Criticize-attack-pursue & placate-defend-withdraw negative interaction cycle
1. Put simply, one gets more and more upset and the other retreats and shuts down. One hammers the other like a nail. Sometimes the roles reverse or both hammer at each other competitively - to see who can get the last word, inflict the deeper wound.
Neither needs are heard or met. The escalation is an example of reciprocal influence - one can't get there without the other, two to tango, one to load the gun the other to pull the trigger.
The pattern repeats over and over, generating high adrenalin, cortisol stimulated flight-fight-freeze reactions that eventually lead to depleted exhaustion.
A false calm follows.
Then from a small start-up event, the couple winds it up again. Each experiences despair and an inability to stop or divert the cycle from repeating itself. And so it goes on, the relationship cycling between two fall back positions - adversarial and withdrawl (described by Wiley in a collaborative couple's therapy chapter).
When empathy and collaboration seem a long way off, separation or divorce takes shape as the ultimate circuit breaker. That's not a farewell to the pattern and not a good-bye built on love and dignity. Turning your back on that pattern just forwards it to your next location - it doesn't end up in the lost property office.
The pattern is the problem not the person.
Of six reciprocal patterns in marriage, this one has the highest rate of divorce, especially when it goes beyond the dating dance. Also referred to as the isolator & fuser or abandonment & engulfment pattern.
Romance novels dress this pattern up in combinations of these three stories - 'Taming the Shrew', 'Cinderella' and 'Beauty and the Beast'. It may begin as courtship tango but later solidifies into a struggle for secure attachment and intimacy.
The pattern easily polarises into good guy bad guy perceptions - e.g. 'if you weren't so critical' or 'if you didn't withdraw' ... 'then we wouldn't get into this mess'. Many of my clients endure this for 20 years before getting help. The interaction pattern is co-created and co-maintained.
Accepting that the cycle is a dance for two can be the beginning of taming it. The pattern is the enemy not the dance partners. For three person patterns, like an extramarital affair or with an in-law, read triangles as well.
Couples can both attack/pursue or both withdraw/placate but the more usual configuration is one pursues most of the time and the other withdraws most of the time. One criticizes the other defends; one gets increasingly 'emotional' the other reciprocally shuts down; one seeks fusion the other isolation; one feels abandoned in the relationship and the other engulfed by it.
There tends to be a gender bias and cultural overlay, however, universally the cycle is about connection and attachment needs. 'Are you there for me'. 'Do I matter'. 'Will you catch me if I fall, hear me if I call, hold me if I hurt'.
'Suffering is a given. Suffering alone is intolerable.' Sue Johnson
In the dance both are dragged along in ways that reinforce the negative interaction cycle at the same time as feelings of powerlessness and of being out of control. Over time the quantity and quality of negative interactions far outweighs positive ones. Gottman calls this negative sentiment override.
End result: it is unsafe to show tender spots and expose the personal vulnerability essential to an authentic conversation and psychological intimacy.
Creative problem solving occurs when people are able to have that fearless conversation. Lacking that freedom, problem solving becomes basic, rule bound and instrumental. Clunky.
People get stuck in this pattern because the negativity is self-reinforcing and compelling. It taps into the brain chemistry of distress: in feelings of fear, hurt and shame; of sadness and loneliness or numbing of feeling; in threats to safety and survival; in fight/flight responses.
These each drive to the two core issues of attachment - accessibility and responsiveness of one's partner.
The effect of those stress chemicals can completely distort perceptions of one another's intentions and actions, which then become self-reinforcing. Each loses sight of the unmet attachment needs that are protesting at being ignored and dying to be heard.
Intimate partners with knowledge, love and respect for each other can behave abominably under these influences. They come to believe the other has neither knowledge, love, care nor respect for them. Shame based perceptions may confirm it.
Rotten behaviour happens in all marriages but as Gottman has shown those who bounce back quickly have an underlying fondness and admiration for each other AND can inject humour into the events and ownership of their part in it.
Paradoxically, the pursue/withdraw pattern at its worst is an enmeshment polarity in a symbiotic relationship. Those caught in the spell feel unable to disentangle themselves, even when their own behaviour has exceeded what they themselves can respect - ashamed of the person they have become. Yet they keep on engulfing and abandoning each other, criticizing and defending even when their perceptions of each other would say it's either over or it's time to get help.
'Why', I ask them both, 'would you stay with someone who thinks so little of you, who demeans you daily and with whom you so blatantly reciprocate their sentiments?'
Intimate relationships are attachment bonds even when devoid of obvious benefit.
Each may be restrained from leaving a bad situation by a longing for their attachment needs to be met by their life partner; by fear; by trauma bonding or by an unspoken knowledge that neither have got the big picture right. Something like 'I know mine's not the whole story but it FEELS like the whole story when I think your version is completely wrong.'
The attack-pursue/withdraw-placate pattern is driven by each over-functioning and under-functioning in different ways and at different times. For example one the compulsive breadwinner the other compulsive home maker, with the former doing no housework and the latter having no external validation. It grows especially well in dysfunctional families and cultures.
'Raised to value intimacy, women are usually eager to discuss problems and feelings. Brought up to value stoicism and control, men are more comfortable avoiding confrontation and arguments. The result: The more she pursues discussions, the more he withdraws. 'In the long run,' the authors write, 'the male-female tug-of-war over communication and intimacy eats up so much goodwill that the marital bank account goes into overdraft.' Source
A people pleaser married to an injustice collector is a particularly virulent form of this pattern. See item 3 below.
This BBC article has more patterns of love and marriage.
2. Here is a description of the dance of isolator and fuser:
'When change or stress enters the couples' life, the pursuer will move toward the distancer, seeking some sort of connectedness and the distancer will move away, seeking a comfortable emotional distance (Step 1). Of course, as the emotional pursuer's need for a comfortable (and comforting) connection are frustrated, he/she will pursue the partner with greater intensity, causing, in turn, the distancer to withdraw further (Step 2). At this point, the pursuer will become frustrated with the effort and stop the pursuit, moving away and often withdrawing. This usually causes the distancer to take a step toward the partner, usually saying something like, "What's wrong?" to which the common response would be, "Nothing." (Step 3) However, the step taken toward the pursuer will often satisfy that person (though marginally) and the response which closes off further communication ("Nothing") satisfies the other's need for distance. This dance is repeated over and over in pursuer/distancer relationships and at the end of Step 3, they have achieved a sort of equilibrium.
Guerin, et al. note that the couple is in real trouble if they proceed through two additional steps in which the pursuer, in response to a tremendous build-up of frustration over time, attacks the distancer in response to the "What's wrong?" question and the distancer attacks the pursuer, defending him/herself (Step 4) and then the partners remain at a fixed, hostile distance from each other (Step 5), diverging from the ebb and flow of the repetitive cycle of Steps 1-3.
People usually just slip into these roles. One person tends to cede various tasks to the other who willingly takes them on because they confirm a sense of competence, while allowing the partner to feel cared for. As with all reciprocal personal relationships, in their lightest, most benign forms, they are quite functional and allow people to “fit” together in their intimate personal (or business) relationships. The problem arises if each allows the complementary pattern of interaction to reinforce and amplify each person’s behavior. Many of us have heard someone (if not ourselves) complain that the person who used to be so outgoing, entertaining or at ease with others is now a blowhard. The stable, reserved person is boring or withholding. The endearingly cared for person is frustrating in their incompetence and, of course, the higher functioning partner is now over-controlling. In one classic example, we might hear: “You’re never home anymore.” “I stay away because you complain.” Well, I complain because you’re never home....” Abigail Trafford in her excellent discussion of the divorce process entitled Crazy Time terms this “marital deadlock.” '
The above quoted from 'The Dance' at shaublaw
It is something like a cocktail party where people from different cultures are juggling personal space.
Or perhaps it is something about finding the emotional distance where I can focus on you with comfort. That may differ between us because of differences in the acuity of our senses. For example, in our hearing ability (poor hearing - I have to be close; acute hearing - you have to lower your voice or I move away a bit); or in ability to see (long sighted I have to move out to focus on you; short sighted I have to be close to focus); and our ability to feel (slow to access and articulate feelings, so I find the right distance to become aware of my feelings and to express them; quick to know one's inner feelings in which case I can be up close and still in touch with me).
I wonder how much our preferred pattern shapes our senses of distance and closeness - a chicken and egg?
In hooking couples up to blood pressure and heart-rate monitors during arguments, Gottman found that partners tend to stonewall (distancer) as a protection against feeling emotionally "flooded" (the pursuer in your face).
As a chronic pattern in a committed relationship it is likely about being flooded with shame.
'Escalating shame most frequently occurs when partners end up in the roles of pursuer and distancer. When the distancer withdraws, the pursuer wants more contact and reassurance. The more the pursuer pursues, the more the distancer distances, leading to a seemingly endless conflict or impasse. An important element of this cycle is the fact that both partners often feel shame for their respective feelings or needs. The pursuer may feel rejected and shamed for “wanting too much,” while the distancer may feel shame for either being uncomfortable with closeness, or for wanting more space. Each person feels criticized (shamed) by the other, each not realizing that both are having the same experience of shame.' Source.
3. The people pleaser/injustice collector is a fuser/isolator pattern:
People pleasers can also be practioners of passive aggression, which they deny.
'People Pleasers are often the unwitting contributors to family dysfunction, although they are far from being the only culprit in a dysfunctional family. People Pleasers tend to have Injustice Collector counterparts: the Injustice Collector in the family remembers every slight, real or imagined, and throws it back in the People Pleaser's face, while the People Pleaser scurries to set things right with the angry Injustice Collector. The cycle will repeat indefinitely, because the particular dysfunctions of the People Pleaser and the Injustice Collector are a perfect fit with one another: Injustice Collectors feel entitled and People Pleasers feel that everyone ELSE is entitled.' Source.
'The unfortunate outcome in the dysfunctional family is that either the People Pleaser has to become progressively more crippled and entrenched in their subservient role in the family, or else they become healthier and stronger and ultimately are accused of breaking up the family.' Source.
4. Notes from a workshop
Below are Kam's notes from a Harville Hendrix workshop retrieved from Gold Coast Yoga Centre and which is still available with their other excellent yoga articles at the internet web archive. There is more on Harville Hendrix's theory about the maximizer and minimizer process within these patterns in this 50 page thesis chapter.
'This article on "fusers & isolators" gives some general patterns of behaviours possible from each one of us in the dance of relationship. It is also possible to change; being a fuser in one moment & an isolator the next or a fuser in one relationship & a isolator in the next. kam
The fuser grew up with an unsatisfied need for attachment.
The isolator grew up with an unsatisfied need for autonomy.
The fuser is relieved by commitment, as it reduces the fear of abandonment.
The isolator is triggered by commitment fearing absorption.
Everyday of their married lives, husbands and wives push against this invisible relationship boundary (fuser/isolator dynamics) in an attempt to satisfy their dual needs for attachment and autonomy. Most of the time, each individual fixates on one of those needs: one person habitually advances, in an effort to satisfy unmet needs for attachment; the other habitually retreats, in an effort to satisfy unmet needs for autonomy. For a variety of reasons, the person who typically advances begins to retreat. The partner who habitually retreats turns around in amazement: where's my pursuer? To everyone's surprise, the isolator suddenly discovers an unmet need for closeness. The pattern is reversed, like the flip-flop of magnetic poles, and now the isolator does the pursuing. It's as if all couples collude to maintain a set distance between them.
An Isolator's guide to Fusers & reactivity
Reactivity: The fear & automatic self-protectiveness that arise when, to the old brain, one's psychological or physical survival has been threatened. This automatic survival instinct has been programmed into us over millions of years of evolution.
Fusers primary sense of safety & security in the world comes from maintaining close emotional contact with others. (at that time with that partner) Events which separate or threaten to separate them from important others in their life, even brief or minor ones, can trigger their worst unconscious fear, that of abandonment (& death). Fusers seek to avoid losing their relationship with others in a variety of ways, including:
1. Actively pursuing physical & emotional intimacy & closeness
2. Being willing to put aside their own needs or expression of self, in deference to their other's needs
3. Attempts to force the other by "upping the emotional thermostat" when other methods fail
Two types of events will trigger strong reactivity in fusers;
-
Conflict because conflict equals distance & distance hints at potential abandonment
-
Withdrawal & lack of follow through because the fuser's childhood caretakers were so good at giving & then withdrawing their love & availability
Perceived or real rejection via emotional distancing (silence, excessive exiting, etc) will thus cause reactivity in a fuser. The single greatest cause of fuser reactivity is an implied or outright threat to end the relationship. It is not necessary that the threat state a decision to leave as the fuser will quickly add that interpretation to even the most remote suggestion that the relationship might someday terminate. The fear of losing a relationship, even a poor relationship, is so intense that a fuser would rather assume the worst is happening rather than live with the possibility it might happen. Also, assuming the worst offers the fuser his/her best hope of preventing a life threatening event from occurring.
The reactive fuser, if he or she is also a Maximiser, will not be shy about expressing his/her needs & feelings. They may raise their voice, cry, slam or throw things, try to instill guilt or otherwise manipulate their partner into re-establishing harmony & contact.
While isolators need space to calm down, fusers need just the opposite: closure & contact.
A Fuser's guide to Isolators & reactivity
Isolators 'unconscious' fear is that of psychological suffocation or engulfment by the needs or emotional demands of another person. (At that time with that partner) Not surprisingly, isolators are most at ease when given space. Isolators might enjoy closeness, but only in measured amounts. Isolators tend to be Minimisers & often not very in touch with, nor do they care to be in touch with, their feelings.
The greatest source of reactivity for isolators is the feeling of being controlled by the emotional demands of another person. As soon as isolators begin to feel pressured, they will dig in their heels & refuse to comply with even the simplest of requests, even those that they themselves would describe as perfectly reasonable. This is reactivity in the isolator, & once it has been set in motion, the isolator's attention shifts almost exclusively to the process rather than the content of a discussion. The isolator's goal at this point is to re-establish a sense of personal control over his or her autonomy & space. To this end, he or she will typically "shut down" all systems until a feeling of safety has been regained.
In general, isolators achieve & maintain their sense of personal safety by:
- Being in control of themselves at all times
- Keeping a degree of psychological & physical distance (i.e., a safety zone) between themselves & others
- Minimizing or denying their own feelings, needs or wants, both positive & negative
- Discouraging strong or upset feelings in others by "keeping the peace" & "walking on eggshells"
- By increasing physical or emotional withdrawal when other methods fail.' Source
5. Effective couple's therapy for the pattern
Emotionally focused couples therapy is my preference. Here is a clear review of the process on psych page.com
Strengths of EFT quoted from psychpage at http://www.psychpage.com/family/library/eft.htm retrieved November 2008.
* EFT is considered one of the most well-substantiated therapies (even Baucom, the heavy-duty behaviourist agrees) with well designed studies backing it up as having isolated necessary and unique factors of change in therapy.
o It's been shown to be an effective treatment for couples and families facing sexual abuse histories, depression, grief, management of chronic illness, eating disorders, and PTSD. The only caution I'll offer though is that it's hard to tell from the studies I've read whether the bulk of the research has been based on married or cohabiting couples.
o Meta-analysis of the best EFT studies (with randomised assignment and control groups) shows a Fail Safe n of 30-50, so the effect sizes obtained are pretty strong.
o EFT is brief work (8-12 sessions) and leads to as good or better rates of improvement (less distress after therapy) and recovery (adjustment and satisfaction scores in the non-distressed range) as other therapies.
o Several studies show slight increases in adjustment and functioning after therapy has ended. Cloutier et al. (2002) found 62% improved at termination, but 77% improved at the two year follow-up (an increase of 15%). She found 15% were recovered at termination, while 64% were recovered at the two year follow-up (an increase of 49%). The longer terms studies show about the same rate of improvement; some show over a 30% increase in recovery, but the follow-up for these studies is generally a few months.
o In Cloutier's study, in the EFT group 7% had divorced two years after the treatment, compared to 38% of the controls.
o In fairness though, Johnson and Greenberg acknowledge that they have been involved in the majority of the research for EFT. Even though it's been methodologically sound, other researchers need to get involved 1) to avoid allegiance bias, and 2) to make sure that conclusions from studies of EFT with expert therapists really do relate to how it's done with real world therapists and cases.
o Christensen reports that there have been nine solid studies of the effectiveness of EFT, prompting Baucom and colleagues (1998) and Gurman and Fraenkel (2002) to both rate EFT as one of the most research supported therapies for couples.
* Clients report that five things happened in therapy that made things better for them:
o One partner expressed underlying feelings, and the other changing their perceptions of the partner after hearing this
o Learning to understand underlying emotions
o Learning to productively express emotional needs
o Taking responsibility for emotional needs
o Receiving validation for one's needs
* Indicators for EFT are high negative emotional engagement, low sexual affection, older couples (especially for men over 35), and lower sense of emotional engagement or time together in the couple; interestingly, these are also predictors of failure in TBMT.
* EFT is culturally sensitive as universal emotions are examined, but placed in a personal cultural context. For example, shame is universal, but shame takes on an additional role in the Japanese culture. Anger is universal, but often takes different forms when men and women express it. Responsibility is universal, but what's "a man's responsibility" and "a woman's responsibility" is determined but the culture's views of marriage.
* EFT is humanistic based, and believes the couple can heal itself. Feminists appreciate that the therapy model:
o Does not shows a patriarchal pathologizing of connection and attachment (women's ways of relating), and idealization of separation and individuation (men's ways of relating).
o Requires that the does not assume the position of power over the couple, but empowers the partners.
o Views both partners as lacking in some skills; men need to expand their emotional repertoire and women need to feel powerful enough to express their needs.
o Allows for the analysis of changing gender expectations that create a new kind of stress for couples to manage. Examples include dual careers, the freedom not to marry, and expectations of both parents to raise the children.
* EFT offers a theory of how to understand adult love, which has been lacking in the field of couples therapy:
o EFT offers a way (based on attachment theory) to integrate disparate practices like gottman's therapy, ibmt, and narrative approaches.
o Counter-productive behaviours can also be seen as an insecurely attached partner's efforts to provoke some kind of response, rather than as stable pathology.
o Attachment theory also explains healthy development, as securely attached partners are open to re frames and different points of view, and able to tolerate ambiguity, to meta-communicate, to handle learning unflattering things about themselves, to feel and express regret for their past failures recognizing and meeting their partner's needs, and to see their understanding of the world and others as working models.
o Attachment theory also explains unhealthy development, as insecurely attached mourn lost attachments (think about someone who is legally married but has been emotionally divorced for a long time), engage in inconsistent attachment behaviours (think attack and defend, or pursue and distance patterns), suffer ongoing attachment injury (ongoing negative sentiment override), may experience attachment panic (maintain physical and emotional control over their partners), or maintain multiple attachments for fear of losing or being swallowed by one (who have affairs).
o Attachment theory also makes building love maps and rituals of connection, halting the four horsemen and flooding, and engaging in behavioural exchanges all behaviours that can improve attachment. However, as johnson says, simple skill building and behavioural scripting is not sufficient for marital improvement; rather, the ability to "unlatch" from negative emotional and behavioural cycles is required. Source
6. THE SCIENCE OF LOVE
by Richard Handler retrieved from CBS News 02/12/08 at http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_handler/20080402.html
'I've got some bad news for all you romantic types out there. It comes directly from Ottawa.
The messenger in this case is not some politician or civil servant. Her name is Susan Johnson, a psychologist at the University of Ottawa and the director of the Ottawa Couple and Family Institute.
She is also a researcher with a growing international reputation and her message is pretty blunt: Love is too important to be left to dewy-eyed romantics.
This of course runs counter to the mountain of songs, poems and movies that like to portray love as life's great mystery. Well, it isn't, according to Johnson. In fact, she says it is downright "dangerous" and "pernicious" to think that way because the emotional roller coaster we call love needs its own special understanding.
I recently saw Susan Johnson at a psychotherapy conference in Washington, D.C., where she told a room full of therapists that psychologists can now map the emotional and chemical pathways to love in the human brain.
The initial research began in England in the 1940s when psychologist David Levy began studying why healthy babies were dying in orphanages and hospitals. These children were well fed. They were not abused. But they were still dying.
You could almost put his insights into a song lyric: They were dying for love.
The chemistry of love
John Bowlby, another post-war Brit, along with Mary Ainsworth from the University of Toronto created the burgeoning field of studies about human attachment to which researchers like Johnson are now indebted.
The funny thing is that this research, once controversial, actually supports the popular, Hallmark-card idea that love is central to human existence.
But, still, it ain't a mystery. Scientists have discovered the chemistry of love in the form of all those dopamine spikes in the brain that are released during hugging and orgasm.
Neuroscientists have even been sticking lovers into MRI machines. What a way to spend Valentine's Day with your honey!
Of course, if we are going to deal with love, we should get our terminology straight.
Love is an all-embracing term but researchers have divided the concept up into discrete states such as lust, romantic love and long-term attachment. Each has a different chemistry, emotional tone and (to use an economist's phrase) cost-benefit analysis.
Ain't no cure
As a couples therapist, Johnson is particularly interested in longer-term attachment. She's an energetic, funny woman who grew up around her parent's English pub. As a researcher, she once measured the time it would take her to get into an argument with her mother, whom she was picking up at the Ottawa airport. The answer: Four minutes.
But it is not just the quirks of human bickering and attachment that interest Johnson. She is a psychologist who deals with couples in emotional trouble, but she also sees a growing isolation in society. Isolation has serious health effects, she says. "It is even more dangerous than smoking or lack of exercise."
We get over trauma quicker when we are consoled by a loving partner or family. One experiment even showed that holding your loved one's hand during a shock diminishes pain and tissue damage.
Johnson puts it bluntly: "Suffering is a given. Suffering alone is intolerable."
Yet, Johnson says, this culture lives under another prevailing myth, which is that well-functioning adults must be "self-sufficient." When we see naked need in others, we tend to pathologize it.
But love — intimate connection — is more basic than sex," Johnson says. We humans are "wired for love." People want to know "are you there for me?" And, as a result, there are so many ways to screw up the conversation between lovers.
Love's Darwinian hook
In fact, conversation features heavily in Johnson's current vocabulary. The serious, textbook-writing side of her is about to be launched into the popular book-buying market.
This month she has a new book coming out: Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love." On the cover she is called Dr. Sue Johnson. Publishers like to shorten the first names of doctors to make them seem more friendly and approachable.
Sue Johnson won't have any problem on that front. Personally, I think she's better informed and has more to say than Dr. Phil.
But she is by no means the only working academic who is singing the praises of love.
The anthropologist Helen Fisher, author of Why We Love and Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray, divides love into three stages: Lust, infatuation and long-term attachment (the part Johnson is particularly interested in).
But Fisher is more of a Darwinian. According to her, love is evolution's reproductive strategy. She says flat out that love isn't intended to make us happy. It is a device to help us reproduce and then protect our offspring.
Lust is nature's way of mobilizing us to reproduce. It has no particular object. Or, perhaps, it has many, leering objects. Just look at the guys cruising the boulevards on a Friday night.
After pure, indiscriminate lust comes infatuation. It is linked to romantic love because it has a specific object: The beloved.
When you fall in love, says Fisher, the person you love, in your eyes, is absolutely different, special (even if objectively there is no evidence for this). Poems throughout history have been written about handkerchiefs and trinkets that have taken on extraordinary, erotic meaning for the infatuated.
Love is not an emotion, claims Fisher. It is a craving, a drive, in its different manifestations. Dopamine, a powerful drug, is released into our system and that creates intense energy, elation and dependence.
Fisher is not the first researcher to compare romantic love to drug addiction. But this approach raises the question: Where does long-term attachment fit in after the romance fades? Is it, as she says, simply evolution's way of keeping men and women together to raise children?
The fact that couples stay together after children leave the nest is, I suppose, just a bonus.
Fisher has some good news and bad news about the future of love. First the good news: women's equality is on the upswing with the worldwide phenomenon of women returning to the workplace.
The bad news is the long-term use of anti-depressants. This is also a worldwide phenomenon and the upshot is that these drugs suppress the sex drive. Fisher worries they will diminish infatuation and romantic love as well.
"A world without love is a deadly place," she said to applause at a conference in California.' Source
Disclaimer
-
-
Please note that the information in this web site is provided as a free service. Accessing this site does not create any form of legal or professional relationship and neither this web site, its host or its contributors accept any liability or responsibility for any action taken or avoided on the basis of information provided. It is dangerous to rely on generalized information or guidance. You should ALWAYS seek independent professional advice in order that it can be tailored to your own individual circumstances.
-
Inclusion of other sites on this site in no way implies endorsement by me of these sites or any services offered by these sites. These links are provided as a service only and as when purchasing any service or product, consumers should satisfy themselves as to the validity and credentials of those who offer a service. Terms & Conditions
-
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of the issues covered herein. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. 107, the material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in reading the information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
-
