braaten, L. J. (1974/75). Developmental phases of encounter groups and related intensive groups: A critical review of models and a new proposal.Interpersonal Development, 5, 112–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braaten, L. J. (1983). Group psychotherapy for mental health professionals: A methodological pilot study. In W.-R. Minsel & W. Herff (Eds.).Methodology in psychotherapy research. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braaten, L. J. (1986). Thirty years with Rogers's necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change: A personal evaluation.Person-Centered Review, 1, 37–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braaten, L. J. (1987a). The Therapy Project List-90: A pilot factor analysis with tentative scale descriptions. In W. Huber (Ed.),Progress in psychotherapy research. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Univ. de Louvain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braaten, L. J. (1987b). The effects of person-centered group therapy.Person-Centered Review, 4, 183–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braaten, L. J. (1989a). The Self Development Project List-90: A new instrument to measure positive goal attainment.Small Group Behavior, 20, 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braaten, L. J. (1989b). Predicting positive goal attainment and symptom reduction from early group climate dimensions.International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 39, 377–387.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Budge, S. (1981). Group cohesiveness reexamined.Group, 5, 10–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budman, S. H., et al. (1987). Preliminary findings on a new instrument to measure cohesion in group psychotherapy.International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 37, 75–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bugen, L. A. (1977). Composition and orientation effects on group cohesion.Psychological Reports, 40, 175–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.).Group dynamics. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coché, E. (1983). Change measures and clinical practice in group psychotherapy. In R. R. Dies & K. R. MacKenzie (Eds.),Advances in group psychotherapy: Integrating research and practice. New York: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costell, R. M., & Koran, L. M. (1972). Compatibility and cohesiveness in group psychotherapy: A re-evaluation and extension.Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 2, 99–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crews, C., & Melnick, J. (1976). The use of initial and delayed structure in facilitating group development.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23, 92–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • D'Augelli, A. R. (1973). Group composition using interpersonal skills: An analogue study on the effects of members' interpersonal skills on peer ratings and group cohesiveness.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20, 531–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derogatis, L. R. (1977).The SCL-90: Administration, scoring and procedures manual, I. Baltimore: Clinical Psychometric Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickoff, H., & Lakin, M. (1963). Patients' views of group psychotherapy: Retrospections and interpretations.International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 13, 61–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dies, R. R. (1973). Group therapists' self-disclosure: An evaluation by clients.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20, 344–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dies, R. R. (1977). Group therapist transparency: A critique of theory and research.International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 27, 177–200.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dies, R. R. (1979). Group psychotherapy: Reflections on three decades of research.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 15, 361–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dies, R. R. (1983). Clinical implications of research on leadership in short-term group psychotherapy. In R. R. Dies & K. R. MacKenzie (Eds.),Advances in group psychotherapy: Integrating research and practice. New York: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dies, R. R. (1985). A multi-dimensional model for group process research: Elaboration and critique.Small Group Behavior, 16, 427–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dies, R. R., & MacKenzie, K. R. (1983). (Eds.).Advances in group psychotherapy: Integrating research and practice. New York: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drescher, S., Burlingame, G., & Fuhriman, A. (1985). Cohesion: An odyssey in empirical understanding.Small Group Behavior, 16, 3–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, F. G., Johnson, M. E., & Fortman, J. B. (1989). Task-focused self-disclosure: Effects on group cohesiveness, commitment to task, and productivity.Small Group Behavior, 20, 87–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, N. J., & Jarvis, P. A. (1985). Group cohesion: A review and re-evaluation.Small Group Behavior, 11, 359–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evensen, E. P., & Bednar, R. L. (1978). Effects of specific cognitive and behavioral structure on early group behavior and atmosphere.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 66–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, J. D. (1957). Some determinants, manifestations, and effects of cohesiveness in therapy groups.International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 7, 53–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedlander, M. L., et al. (1985). Introducing semantic cohesion analysis: A study of group talk.Small Group Behavior, 16, 285–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuhriman, A., & Barlow, S. H. (1982). Cohesion: Relationship in group therapy. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.),Psychotherapy and patient relationships. Homewood, IL: Dow-Jones-Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendlin, E. T. (1979). Experiential psychotherapy. In R. J. Corsini (Ed.),Current psychotherapies. Itasca, IL: Peacock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibb, J. R., & Gibb, L. M. (1967). Humanistic elements in group growth. In J. F. T. Bugental (Ed.),Challenges of humanistic psychology, New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, A., Heller, K., & Sechrest, L. (1966).Psychotherapy and the psychology of behavior change. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Good, L. R., & Nelsen, D. A. (1973). Effects of person-group and intragroup attitude similarity on perceived group attractiveness and cohesiveness.Psychological Reports, 33, 551–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, E. F. (1957).An empirical study of the concepts of cohesiveness and compatibility. Unpublished honors thesis, Harvard University.

  • Gross, N., & Martin, W. E. (1952). On group cohesiveness.American Journal of Sociology, 57, 546–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B. A., Ureño, G., & Villaseñor, V. S. (1988). The Inventory of Interpersonal Problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 885–892.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, L. (1983). Projective identification in dyads and groups.International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 33, 254–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurst, A. G., et al. (1978). Leadership style determinants of cohesiveness in adolescent groups.International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 28, 263–277.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. N., Hourany, L., & Vidmar, N. J. (1971).A four-dimensional interpretation of risk-taking. London, Ont: University of Western Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, M. (1977). A comparison of publicly delivered and anonymously delivered verbal feedback in brief personal growth groups.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 385–390.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, A., et al. (1974). Anonymous feedback: Credibility and desirability of structured emotional and behavioral feedback delivered in groups.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21, 106–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, M., et al. (1973a). Feedback II-The credibility gap: Delivery of positive and negative emotional and behavioral feedback in groups.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 215–223.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, M., et al. (1973b). Credibility and desirability of positive and negative structured feedback in groups.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 244–252.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. (1977).Group psychotherapy as experiencing, interpersonal perceiving, and developing values. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapp, F., et al. (1964). Group participation and self-perceived personality change.Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 139, 255–265.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaul, T. J., & Bednar, R. L. (1986). Experiential group research: Results, questions, and suggestions. In S. L. Garfield & A. E. Bergin (Eds.),Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellerman, H. (1981).Group cohesion: Theoretical and clinical perspectives. New York: Grune & Stratton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidder, L. H. (1981).Research methods in social relations (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilmann, P. R., Albert, B. M., & Sotile, W. M. (1975). The relationship between locus of control, structure of therapy, and outcome.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 588.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kirshner, B. J., Dies, R. R., & Brown, R. A. (1978). Effects of experimental manipulation of selfdisclosure on group cohesiveness.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 1171–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, F., & Bednar, R. L. (1977). Effects of group structure and risk taking disposition on group behavior, attitudes, and atmosphere.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 24, 191–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, R. (1970). A behavioral approach to group dynamics: Reinforcement and prompting of cohesiveness in group therapy.Behavior Therapy, 1, 141–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libo, L. M. (1953).Measuring group cohesiveness. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Research Center for Group Dynamics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, M. A., Yalom, I. D., & Miles, M. B. (1973).Encounter groups: First facts. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littlepage, G. E. Cowart, L., & Kerr, B. (1989). Relationships between group environment scales and group performance and cohesion.Small Group Behavior, 20, 50–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1961). Group cohesiveness, communication level, and conformity.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 408–412.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables.Psychological Bullentin, 64, 259–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lott, B. E. (1961). Group cohesiveness: A learning phenomenon.Journal of Social Psychology, 55, 275–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luborsky, L., et al., (1983). Two helping alliance methods for predicting outcomes of psychotherapy.Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 171, 480–491.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, K. R. (1983). The clinical application of a group climate measure. In R. R. Dies & K. R. MacKenzie (Eds.),Advances in group psychotherapy: Integrating research and practice. New York: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, K. R. (1987). An analysis of AGPA institute groups.International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 37, 55–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, K. R., Dies, R. R., Coché, E., Rutan, J. S., & Stone, W. N. (1987). An analysis of AGPA institute groups.International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 37, 55–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, K. R. & Livesley, W. J. (1983). A developmental model for brief group therapy. In R. R. Dies & K. R. MacKenzie (Eds.),Advances in group psychotherapy: Integrating research and practice. New York: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malan, D. H. (1976).Toward the validation of dynamic psychotherapy: A replication. London: Plenum Medical Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, R. D. (1971). The development of the member-trainer relationship in self-analytic groups. In C. L. Cooper & I. L. Mangham (Eds.),T-groups: A survey of research. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L., & Jacobs, M. (1980). Structured feedback delivered in small groups.Small Group Behavior, 11, 88–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marziali, E., Marmar, C., & Krupnick, J. (1981). Therapeutic alliance scales: Development and relationship to therapeutic outcome.American Journal of Psychiatry, 138, 361–364.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, T. M. (1964).Group transformation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R. H. (1974).The social climate scales: An overview. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudrack, P. E. (1989). Defining group cohesiveness: A legacy of confusion?Small Group Behavior, 20, 37–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Keefe, R. D., Kernaghan, J. A., & Rubenstein, A. H. (1975). Group cohesiveness: A factor in the adoption of innovations among scientific work groups.Small Group Behavior, 6, 282–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlinsky, D. E. & Howard, K. I. (1986). Process and outcome in psychotherapy. In S. L. Garfield & A. E. Bergin (Eds.),Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pepitone, A., & Reichling, G. (1955). Group cohesiveness and the expression of hostility.Human Relations, 8, 327–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piper, W. E., et al. (1983). Cohesion as a basic bond in groups.Human Relations, 36, 93–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piper, W. E., et al. (1984). Pregroup interactions and bonding in small groups.Small Group Behavior, 15, 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribner, N. G. (1974). Effects of an explicit group contract on self-disclosure and cohesiveness.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21, 116–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reik, T. (1948).Listening with the third ear. New York: Grove Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach, A. M. (1976).The comparative effects of behavioral vs. cognitive presentation, high vs. low levels of specificity, and interpersonal vs. intrapersonal content of structure on early group development. Lexington: University of Kentucky.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roark, A. E. & Sharah, H. S. (1989). Factors related to group cohesiveness.Small Group Behavior, 20, 62–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 95–103.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C. R. (1970).Carl Rogers on encounter groups. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C. R. (1980).A way of being. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, G. S., & Bednar, R. L. (1980). Effects of positive and negative self-disclosure and feedback on early group development.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27, 63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutan, J. S., & Stone, W. N. (1984).Psychodynamic group psychotherapy. Lexington, MA: Collamore Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaible, T., & Jacobs, A. (1975). Feedback III: Sequence effects: Enhancement of feedback acceptance and group attractiveness by manipulation of the sequence and valence of feedback.Small Group Behavior, 6, 151–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, W. C. (1958).Firo. New York: Rinehart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sechrest, L. B., & Barger, B. (1961). Verbal participation and perceived benefit from group psychotherapy.International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 11, 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagi, P. C., Olmstead, D. W., & Atalsek, F. (1955). Predicting maintenance of membership in small groups.Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 51, 308–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipley, R. H. (1977). Effect of a pregroup collective project on the cohesiveness of inpatient therapy groups.Psychological Reports, 41, 79–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sifneos, P. E. (1972).Short-term psychotherapy and emotional crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silbergeld, S., et al. (1975). Assessment of environment-therapy systems: The group atmosphere scale.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 460–469.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slavson, S. R. (1979).Dynamics of group psychotherapy. New York: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. L., Glass, G. V., & Miller, T. I. (1980).The benefits of psychotherapy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stinson, J., & Hellebrandt, E. (1972). Group cohesiveness, productivity, and strength of leadership.Journal of Social Psychology, 87, 99–105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stogdill, R. (1972). Group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 26–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, J. (1983). Towards an understanding of cohesion in personal change groups.International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 33, 449–467.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, J., Fuehrer, A., & Childs, L. (1983). Group members' self-disclosures: Relation to perceived cohesion.Small Group Behavior, 14, 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strupp, H. H., & Hadley, S. W. (1977). A tripartite model of mental health and therapeutic outcomes: With special reference to negative effects in psychotherapy.American Psychologist, 32, 196–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truax, C. B. (1961). The process of group psychotherapy: Relationships between hypothesized therapeutic conditions and intrapersonal exploration.Psychological Monographs, 75(7), 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truax, C. B., Carkhuff, R. R., & Kodman, F. (1965). Relationships between therapist-offered conditions and patient change in group psychotherapy.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 327–329.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups.Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bergen, A., & Koekebakker, J. (1959). “Group cohesiveness” in laboratory experiments.Acta Psychologica, 16, 81–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winnicott, D. W. (1965)The maturational processes and the facilitating environment. New York: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, N. (1981). The application of an object-relations theory to our understanding of group cohesion. In H. Kellerman (Ed.),Group cohesion: Theoretical and clinical perspectives. New York: Grune & Stratton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yalom, I. D. (1983).Inpatient group psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yalom, I. D. (1985).The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (3rd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yalom, I. D., Peters, H. S., Sheldon, M. Z., & Rand, K. (1967). Prediction of success in group therapy.Archives of General Psychiatry, 17, 159–168.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yalom, I. D., & Rand, K. (1966). Compatibility and cohesiveness in therapy groups.Archives of General Psychiatry, 13, 267–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimpfer, D. G. (1967). Expression of feelings in group counseling.Personnel and Guidance Journal, 45, 703–708.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo 3, Norway

    Leif J. Braaten (Professor of Clinical Psychology)

Authors
  1. Leif J. Braaten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The author is indebted to the following colleagues for constructive criticisms of earlier versions of this report: S. Budman, R. R. Dies, K. R. MacKenzie, W. E. Piper, M. A. Richardsen, and I. D. Yalom.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Braaten, L.J. Group cohesion: A new multidimensional model. Group 15, 39–55 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01419845

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01419845

Keywords

Search

Navigation