Ingratiation

Last updated

Ingratiating is a psychological technique in which an individual attempts to influence another person by becoming more likeable to their target. This term was coined by social psychologist Edward E. Jones, who further defined ingratiating as "a class of strategic behaviors illicitly designed to influence a particular other person concerning the attractiveness of one's personal qualities." [1] Ingratiation research has identified some specific tactics of employing ingratiation:

Contents

Research has also identified three distinct types of ingratiation, each defined by their ultimate goal. Regardless of the goal of ingratiation, the tactics of employment remain the same:

Ingratiation has been confused with another social psychological term, Impression management. Impression management is defined as "the process by which people control the impressions others form of them." [6] While these terms may seem similar, it is important to note that impression management represents a larger construct of which ingratiation is a component. In other words, ingratiation is a method of impression management.[ citation needed ]

Edward E. Jones: the Father of Ingratiation

Ingratiation, as a topic in social psychology, was first defined and analyzed by social psychologist Edward E. Jones. In addition to his pioneering studies on ingratiation, Jones also helped develop some of the fundamental theories of social psychology such as the fundamental attribution error and the actor-observer bias. [7]

Jones' first extensive studies of ingratiation were published in his 1964 book Ingratiation: A Social Psychological Analysis. In citing his reasons for studying ingratiation, Jones reasoned that ingratiation was an important phenomenon to study because it elucidated some of the central mysteries of social interaction and was also the stepping stone towards understanding other common social phenomena such as group cohesiveness. [1]

Tactics of ingratiation

Complimentary Other enhancement is said to "involve communication of directly enhancing, evaluative statements" [1] and is most correlated to the practice of flattery. Most often, other enhancement is achieved when the ingratiator exaggerates the positive qualities of the target while leaving out the negative qualities. According to Jones, this form of ingratiation is effective based on the Gestaltian axiom that it is hard for a person to dislike someone that thinks highly of them. In addition to this, other enhancement seems to be most effective when compliments are directed at the target's sources of self-doubt. To shield the obviousness of the flattery, the ingratiator may first talk negatively about qualities the target knows are weaknesses and then compliment him/her on a weak quality the target is unsure of.

Conformity in Opinion, Judgment, and Behavior is based on the tenet that people like those whose values and beliefs are similar to their own. According to Jones, ingratiation in the form of conformity can "range from simple agreement with expressed opinions to the most complex forms of behavior imitation and identification." [1] Similar to other enhancement, conformity is thought to be most effective when there is a change of opinion. When the ingratiator switches from a divergent opinion to an agreeing one, the target assumes the ingratiator values his/her opinion enough to change, in turn strengthening the positive feelings the target has for the ingratiator. With this, the target person is likely to be most appreciative of agreement when he wants to believe that something is true but is not sure that it is. Jones argues, therefore, that it is best to start by disagreeing in trivial issue and agreeing on issues that the target person needs affirmation. [1]

Self-Presentation or Self-Promotion is the "explicit presentation or description of one's own attributes to increase the likelihood of being judged attractively". [1] The ingratiator is one who models himself along the lines of the target person's suggested ideals. Self-presentation is said to be most effective by exaggerating strengths and minimizing weaknesses. This tactic, however, seems to be dependent of the normal self-image of the ingratiator. For example, those who are of high esteem are considered with more favor if they are modest and those who are not are seen as more favorable when they exaggerate their strengths. One can also present weakness in order to impress the target. By revealing weaknesses, one implies a sense of respect and trust of the target. [1] Interview responses such as "I am the kind of person who...", "You can count on me to..." are examples of self-presentation techniques.

Rendering Favors is the act of performing helpful requests for another individual. This is a positive ingratiation tactic, as "persons are likely to be attracted to those who do nice things for them." [1] By providing favors or gifts, the ingratiator promotes attraction in the target by making him/herself appear more favorable. In some instances, people may use favors or gifts with the goal of "...influencing others to give us the things we want more than they do, but giving them the things they want more than we do." [1]

Modesty is the act of moderating the estimation of one's own abilities. [2] Modesty is seen as an effective ingratiation strategy because it provides a relatively less transparent format for the ingratiator to promote likeability. Modesty can sometimes take the form of self-deprecation, or Deprecation directed toward one's self, which is the opposite of self-promotion. Instead of the ingratiator making him/herself seem more attractive in the eyes of the target individual, the goal of self-deprecation is to decrease the perceived attractiveness of the ingratiator. In doing so, the ingratiator hopes to receive pity from the target individual, and is thus able to enact persuasion via such pity. [4]

Expression of humor is the intentional use of humor to create a positive affect with the target individual. [3] The expression of humor is best implicated when the ingratiator is of higher status than the target individual, such as from supervisor to employee. "As long as the target perceives the individual's joke as appropriate, funny, and has no alternative implications, than the joke will be taken in a positive as opposed to a negative manner." [3] When humor is used by an individual of lower status within the setting, it may prove to be risky, inappropriate, and distracting, and may damage likeability as opposed to promoting likeability. [3]

Instrumental Dependency is the act of instilling the impression upon the target individual that the ingratiator is completely dependent upon that individual. Similar to modesty, instrumental dependency works by creating a sense of pity for the ingratiator. While instrumental dependency as a process is similar to modesty or self-deprecation, it is defined separately due to the notion that instrumental dependency is typically task-dependent, meaning the ingratiator would insinuate that he/she is dependent upon the target individual for the completion of a specific task or goal. [4]

Name-dropping is the act of using the name of an influential person(s) as reference(s) while communicating with the target individual. Typically, name-dropping is done strategically in a manner that the reference(s) in question will be known and respected by the target individual. As a result, the target individual is likely to see the ingratiator as more attractive. [4]

Major empirical findings

In business

Seiter [8] conducted a study that looked into the effect of ingratiation tactics on tipping behavior in the restaurant business. The study was done at two restaurants in Northern Utah, and the participant pool was 94 dining parties of 2 people each, equaling 188 participants in total. In order to ensure that the person paying the bill was complimented, the experimenters were told to genuinely compliment both members of the party. The data was collected by two female communication students, both the age of 22, who worked part-time as waitresses.

The results of the experiment supported the initial hypothesis that customers receiving compliments on their choice of dish would tip larger amounts than customers who received no compliment after ordering. A one-way ANOVA test was performed, and this test found significant differences in tipping behavior between the two conditions. Customers who received compliments left larger tips (M = 18.94) than those who were not the recipients of ingratiation tactics (M = 16.41).

Treadway, Ferris, Duke, Adams, and Thatcher [9] wanted to explore how the role of subordinate ingratiation and political skill on supervisors’ impressions and ratings of interpersonal facilitation. Specifically, the researchers wanted to see if political skill and ingratiation interact in the business setting. "Political skill refer to the ability to exercise influence through the use of persuasion, manipulation, and negotiation" [9] They hypothesized that employees who used high rates of ingratiation, and had low levels of political skill would have motivations more easily detectable by their supervisors. [9] Treadway et al. found that ingratiation was only effective if the motivation was not discovered by the supervisor. [9] In addition, the researchers found that when supervisors rating of an employee's use of ingratiation increased, their rating of an employee's use of interpersonal facilitation decreased. [9]

In conversation and interviews

Godfrey conducted a study that looked into the difference between self-promoters and ingratiators. [10] The study subjects consisted of 50 pairs of unacquainted, same sex students from Princeton University (25 male pairs, 25 female pairs). The pairs of students participated in two sessions of videotaped, 20-minute conversations, spaced one week apart.

The first session was an unstructured conversation where the two subjects just talked about arbitrary topics. After the first conversation, one subject was randomly assigned to be the presenter. The presenter was asked to fill out a two-question survey that rated the likability and the competency of the other subject on a scale from 1 to 10. The second subject was assigned the role of the target, and was instructed to fill out a much longer survey about the other subject, which included the likability and competency scale, 41 trait attributes, and 7 emotions. In the second session, the presenters were asked to participate as an ingratiator or a self-promoter. They were both given specific directions: ingratiators were told to try to make the target like them, while the self-promoters were instructed to make the targets view them as extremely competent.

The results show that the presenters only partly achieved their goal. Partners of ingratiators rated them as somewhat more likable after the second conversation than after the first conversation (Ms = 7.35 vs. 6.55) but no more competent (Ms = 5.80 vs. 5.85), whereas partners of self-promoters rated them as no more competent after the second conversation than after the first conversation (Ms = 5.25 vs. 5.05) but somewhat less likable (Ms = 5.15 vs. 5.85). Ingratiators gained in likability without sacrificing perceived competence, whereas self-promoters sacrificed likability with no gain in competency.

Applications

When ingratiation works

Ingratiation can be a hard tactic to implicate, without having the target individual realize what you are trying to do. The tactics of ingratiation works well in different situations and settings. For example, “Tactics that match role expectations of low-status subordinates, such as opinion conformity, would appear to be better suited to exchanges between low-status ingratiators and high-status targets." [2] Or, “The tactic of other enhancement would appear to be more appropriate for exchanges between high-status ingratiators and low-status targets because judgment and evaluation are congruent with a high-status supervisory role." [2] Within a work setting, it is best to evaluate the situation to figure out which method of ingratiation is best to use. The ingratiator should also have some transparency to their method, so that the target individual is not suspicious of their motives. [2] For example, ingratiating a target individual when it is uncharacteristic of your behavior or making it obvious that you are trying to ingratiate. “Given the strength of reciprocity as a social norm, it is possible that in situations in which the ingratiation attempt is interpreted by the target as 'ingratiation,' the most appropriate response might be to reciprocate the 'feigned' liking while forming more negative judgments and evaluations of the ingratiator.". [2]

Self-esteem and stress

Ingratiation is a method that can be used to cope with job-related stress. [11] Decreased self-esteem coupled with stress may cause an individual to use coping mechanisms, such as ingratiation. [11] Self-affirmation and image maintenance are likely reactions when there is a threat to self-image. [11] "Since self-esteem is a resource for coping with stress, it becomes depleted in this coping process and the individual becomes more likely to use ingratiation to protect, repair, or even boost self-image." [11] There are two models that are presented to describe self-esteem in relation to ingratiatory behaviors. The self-esteem moderator model is when stress leads to ingratiatory behavior and self-esteem impacts this relationship. Then there is the mediation model that suggests that stress leads to decreased self-esteem, which increases ingratiatory behaviors to uplift one's self-image (a linear model). [11] Research supports the mediation model, while literature supports the moderator model.

Self-monitoring

Within Turnely and Boino's study, "They had students complete a self-monitoring scale at the beginning of the project. At the conclusion of the project, participants indicated the extent to which they had engaged in each of the five impression-management tactics. Four days (two class periods) later, participants provided their perceptions of each of the other three members of their group. Each member of the four-person team, then, was evaluated by three teammates. Thus, given that there were 171 participants in the study, there were a total of 513 (171 X 3) student-student dyads. All of this information was collected before students received their grade on the project." [12] Results revealed that high self-monitors were better able to use ingratiation, self-promotion, and exemplification to achieve favorable images among their colleagues successfully than their low self-monitor peers. [12] “Specifically, when high self-monitors used these tactics, they were more likely to be seen as likeable, competent, and dedicated by the other members of their work groups. In contrast, low self-monitors appear to be less effective at using these tactics to obtain favorable images. In fact, the more low self-monitors used such tactics, the more likely they were to be seen as a sycophant, to be perceived as conceited, or to be perceived as egotistical by their work group colleagues.” [12] High self-monitors are better able to use impression management tactics, such as ingratiation, than low self-monitors.

Social rejection

Ingratiation can be applied to many real world situations. As mentioned previously, research has delved into the areas of tipping in the restaurant business and conversations. More research shows how ingratiation is applicable in the online dating community and job interviews.

In a study of social rejection in the online dating community, researchers tested whether ingratiation or hostility would be the first reaction of the rejected individual and whether men or women would be most likely to ingratiate in different situations. [13] The study showed that cases in which the woman had felt “close” to a potential dating partner from the mutual sharing of information and was rejected, she was more likely than men to engage in ingratiation. Furthermore, men were shown to be more likely to be willing to pay for a date (as prompted by the researchers, not for the date itself) with a woman who had previously harshly rejected him over a woman who had mildly rejected him. Both cases show that while men and women have different social and emotional investments, they are equally likely to ingratiate in a situation which is self-defining to them.

In the workplace

In another study in the context of an interview, research showed that a combination of ingratiation and self-promotion tactics was more effective than using either one by itself or neither when trying to get hired by a potential employer. [14] The most positive reviews and recommendations came from interviewers whose interviewees had used such a combination, and they were also most likely to be given a job offer. However, when compared by themselves, self-promotion was more effective in producing such an outcome than ingratiation; this may be due to how the nature of an interview requires the individual being considered for the job to talk about their positive qualities and what they would add to the company.

See also

Related Research Articles

In psychology, an attribution bias or attributional errors is a cognitive bias that refers to the systematic errors made when people evaluate or try to find reasons for their own and others' behaviors. It refers to the systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, often leading to perceptual distortions, inaccurate assessments, or illogical interpretations of events and behaviors.

Impression management is a conscious or subconscious process in which people attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction. It was first conceptualized by Erving Goffman in 1959 in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, and then was expanded upon in 1967.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Job interview</span> Type of interview

A job interview is an interview consisting of a conversation between a job applicant and a representative of an employer which is conducted to assess whether the applicant should be hired. Interviews are one of the most common methods of employee selection. Interviews vary in the extent to which the questions are structured, from an unstructured and informal conversation to a structured interview in which an applicant is asked a predetermined list of questions in a specified order; structured interviews are usually more accurate predictors of which applicants will make suitable employees, according to research studies.

Social comparison theory, initially proposed by social psychologist Leon Festinger in 1954, centers on the belief that individuals drive to gain accurate self-evaluations. The theory explains how individuals evaluate their opinions and abilities by comparing themselves to others to reduce uncertainty in these domains and learn how to define the self. Comparing oneself to others socially is a form of measurement and self-assessment to identify where an individual stands according to their own set of standards and emotions about themselves.

Self-deprecation is the act of reprimanding oneself by belittling, undervaluing, disparaging oneself, or being excessively modest. It can be used as a way to make complaints, express modesty, invoke optimal reactions or add humour. It may also be used as a way for individuals to appear more likable and agreeable.

Confidence is the feeling of belief or trust that a person or thing is reliable. Self-confidence is trust in oneself. Self-confidence involves a positive belief that one can generally accomplish what one wishes to do in the future. Self-confidence is not the same as self-esteem, which is an evaluation of one's worth. Self-confidence is related to self-efficacy—belief in one's ability to accomplish a specific task or goal. Confidence can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, as those without it may fail because they lack it, and those with it may succeed because they have it rather than because of an innate ability or skill.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social rejection</span> Deliberate exclusion of an individual from social relationship or social interaction

Social rejection occurs when an individual is deliberately excluded from a social relationship or social interaction. The topic includes interpersonal rejection, romantic rejection, and familial estrangement. A person can be rejected or shunned by individuals or an entire group of people. Furthermore, rejection can be either active by bullying, teasing, or ridiculing, or passive by ignoring a person, or giving the "silent treatment". The experience of being rejected is subjective for the recipient, and it can be perceived when it is not actually present. The word "ostracism" is also commonly used to denote a process of social exclusion.

Self-disclosure is a process of communication by which one person reveals information about themselves to another. The information can be descriptive or evaluative, and can include thoughts, feelings, aspirations, goals, failures, successes, fears, and dreams, as well as one's likes, dislikes, and favorites.

Self-monitoring, a concept introduced in the 1970s by Mark Snyder, describes the extent to which people monitor their self-presentations, expressive behavior, and nonverbal affective displays. Snyder held that human beings generally differ in substantial ways in their abilities and desires to engage in expressive controls. Self-monitoring is defined as a personality trait that refers to an ability to regulate behavior to accommodate social situations. People concerned with their expressive self-presentation tend to closely monitor their audience in order to ensure appropriate or desired public appearances. Self-monitors try to understand how individuals and groups will perceive their actions. Some personality types commonly act spontaneously and others are more apt to purposely control and consciously adjust their behavior. Recent studies suggest that a distinction should be made between acquisitive and protective self-monitoring due to their different interactions with metatraits. This differentiates the motive behind self-monitoring behaviours: for the purpose of acquiring appraisal from others (acquisitive) or protecting oneself from social disapproval (protective).

Sociometer theory is a theory of self-esteem from an evolutionary psychological perspective which proposes that self-esteem is a gauge of interpersonal relationships.

In social psychology, the pratfall effect is the tendency for interpersonal appeal to change after an individual makes a mistake, depending on the individual's perceived competence. In particular, highly competent individuals tend to become more likeable after committing mistakes, while average-seeming individuals tend to become less likeable even if they commit the same mistake.

Behavioral confirmation is a type of self-fulfilling prophecy whereby people's social expectations lead them to behave in ways that cause others to confirm their expectations. The phenomenon of belief creating reality is known by several names in literature: self-fulfilling prophecy, expectancy confirmation, and behavioral confirmation, which was first coined by social psychologist Mark Snyder in 1984. Snyder preferred this term because it emphasizes that it is the target's actual behavior that confirms the perceiver's beliefs.

Basking in reflected glory (BIRGing) is a self-serving cognition whereby an individual associates themselves with known successful others such that the winner's success becomes the individual's own accomplishment. The affiliation of another's success is enough to stimulate self-glory. The individual does not need to be personally involved in the successful action. To BIRG, they must simply associate themselves with the success. Examples of BIRGing include anything from sharing a home state with a past or present famous person, to religious affiliations, to sports teams. For example, when a fan of a football team wears the team's jersey and boasts after a win, this fan is engaging in BIRGing. A parent with a bumper sticker reading "My child is an honor student" is basking in the reflected glory of their child. While many people have anecdotal accounts of BIRGing, social psychologists seek to find experimental investigations delving into BIRGing. Within social psychology, BIRGing is thought to enhance self-esteem and to be a component of self-management.

In social psychology, illusory superiority is a cognitive bias wherein people overestimate their own qualities and abilities compared to others. Illusory superiority is one of many positive illusions, relating to the self, that are evident in the study of intelligence, the effective performance of tasks and tests, and the possession of desirable personal characteristics and personality traits. Overestimation of abilities compared to an objective measure is known as the overconfidence effect.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Negative affectivity</span> Personality variable

Negative affectivity (NA), or negative affect, is a personality variable that involves the experience of negative emotions and poor self-concept. Negative affectivity subsumes a variety of negative emotions, including anger, contempt, disgust, guilt, fear, and nervousness. Low negative affectivity is characterized by frequent states of calmness and serenity, along with states of confidence, activeness, and great enthusiasm.

Impression formation in social psychology refers to the processes by which different pieces of knowledge about another are combined into a global or summary impression. Social psychologist Solomon Asch is credited with the seminal research on impression formation and conducted research on how individuals integrate information about personality traits. Two major theories have been proposed to explain how this process of integration takes place. The Gestalt approach views the formation of a general impression as the sum of several interrelated impressions. As an individual seeks to form a coherent and meaningful impression of another individual, previous impressions significantly influence the interpretation of subsequent information. In contrast to the Gestalt approach, the cognitive algebra approach asserts that individuals' experiences are combined with previous evaluations to form a constantly changing impression of a person. A related area to impression formation is the study of person perception, making dispositional attributions, and then adjusting those inferences based on the information available.

In a notable study of power conducted by social psychologists John R. P. French and Bertram Raven in 1959, power is divided into five separate and distinct forms. They identified those five bases of power as coercive, reward, legitimate, referent, and expert. This was followed by Raven's subsequent addition in 1965 of a sixth separate and distinct base of power: informational power.

Roosje (Roos) Vonk is a Dutch professor of social psychology at the Radboud University in Nijmegen author, and motivational speaker.

Stigma management is the process of concealing or disclosing aspects of one's identity to minimize social stigma.

A zero-acquaintance situation requires a perceiver to make a judgment about a target with whom the perceiver has had no prior social interaction. These judgments can be made using a variety of cues, including brief interactions with the target, video recordings of the target, photographs of the target, and observations of the target's personal environments, among others. In zero-acquaintance studies, the target's actual personality is determined through the target's self-rating and/or ratings from close acquaintance(s) of that target. Consensus in ratings is determined by how consistently perceivers rate the target's personality when compared to other raters. Accuracy in ratings is determined by how well perceivers' ratings of a target compare to that target's self-ratings on the same scale, or to that target's close acquaintances' ratings of the target. Zero-acquaintance judgments are regularly made in day-to-day life. Given that these judgments tend to remain stable, even as the length of interaction increases, they can influence important interpersonal outcomes.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Jones, E.E. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychologist analysis. New York, New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gordon, R. A. (1996). "Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evaluations: A meta-analytic investigation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1 (71): 54–70. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.54.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Cooper, C.D. (2005). "Just Joking Around? Employee Humor Expression As an Ingratiatory Behavior". The Academy of Management Review. 30 (4): 765–776. doi: 10.2307/20159167 . JSTOR   20159167.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Bohra, K.A.; Pandey J. (1984). "Ingratiation toward strangers, friends, and bosses". The Journal of Social Psychology. 122 (2): 217–222. doi:10.1080/00224545.1984.9713483.
  5. 1 2 Robin, Stéphane; Rusinowska, Agnieszka; Villeval, Marie Claire (2013-12-23). "Ingratiation: Experimental Evidence". Rochester, NY. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2050437. hdl: 10419/58573 . S2CID   219967203. SSRN   2050437.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  6. ↑ Leary, Mark; Kowalski, Robin (1990). "Impression Management: A Literature Review and Two-Component Model". Psychological Bulletin. 107: 34–47. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.463.776 . doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34. S2CID   15886705.
  7. ↑ The SAGE handbook of social psychology. Hogg, Michael A., 1954-, Cooper, Joel. (Concise student ed.). London: SAGE. 2007. ISBN   9781412945356. OCLC   81453683.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  8. ↑ Seiter, J.S. (2007). "Ingratiation and Gratuity: The Effect of Complimenting Customers on Tipping Behavior in Restaurants". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 37 (3): 478–485. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00169.x.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 Treadway, DC; Ferris, GR; Duke, AB; Adams, GL; Thatcher, JB (2007). "The moderating role of subordinate political skill on supervisors' impressions of subordinate ingratiation and ratings of subordinate interpersonal facilitation". Journal of Applied Psychology. 92 (3): 848–855. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.848. PMID   17484564.
  10. ↑ Godfrey, Debra K.; Jones, Edward E.; Lord, Charles G. (January 1986). "Self-Promotion Is Not Ingratiating". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50 (1): 106–115. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.106. PMID   3701568.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 Wu, K.; Li, C.; Johnson, D.E. (2011). "Role of self-esteem in the relationship between stress and ingratiation". Psychological Reports. 108 (1): 239–251. doi:10.2466/07.09.20.PR0.108.1.239-251. PMID   21526608. S2CID   26406369.
  12. 1 2 3 Turnley, W. H.; Bolino, M.C. (2001). "Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management". Journal of Applied Psychology. 82 (2): 351–360. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.351. PMID   11393446.
  13. ↑ Romero-Canyas, R.; Downey, G.; Reddy, K.S.; Rodriguez, S.; Cavanaugh, T.J.; Pelayo, R. (2010). "Paying To Belong: When Does Rejection Trigger Ingratiation?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 99 (5): 802–823. doi:10.1037/a0020013. PMC   2992828 . PMID   20649367.
  14. ↑ Proost, K.; Schreurs, B.; De Witte, K.; Derous, E (2010). "Ingratiation and Self-Promotion in the Selection Interview: The Effects of Using Single Tactics or a Combination of Tactics on Interviewer Judgements". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 40 (9): 2155–2169. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00654.x.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.