Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T00:13:15.158Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - The Seven Seas of the Study of Personal Relationships Research

Historical and Recent Currents

from Part I - Foundations for Studying Relationships

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2018

By
Daniel Perlman ,
Steve Duck  and
Natalie D. Hengstebeck
Edited by
Anita L. Vangelisti  and
Daniel Perlman
Anita L. Vangelisti
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
Daniel Perlman
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Greensboro
Get access

Summary

Conceptual and methodological advances and important empirical findings have led to a remarkable expansion of research on children’s friendships. Peer relations researchers now make clear distinctions between a child’s level of acceptance by peers, whether a child has friends, and the quality of a child’s best friendships. Each of these dimensions of a child’s life with peers has impact on children’s progress in school and on various indicators of emotional well-being, including feelings of loneliness. This chapter describes the contexts in which children’s friendships are studied and the diverse methods and measures used to study friendship-related processes. Special attention is also given to a) the relationship provisions and processes that take place within children’s friendships; b) the role of social-cognitive processes such as expectations, interpretations, and goals in how children respond to key friendship tasks (e.g., resolving conflicts of interest, coping with friendship transgressions); and c) contextual factors in homes and schools as well as cultural factors that affect children’s friendships. The chapter is designed for experienced researchers, researchers starting out in this field, and professionals who work directly with children, design policies that affect children’s lives, and evaluate programs designed to promote healthy peer relationships.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships , pp. 9 - 27
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acitelli, L. K. (1995). Disciplines at parallel play. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 589–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, B. N. (1988). Fifty years of family research: What does it mean? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Afifi, T. D., Merrill, A. F., & Davis, S. (2016). The theory of resilience and relational load. Personal Relationships, 23, 663–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Afifi, W. A., & Weiner, J. L. (2004). Toward a theory of motivated information management. Communication Theory, 14, 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, E., & Linder, D. (1965). Gain and loss of esteem as determinants of interpersonal attractiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 156–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bahr, S. J. (ed.) (1991). Family research: A sixty-year review, 1930–1990. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Barbee, A. P. (1990). Interactive coping: The cheering up process in close relationships. In Duck, S. W. (with Cohen, R. S.), (eds.) Personal relationships and social support (pp. 46–65). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Barry, W. A. (1970). Marriage research and conflict: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 41–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berger, C. R., & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal relationships. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berscheid, E. (1985). Interpersonal attraction. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (eds.) The handbook of social psychology: Vol. II. Special fields and applications (3rd edn., pp. 413–484). New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 79–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist, 54, 260–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berscheid, E., & Hatfield Walster, E. (1978). Interpersonal attraction (2nd edn.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Berscheid, E., & Peplau, L. A. (1983). The emerging science of relationships. In Kelley, H. H. et al. (eds.) Close relationships (pp. 1–19). New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., & Lindzey, G. (eds.) The handbook of social psychology (4th edn., pp. 193–281). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Bischoping, K. (1993). Gender differences in conversation topics, 1922–1990. Sex Roles, 28(1–2), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bochner, A. P. (1984). The functions of communication in interpersonal bonding. In Arnold, C. & Bowers, J. (eds.) The handbook of rhetoric and communication (pp. 544–621). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Bogat, G. A., von Eye, A., & Bergman, L. R. (2016). Person-oriented approaches. In Cicchetti, D. (ed.) Developmental psychopathology: Theory and method (pp. 797–845). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, S. D. (1998). I’ll go if you will: Do shy persons utilize social surrogates? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 651–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, D. O., & Baxter, L. A. (eds.) (2006). Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brehm, S. S. (1992). Intimate relationships (2nd edn.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Broderick, C. B. (1970). Editorial. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 495.Google Scholar
Broderick, C. B. (1988). To arrive where we started: The field of family studies in the 1930s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 569–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broderick, C. B., & Schrader, S. S. (1981). The history of professional marriage and family therapy. In Gurman, A. S. & Kniskern, D. P. (eds.) Handbook of family therapy (pp. 5–35). New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
Bulcroft, R. A., & White, J. M. (1997). Family research methods and levels of analysis. Family Science Review, 10, 136–153.Google Scholar
Burleson, B. R. (1990). Comforting as social support: Relational consequences of supportive behaviors. In Duck, S. W. (with Cohen, R. S.) (eds.) Personal relationships and social support (pp. 66–82). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 713–715.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. (1973). Interpersonal attraction. Annual Review of Psychology, 24, 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L., Loving, T. J., & LeBel, E. P. (2014). Enhancing transparency of the research process to increase accuracy of findings: A guide for relationship researchers. Personal Relationships, 21, 531–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, M. L., & Sheldon, M. S. (2002). Seventy years of research on personality and close relationships: Substantive and methodological trends over time. Journal of Personality, 70, 783–812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cramer, D. (1998). Close relationships: The study of love and friendship. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (eds.) (1994). The dark side of interpersonal communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duck, S. W. (1986). Human relationships. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Duck, S. (ed.) (1997). Handbook of personal relationships (2nd edn.). Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Duck, S. W. (2002). Hypertext in the key of G: Three types of “history” as influences on conversational structure and flow. Communication Theory, 12, 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duck, S. W. (2014). On Iowa, relationships, and communication: A history of the field of personal relationships. Iowa Journal of Communication, 45, 5–15. Retrieved from https://uni.edu/ica/journal/ica_journal/46_1/duck_final_5–15.pdfGoogle Scholar
Duck, S. W., & Gilmour., R. (ed.) (1981a). Personal relationships 1: Studying personal relationships. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Duck, S. W., & Gilmour., R. (ed.) (1981b). Personal relationships 2: Developing personal relationships. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Duck, S. W., & Gilmour., R. (ed.) (1981c). Personal relationships 3: Personal relationships in disorder. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Duck, S., & Perlman, D. (1985). The thousand islands of personal relationships: A prescriptive analysis for future explorations. In Duck, S. & Perlman, D. (eds.) Understanding personal relationships research: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 1–15). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Duck, S. W., Rutt, D. J., Hurst, M., & Strejc, H. (1991). Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships: All communication is not created equal. Human Communication Research, 18, 228–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duck, S. W., & Sants, H. K. A. (1983). On the origin of the specious: Are personal relationships really interpersonal states? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1, 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felmlee, D., & Sprecher, S. (2000). Close relationships and social psychology: Intersections and future paths. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 365–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fincham, F. D. (2010). Forgiveness: Integral to a science of close relationships? In Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. R. (eds.) Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 347–365). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, M. A., & Fincham, F. D. (eds.) (2013). Handbook of family theories: A content-based approach. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, E. J. (2016). Reflections on the Commitment–Forgiveness Registered Replication Report. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 765–767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finkel, E. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Self-control and accommodation in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 263–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.81.2.263CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finkel, E. J., Simpson, J. A., & Eastwick, P. W. (2017). The psychology of close relationships: Fourteen core principles. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 383–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzsimons, G. M., Finkel, E. J., & Vandellen, M. R. (2015). Transactive goal dynamics. Psychological Review, 122, 648–673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Floyd, K. (2006). Communicating affection: Interpersonal behavior and social context. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraley, R. C. (2007). Using the Internet for personality research: What can be done, how to do it, and some concerns. In Robins, R. W., Fraley, R. C., & Krueger, R. F. (eds.) Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 130–148). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (eds.) (2000). Close relationships: A sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higbee, K. L., & Wells, M. G. (1972). Some research trends in social psychology during the 1960s. American Psychologist, 27, 963–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinde, R. A. (1979). Towards understanding relationships. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. East Sussex: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hui, C. M., Finkel, E. J., Fitzsimons, G. M., Kumashiro, M., & Hofmann, W. (2014). The Manhattan effect: When relationship commitment fails to promote support for partners’ interests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 546–570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035493CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huston, T. L., & Levinger, G. (1978). Interpersonal attraction and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 29, 115–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, S. M. (2009). Attachment theory and emotionally focused therapy for individuals and couples. In Obegi, J. H. & Berant, E. (eds.) Attachment theory and research in clinical work with adults (pp. 410–433). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kashy, D. A., Campbell, L., & Harris, D. W. (2006). Advances in data analytic approaches for relationships research: The broad utility of hierarchical linear modeling. In Vangelisti, A. L. & Perlman, D. (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 73–89). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaslow, F. W. (2000). Continued evolution of family therapy: The last twenty years. Contemporary Family Therapy, 22, 357–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R. (1983). Close relationships. New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbult, C. E. & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1984). The social relations model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 142–182.Google Scholar
Kowalski, R. M. (ed.) (1997). Aversive interpersonal behaviors. New York, NY: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, R., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Graef, R. (1982). Time alone in daily experience: Loneliness or renewal? In Peplau, L. A. & Perlman, D. (eds.) Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research, and therapy (pp. 40–53). New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Levinger, G. (1976). A social psychological perspective on marital dissolution. Journal of Social Issues, 32(1), 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1974). The role of reward in the formation of positive interpersonal attitudes. In Huston, T. L. (ed.) Foundations of interpersonal attraction (pp. 171–192). New York, NY: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, R., Sullivan, M., Ritvo, P., & Coyne, J. (1995). Relationships in chronic illness and disability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Malloy, T. E., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The Social Relations Model: An integrative method for personality research. Journal of Personality, 54, 199–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.1986.tb00393.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metts, S. (2000). Face and facework: Implications for the study of personal relationships. In Dindia, K. & Duck, S. W. (eds.) Communication and personal relationships (pp. 72–94). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd edn.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641–666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.132.5.641CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newcomb, T. M. (1956). The prediction of interpersonal attraction. American Psychologist, 11, 575–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., … & Contestabile, M. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nye, F. I. (1988). Fifty years of family research: 1937–1978. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, D. H. (1977). Insiders’ and outsiders’ views of relationships: Research studies. In Levinger, G. & Rausch, H. (eds.) Close relationships: Perspectives on the meaning of intimacy (pp. 115–135). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Overall, N. C., & Simpson, J. A. (2013). Regulation processes in close relationships. In Simpson, J. A. & Campbell, L. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 427–451). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Perlman, D. (2009). Disciplines contributing to relationship science. In Reis, H. T. & Sprecher, S. (eds.) Encyclopedia of human relationships (pp. 1349–1353). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Perlman, D., & Duck, S. (2006). The seven seas of the study of personal relationships: From “the thousand islands” to interconnected waterways. In Vangelisti, A. L. & Perlman, D. (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 11–34). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Reis, H. T. (2007). Steps toward the ripening of relationship science. Personal Relationships, 14, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, H. T. (2012). A history of relationship research in social psychology. In Kruglanski, A. W. & Stroebe, W. (eds.) Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 363–382). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Reis, H. T., Aron, A., Clark, M. S., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Ellen Berscheid, Elaine Hatfield, and the emergence of relationship science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 558–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Duck, S. (ed.) Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, H. T., & Wheeler, L. (1991). Studying social interaction with the Rochester Interaction Record. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 269–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlfing, M. (1995). “Doesn’t anybody stay in one place any more?” An exploration of the understudied phenomenon of long-distance relationships. In Wood, J. T. & Duck, S. W. (eds.) Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track [Vol. 6. Understanding relationship processes] (pp. 173–196). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving: An invitation to social psychology. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Rusbult, C. E. (1987). Responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships: The exit-voice-loyalty-neglect model. In Perlman, D. & Duck, S. (eds.) Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 209–237). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., Agnew, C. R., & Arriaga, X. B. (2012). The Investment Model of Commitment Processes. In Van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (eds.) Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 218–231). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., Finkel, E. J., & Kumashiro, M. (2009). The Michelangelo phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutter, V., & Schwartz, P. (1998). The love test: Romance and relationship self-quizzes developed by psychologists and sociologists. New York, NY: Berkley.Google Scholar
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shebilske, L., & Huston, T. (Organizers). (1996). Designing and carrying out a longitudinal study of relationships: Lessons from the Pair Project. Workshop presented at the meeting of the International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships, Banff, Canada.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A. (2007). Psychological foundations of trust. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 264–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, L. K. (2004). A model of relational turbulence: The role of intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners in appraisals of irritations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 795–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (eds.) (1998). The dark side of close relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stafford, L. (2004). Maintaining long-distance and cross-residential relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunnafrank, M. (1983). Attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction in communication processes: In pursuit of an ephemeral influence. Communication Monographs, 50, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surra, C. A. (1985). Courtship types: Variations in interdependence between partners and social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 357–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surra, C. A., & Ridley, C. (1991). Multiple perspectives on interaction: Participants, peers, and observers. In Montgomery, B. M. & Duck, S. W. (eds.) Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 35–55). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Tharp, R. G. (1963). Psychological patterning in marriage. Psychological Bulletin, 60, 97–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (eds.) (2012). Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Messages that hurt. In Cupach, W. R. & Spitzberg, B. H. (eds.) The dark side of communication (pp. 53–82). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Weber, A. L., & Harvey, J. H. (eds.) (1994). Perspectives on close relationships. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
White, J. M., Klein, D. M., & Martin, T. F. (2015). Family theories: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Winch, R. F. (1958). Mate-selection: A study of complementary needs. Oxford: Harper.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×