Current Psychoanalytic Research 413 414 Chapter 11 Psychoanalysis After Freud Anxious-ambivalent adults, in contrast, are obsessed with their romantic partners—they think about them all the time and have trouble allowing them to have their own lives. They suffer from extreme jealousy, report a high rate of relationship failures (not surprisingly), and sometimes exhibit a cycle of breaking up and getting back together with the same partner. Anxious-ambivalent adults tend to have low and unstable self-esteem, and they like to work with other people but typically feel unappreciated by coworkers. They are highly emotional under stress and have to work hard to control their emotions. They describe their parents as having been intrusive, unfair, and inconsistent. You will be relieved to learn that secure adults tend to enjoy long, stable romantic relationships characterized by deep trust and friendship. They have high self-esteem as well as high regard for others. Under stress, they seek out others, particularly their romantic partners, for emotional support. They also offer loyal support to their romantic partners when they need it. They describe their parents in positive but realistic terms, which they are able to back up with specific examples. In sum, they are people who are easy to be with (Shaver & Clark, 1994). Secure individuals can deal directly with reality because their attachment experience has been positive and reliable. They have always had a safe refuge from danger and a secure base from which to explore the world. This idealized descrip- tion does not mean that secure people never cry, become angry, or worry about abandonment. But they do not need to distort reality to deal with their sadness, anger, or insecurity. According to attachment theory, these patterns are learned in early child- hood and reinforced in an increasingly self-fulfilling manner across young adulthood. This pattern of transference can persist across a person's life span, affecting her approach to work as well as relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). If an individual learns an avoidant or anxious ambivalent style, change is difficult but perhaps not impossible. Psychotherapists who use attachment theory try to teach these people the origins of their relationship styles, the way these styles lead to self-defeating outcomes, and more constructive ways to relate to others (Shaver & Clark, 1994). Recent years have seen an explosion of research on attachment, which is moving from a specific area of psychoanalytic research to a program that offers the potential to integrate large areas of social and personality psychology with psychoanalytic thought and the study of mental health (Dozier, Stovall, & Albus, 1999; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2005). Some of the research progress is technical. For example, researchers are moving beyond the three-category classifica- tion of attachment just described to a two-dimensional model on which people vary according to their degree of anxiety about relationships, and their degree of avoidance of relationships. Only a person low on both dimensions would be considered securely attached. A person high in attachment anxiety characteris- tically worries that his emotionally significant other people will not be available at times of need, and deals with it by maintaining extreme vigilance, watching for signs of rejection almost to the point of paranoia. A person high in attach- ment avoidance has learned to distrust other people and so strives to maintain independence and emotional distance, and tries to convince himself that close emotional relationships are unimportant.? According to one recent experiment, someone high in both avoidance and anxiety will tend to avoid paying attention to any signs of emotion from another person, such as angry or happy facial expres- sions (Dewitte & De Houwer, 2008). Other research uses increasingly ingenious methods to demonstrate how at- tachment styles are invoked unconsciously. In one study, participants looked at a computer screen that showed either a neutral word (hat) or a threatening word (failure) subliminally, meaning too fast for them to read consciously (Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002, Study I).' Then theywere asked to indicate on the keyboard, as quickly as possible, whether each string in a series of letter strings consisted of words or nonwords—and they were told that proper names counted as words. Some of the words presented to them were names of people to whom the participants were emotionally attached (according to a questionnaire they completed earlier), while other names were of people with whom they were acquainted but to whom they were not emotionally attached. The results showed that people recognized the names of attachment figures more quickly in the threat condition than in the neu- tral condition; this was not true for other acquaintances. The conclusion of the study was that when people feel threatened, even by the subliminal presentation of a word with unpleasant connotations, they respond by thinking of the people to whom they are emotionally attached. In other words, we go to our attachment figures when we feel under threat, and if they are not physically present, we go to them in our minds. Attachment theory, originated by a psychoanalyst who considered himself a neo-Freudian, John Bowlby, has diverged a long way from its psychoanalytic roots. Indeed, some would argue it is no longer Freudian (Kihlstrom, 1994), although attachment theorists themselves tend to disagree (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2005). Attachment theory provides an example of how far a group of creative psychologists can develop a basic Freudian idea. In this case, the Freudian idea is that, via transference, early relationships with parents form a template for future emotion- ally important relationships throughout life. Notice, too, how attachment theory Paul Simon wrote a song that has the refrain “I am a rock, I am an island.” If you know the song, this would be a good time to hum it to yourself. This study was conducted in Israel, and the words were in Hebrew. Current Psychoanalytic Research 411 412 Chapter 11 Psychoanalysis After Freud Further research examines what happens to children with different attachment styles as they grow into adults and try to develop various elements of a mature life including satisfying romantic relationships. There are at least 21 different methods to assess adult attachment style, the grown-up version of the childhood pattern just described. One of the simplest is this: Which of these descriptions best describes your feelings? 1. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being. 2. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I want to get very close to my partner, and this sometimes scares people away. 3. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depend- ing on them. I don't often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me. (Hazan & Shaver, 1987, p. 515) care, the child might conclude that he or she is not lovable or worth caring about. This inference is not logical, of course: Just because a negligent caregiver fails to love and nurture the child does not mean the child is not lovable. American psychologist Mary Ainsworth tried to make the consequences of these expectations and conclusions concrete and visible. She invented an exper- imental procedure called the strange situation, in which a child is briefly separated from, and then reunited with, his mother. Ainsworth believed that the child's reactions, both to the separation and to the reunion, could be quite informative-in particular, one could determine the type of attachment relationship the child had developed (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). From her research, Ainsworth classified children into three types, depending on the kinds of expectations they had about their primary caregivers and how they reacted to the strange situation. Anxious-ambivalent children come from home situations where their care- givers' behaviors are "inconsistent, hit-or-miss, or chaotic” (Sroufe, Carlson, & Shulman, 1993, p. 320). In the strange situation, these children are vigilant about the mother's presence and grow very upset when she disappears for even a few minutes. In school, they are often victimized by other children and unsuccessfully attempt to cling to teachers and peers in a way that only drives these people away, and leads to further hurt feelings, anger, and insecurity. Avoidant children come from homes where they have been rebuffed repeatedly in their attempts to enjoy contact or reassurance. Their mothers tend to dislike hugs and other bodily contact (Main, 1990). In the strange situation, they do not appear distressed, but their heart rate reveals tension and anxiety (Sroufe & Waters, 1977). When the mother returns from the brief separation, they simply ignore her. In school settings, these children are often hostile and defiant, alienating teachers and peers. As they grow older, they develop an angry self-reliance and a cold, dis- tant attitude toward other people. The luckiest ones, secure children, manage to develop a confident faith in themselves and their caregivers. When the mother returns after the separation, they greet her happily, with open arms. They are easily soothed when upset, and they actively explore their environment, returning frequently to the primary caregiver for comfort and encouragement. They are sure of the caregiver's sup- port and do not worry about it. This positive attitude carries over into their other relationships. One remarkable aspect of these attachment styles is their self-fulfilling nature (Shaver & The anxious, clingy child annoys Clark, 1994). The anxious, clingy child annoys people and drives them away; the people and drives them away; the avoidant child makes people angry; the secure child is likeable avoidant child makes people angry; and attracts both caregivers and friends. Thus, the secure child is likeable and a child's developing attachment style affects attracts both caregivers and friends. outcomes throughout life. According to this measure, if you checked Item 1, you are avoidant; if you checked Item 2, you are anxious-ambivalent; and if you checked Item 3, you are secure. When this survey was published in a Denver newspaper, 55 percent of the respondents described themselves as secure, 25 percent as avoidant, and 20 percent as anxious—the same percentages found in American infants observed by Ainsworth in the strange situation (Campos, Barrett, Lamb, Goldsmith, & Stenberg, 1983). Studies that examined attachment styles in more detail found that avoidant individuals are relatively uninterested in romantic relationships; they are also more likely than secure individuals to have their relationships break up and grieve less after a relationship ends, even though they admit to being lonely (Shaver & Clark, 1994). They like to work alone, and they sometimes use work as an excuse to detach from emotional relationships. They describe their par- ents as having been rejecting and cold, or else describe them in vaguely positive ways (“nice") without being able to provide specific examples. (For example, when asked, "What did your mother do that was particularly nice?" they are typ- ically stuck.) Avoidant individuals under stress withdraw from their romantic partners, and instead tend to cope by ignoring stress or denying it exists. For example, avoidant individuals who were victims of sexual abuse in childhood tend to be unable to remember the experience 14 years later (Edelstein et al., 2005). They do not often share personal information, and they dislike people who do. Current Psychoanalytic Research 411 412 Chapter 11 Psychoanalysis After Freud Further research examines what happens to children with different attachment styles as they grow into adults and try to develop various elements of a mature life including satisfying romantic relationships. There are at least 21 different methods to assess adult attachment style, the grown-up version of the childhood pattern just described. One of the simplest is this: Which of these descriptions best describes your feelings? 1. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being. 2. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I want to get very close to my partner, and this sometimes scares people away. 3. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depend- ing on them. I don't often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me. (Hazan & Shaver, 1987, p. 515) care, the child might conclude that he or she is not lovable or worth caring about. This inference is not logical, of course: Just because a negligent caregiver fails to love and nurture the child does not mean the child is not lovable. American psychologist Mary Ainsworth tried to make the consequences of these expectations and conclusions concrete and visible. She invented an exper- imental procedure called the strange situation, in which a child is briefly separated from, and then reunited with, his mother. Ainsworth believed that the child's reactions, both to the separation and to the reunion, could be quite informative-in particular, one could determine the type of attachment relationship the child had developed (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). From her research, Ainsworth classified children into three types, depending on the kinds of expectations they had about their primary caregivers and how they reacted to the strange situation. Anxious-ambivalent children come from home situations where their care- givers' behaviors are "inconsistent, hit-or-miss, or chaotic” (Sroufe, Carlson, & Shulman, 1993, p. 320). In the strange situation, these children are vigilant about the mother's presence and grow very upset when she disappears for even a few minutes. In school, they are often victimized by other children and unsuccessfully attempt to cling to teachers and peers in a way that only drives these people away, and leads to further hurt feelings, anger, and insecurity. Avoidant children come from homes where they have been rebuffed repeatedly in their attempts to enjoy contact or reassurance. Their mothers tend to dislike hugs and other bodily contact (Main, 1990). In the strange situation, they do not appear distressed, but their heart rate reveals tension and anxiety (Sroufe & Waters, 1977). When the mother returns from the brief separation, they simply ignore her. In school settings, these children are often hostile and defiant, alienating teachers and peers. As they grow older, they develop an angry self-reliance and a cold, dis- tant attitude toward other people. The luckiest ones, secure children, manage to develop a confident faith in themselves and their caregivers. When the mother returns after the separation, they greet her happily, with open arms. They are easily soothed when upset, and they actively explore their environment, returning frequently to the primary caregiver for comfort and encouragement. They are sure of the caregiver's sup- port and do not worry about it. This positive attitude carries over into their other relationships. One remarkable aspect of these attachment styles is their self-fulfilling nature (Shaver & The anxious, clingy child annoys Clark, 1994). The anxious, clingy child annoys people and drives them away; the people and drives them away; the avoidant child makes people angry; the secure child is likeable avoidant child makes people angry; and attracts both caregivers and friends. Thus, the secure child is likeable and a child's developing attachment style affects attracts both caregivers and friends. outcomes throughout life. According to this measure, if you checked Item 1, you are avoidant; if you checked Item 2, you are anxious-ambivalent; and if you checked Item 3, you are secure. When this survey was published in a Denver newspaper, 55 percent of the respondents described themselves as secure, 25 percent as avoidant, and 20 percent as anxious—the same percentages found in American infants observed by Ainsworth in the strange situation (Campos, Barrett, Lamb, Goldsmith, & Stenberg, 1983). Studies that examined attachment styles in more detail found that avoidant individuals are relatively uninterested in romantic relationships; they are also more likely than secure individuals to have their relationships break up and grieve less after a relationship ends, even though they admit to being lonely (Shaver & Clark, 1994). They like to work alone, and they sometimes use work as an excuse to detach from emotional relationships. They describe their par- ents as having been rejecting and cold, or else describe them in vaguely positive ways (“nice") without being able to provide specific examples. (For example, when asked, "What did your mother do that was particularly nice?" they are typ- ically stuck.) Avoidant individuals under stress withdraw from their romantic partners, and instead tend to cope by ignoring stress or denying it exists. For example, avoidant individuals who were victims of sexual abuse in childhood tend to be unable to remember the experience 14 years later (Edelstein et al., 2005). They do not often share personal information, and they dislike people who do. Preview File Edit View Go Tools Window Help Fri 2:12 PM a lil The Personality Puzzle Seventh - David C Funder.pdf (page 446 of 833) Q Search The Personality Puzzle Seventh - David C Funder.pdf Cover (The Personality Puzzle) Current Psychoanalytic Research 411 412 Chapter 11 Psychoanalysis After Freud Front Matter Chapter 1 - The Study of the Person Part 1 - The Science of Personality: Methods and Assessment Part II - How People Differ: The Trait Approach Part III - The Mind and the Body: Biological Approaches to Pers... Part IV - The Hidden World of the Mind: The Psychoanalytic Ap... Part V - Experience and Awareness: Humanistic and Cross-Cult... Part VI - What Personality Does: Learning, Thinking, Feeling, an... Further research examines what happens to children with different attachment styles as they grow into adults and try to develop various elements of a mature life including satisfying romantic relationships. There are at least 21 different methods to assess adult attachment style, the grown-up version of the childhood pattern just described. One of the simplest is this: Which of these descriptions best describes your feelings? 1. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being. 2. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I want to get very close to my partner, and this sometimes scares people away. 3. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depend- ing on them. I don't often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me. (Hazan & Shaver, 1987, p. 515) Credits References care, the child might conclude that he or she is not lovable or worth caring about. This inference is not logical, of course: Just because a negligent caregiver fails to love and nurture the child does not mean the child is not lovable. American psychologist Mary Ainsworth tried to make the consequences of these expectations and conclusions concrete and visible. She invented an exper- imental procedure called the strange situation, in which a child is briefly separated from, and then reunited with, his mother. Ainsworth believed that the child's reactions, both to the separation and to the reunion, could be quite informative-in particular, one could determine the type attachment relationship the child had developed (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). From her research, Ainsworth classified children into three types, depending on the kinds of expectations they had about their primary caregivers and how they reacted to the strange situation. Ancious-ambivalent children come from home situations where their care- givers' behaviors are "inconsistent, hit-or-miss, or chaotic" (Sroufe, Carlson, & Shulman, 1993, p. 320). In the strange situation, these children are vigilant about the mother's presence and grow very upset when she disappears for even a few minutes. In school, they are often victimized by other children and unsuccessfully attempt to cling to teachers and peers in a way that only drives these people away, and leads to further hurt feelings, anger, and insecurity. Avoidant children come from homes where they have been rebuffed repeatedly in their attempts to enjoy contact or reassurance. Their mothers tend to dislike hugs and other bodily contact (Main, 1990). In the strange situation, they do not appear distressed, but their heart rate reveals tension and anxiety (Sroufe & Waters, 1977). When the mother returns from the brief separation, they simply ignore her. In school settings, these children are often hostile and defiant, alienating teachers and peers. As they grow older, they develop an angry self-reliance and a cold, dis- tant attitude toward other people. The luckiest ones, secure children, manage to develop a confident faith in themselves and their caregivers. When the mother returns after the separation, they greet her happily, with open arms. They are easily soothed when upset, and they actively explore their environment, returning frequently to the primary caregiver for comfort and encouragement. They are sure of the caregiver's sup- port and do not worry about it. This positive attitude carries over into their other relationships. One remarkable aspect of these attachment styles is their self-fulfilling nature (Shaver & The anxious, clingy child annoys Clark, 1994). The anxious, clingy child annoys people and drives them away; the people and drives them away; the avoidant child makes people angry; the secure child is likeable avoidant child makes people angry; and attracts both caregivers and friends. Thus, the secure child is likeable and a child's developing attachment style affects attracts both caregivers and friends. outcomes throughout life. Glossary Name Index Subject Index According to this measure, if you checked Item 1, you are avoidant; if you checked Item 2, you are anxious ambivalent; and if you checked Item 3, you are secure. When this survey was published in a Denver newspaper, 55 percent of the respondents described themselves as secure, 25 percent as avoidant, and 20 percent as anxious-the same percentages found in American infants observed by Ainsworth in the strange situation (Campos, Barrett, Lamb, Goldsmith, & Stenberg, 1983). Studies that examined attachment styles in more detail found that avoidant individuals are relatively uninterested in romantic relationships; they are also more likely than secure individuals to have their relationships break up and grieve less after a relationship ends, even though they admit to being lonely (Shaver & Clark, 1994). They like to work alone, and they sometimes use work as an excuse to detach from emotional relationships. They describe their par- ents as having been rejecting and cold, or else describe them in vaguely positive ways ("nice") without being able to provide specific examples. (For example, when asked, "What did your mother do that was particularly nice?" they are typ- ically stuck.) Avoidant individuals under stress withdraw from their romantic partners, and instead tend to cope by ignoring stress or denying it exists. For example, avoidant individuals who were victims of sexual abuse in childhood tend to be unable to remember the experience 14 years later (Edelstein et al., 2005). They do not often share personal information, and they dislike people who do. Screen Shot 2020-0...05.25 F primates) evolved a strong fear of being alone, especially in unusual, dark, or dangerous places, and especially when tired, injured, or sick. This fear motivates us to desire protection from someone, preferably someone with an interest in our survival and well-being. In other words, we want someone who loves us. This desire is especially strong in infancy and early childhood, but it never truly goes away; it forms the basis of many of our most important interpersonal relationships (Bowlby, 1969/1982). Page 1 of 2 653 words QX English (United States) Focus 12OBBELTOFOONRA 100•-m MAR O 13 00) átvm AN O X W ANS Preview File Edit View Go Tools Window Help Fri 2:13 PM a Til The Personality Puzzle Seventh - David C Funder.pdf (page 448 of 833) Q Search The Personality Puzzle Seventh - David C Funder.pdf Cover (The Personality Puzzle) Current Psychoanalytic Research 413 414 Chapter 11 Psychoanalysis After Freud Front Matter Chapter 1 - The Study of the Person Part 1 - The Science of Personality: Methods and Assessment Part II - How People Differ: The Trait Approach Part III - The Mind and the Body: Biological Approaches to Pers... Part IV - The Hidden World of the Mind: The Psychoanalytic Ap... Part V - Experience and Awareness: Humanistic and Cross-Cult... Part VI - What Personality Does: Learning, Thinking, Feeling, an... Credits Anxious-ambivalent adults, in contrast, are obsessed with their romantic partners–they think about them all the time and have trouble allowing them to have their own lives. They suffer from extreme jealousy, report a high rate of relationship failures (not surprisingly), and sometimes exhibit a cycle of breaking up and getting back together with the same partner. Anxious-ambivalent adults tend to have low and unstable self-esteem, and they like to work with other people but typically feel unappreciated by coworkers. They are highly emotional under stress and have to work hard to control their emotions. They describe their parents as having been intrusive, unfair, and inconsis You will be relieved to learn that secure adults tend to enjoy long, stable romantic relationships characterized by deep trust and friendship. They have high self-esteem as well as high regard for others. Under stress, they seek out others, particularly their romantic partners, for emotional support. They also offer loyal support to their romantic partners when they need it. They describe their parents in positive but realistic terms, which they are able to back up with specific examples. In sum, they are people who are easy to be with (Shaver & Clark, 1994). Secure individuals can deal directly with reality because their attachment experience has been positive and reliable. They have always had a safe refuge from danger and a secure base from which to explore the world. This idealized descrip- tion does not mean that secure people never cry, become angry, or worry about abandonment. But they do not need to distort reality to deal with their sadness, anger, or insecurity. According to attachment theory, these patterns are learned in early child- hood and reinforced in an increasingly self-fulfilling manner across young adulthood. This pattern of transference can persist across a person's life span, affecting her approach to work as well as relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). If an individual learns an avoidant or anxious-ambivalent style, change is difficult but perhaps not impossibl sychotherapists who use attachment theory try teach these people the origins of their relationship styles, the way these styles lead to self-defeating outcomes, and more constructive ways to relate to others (Shaver & Clark, 1994). Recent years have seen an explosion of research on attachment, which is moving from a specific area of psychoanalytic research to a program that offers the potential to integrate large areas of social and personality psychology with psychoanalytic thought and the study of mental health (Dozier, Stovall, & Albus, 1999; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2005). Some of the research progress is technical. For example, researchers are moving beyond the three-category classifica- tion of attachment just described to a two-dimensional model on which people vary according to their degree of anxiety about relationships, and their degree of avoidance of relationships. Only a person low on both dimensions would be considered securely attached. A person high in attachment anxiety characteris- tically worries that his emotionally significant other people will not be available at times of need, and deals with it by maintaining extreme vigilance, watching for signs of rejection almost to the point of paranoia. A person high in attach- ment avoidance has learned to distrust other people and so strives to maintain independence and emotional distance, and tries to convince himself that close emotional relationships are unimportant. According to one recent experiment, someone high in both avoidance and anxiety will tend to avoid paying attention to any signs emotion from another person, such as angry or happy facial expres- sions (Dewitte & De Houwer, 2008). Other research uses increasingly ingenious methods to demonstrate how at- tachment styles are invoked unconsciously. In one study, participants looked at a computer screen that showed either a neutral word (hat) or a threatening word (failure) subliminally, meaning too fast for them to read consciously (Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002, Study I).* Then they were asked to indicate on the keyboard, as quickly as possible, whether each string in a series of letter strings consisted of words or nonwords and they were told that proper names counted as words. Some of the words presented to them were names of people to whom the participants were emotionally attached (according to a questionnaire they completed earlier), while other names were of people with whom they were acquainted but to whom they were not emotionally attached. The results showed that people recognized the names of attachment figures more quickly in the threat condition than in the neu- tral condition; this was not true for other acquaintances. The conclusion of the study was that when people feel threatened, even by the subliminal presentation of a word with unpleasant connotations, they respond by thinking of the people to whom they are emotionally attached. In other words, we go to our attachment figures when we feel under threat, and if they are not physically present, we go to them in our minds. Attachment theory, originated by a psychoanalyst who considered himself a neo-Freudian, John Bowlby, has diverged a long way from its psychoanalytic roots. Indeed, some would argue it is no longer Freudian (Kihlstrom, 1994), although attachment theorists themselves tend to disagree (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2005). Attachment theory provides an example of how far a group of creative psychologists can develop a basic Freudian idea. In this case, the Freudian idea is that, via transference, early relationships with parents form a template for future emotion- ally important relationships throughout life. Notice, too, how attachment theory References Glossary Name Index Subject Index Paul Simon wrote a song that has the refrain "I am a rock, I am an island." If you know the song, this would be a good time to hum it to yourself. This study was conducted in Israel, and the words were in Hebrew. Screen Shot 2020-0...05.25 F primates) evolved a strong fear of being alone, especially in unusual, dark, or dangerous places, and especially when tired, injured, or sick. This fear motivates us to desire protection from someone, preferably someone with an interest in our survival and well-being. In other words, we want someone who loves us. This desire is especially strong in infancy and early childhood, but it never truly goes away; it forms the basis of many of our most important interpersonal relationships (Bowlby, 1969/1982). Page 1 of 2 653 words QX English (United States) Focus + 100% MAR 2 O 13 00) étym AN O X W
Purchase answer to see full attachment