| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
RESEARCH ARTICLE |
Department of Sociology, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, South Carolina.
Address correspondence to Drs. Jonathan Marx or Jennifer Solomon, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Winthrop University, 701 Oakland Ave., Rock Hill, SC 29733. E-mail: marxj{at}winthrop.edu or solomonj{at}winthrop.edu
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 TOP Abstract MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Methods. We interviewed 54 middle- and upper-middle-class people (39 women) aged 50–90 who had to dispose of personal objects when moving to smaller residences.
Results. We used Goffman's spiraling strategy in our analysis of people's reports of disposing of personal possessions. We identified three salient dimensions (family, economy, and self) of this process and created a heuristic describing eight ideal-type gift exchange scenarios by categorizing objects as valued or not valued by family and the economy as well as being an important aspect of the gift giver's material self.
Discussion. By applying the heuristic, we observed that a lack of shared definitions of the meaning and value of objects created dilemmas in disposing of personal objects, particularly those connected to a person's material self. We also offer suggestions for making the process go more smoothly, such as inquiring about the preferences of others and telling stories associated with objects to create shared definitions of the objects' significance to the giver and/or to family history.
Regardless of the old adage that suggests, "You can't take it with you," the topic of getting rid of possessions is often first broached as people consider moving into smaller residences. Likewise, confronted by their own physical mortality, many older adults begin contemplating what to do with their most cherished possessions. If you can't take it with you, then what do you do with it? There is no single answer to this question. One strategy does not fit all types and kinds of possessions equally well. Deciding what to do with possessions, especially cherished ones, is not simply a logistical problem; it also involves social structures and norms, personal relationships, and emotional attachments to particular objects.
We explore a predictable crisis point in the social biographies of personal possessions as their owners age (Appaduria, 1986
; Kopyoff, 1986). Confronted by their physical mortality, individuals must find recipients for valued personal effects, sell the objects, or throw them away. Getting rid of objects that have little emotional attachment can be a nuisance. However, letting go of cherished possessions is much more difficult and often quite painful. In their influential work The Meaning of Things, Csikzentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) state, "Yet if, as we have argued, the self of mature adults tends to be structured around networks of past and present relationships, which are often embodied in concrete objects, then depriving an older person of such objects might involve the destruction of his or her self" (p. 102). Because objects are powerful reminders of life experiences, pain is often associated with the detachment process (Kamptner, 1989; Sherman & Newman, 1977; Tobin, 1996; Unruh, 1983).
Wiener (1992) suggests that the later stages of life present individuals with "a paradox of keeping while giving." On the one hand, older people need to surround themselves with cherished objects that act as reminders of past relationships and experiences (McCracken, 1987). On the other, their social immortality may depend, in part, on passing cherished possessions to receptive family members and friends (Unruh, 1983). Giving cherished objects to others is guided by the norms of gift exchange (Mauss, 1969). When a person gives an object, which is an extension of the self, to friends, family members, or charity, s/he expects in return that the object be appreciated in ways consistent with her/his own definitions of the object's nature and value.
Thus, a lack of gratitude for the gift is offensive. Social theorist Georg Simmel (1950) contends that gratitude acts as the "moral memory" of society. Simmel states that "gratitude actually consists, not in the return of a gift, but in the consciousness that it cannot be returned, there is something which places the receiver into a certain permanent position with respect to the giver, and makes him dimly envision the inner infinity of a relation that can neither be exhausted nor realized by any finite return gift or other activity" (p. 391). In other words, gift exchange is not the exchange of one object for another but rather a shared understanding of the meaning of the object, resulting in gratitude on the part of the receiver. In later life, this aspect of gift exchange takes on particular significance in a process we call the "final gift exchange" by which older persons pass on cherished objects to others in exchange for a last or lasting expression of appreciation.
The dilemma of what to do with one's possessions is affecting more and more Americans. As baby boomers retire, many middle-aged and older adults are moving to smaller residences. Furthermore, as people live longer, some choose to live in continuing care facilities and eventually reside in institutionalized settings. One aspect of this phenomenon involves disposing of personal possessions, including ensuring that cherished objects remain inalienable rather than re-entering the market as commodities or being thrown away.
In this article, we provide a theoretical and social context for understanding the final gift exchange process. We first review the macro- and micro-level factors that provide the theoretical foundation for our analysis of final gift exchange and describe a heuristic incorporating these factors. Our heuristic contributes to the existing literature by displaying how the disposal of possessions varies by economic, family, and social–psychological contingencies. Second, we use the heuristic to examine various dilemmas associated with this process. Finally, we offer suggestions for making the exchange process go more smoothly for both gift givers and receivers.
Macro Level: Economy and Family
The social institutions of the economy and the family have a clear impact on the final gift exchange process. The emergence of a mass-market economy has influenced the relationship between objects and people by focusing on consumption. People are encouraged by advertisers to purchase items based more on personal preferences than survival needs (Cushman, 1990). Individuals buy objects as a means of self-expression rather than necessity. Additionally, many objects are disposable. Fashion and planned obsolescence require that certain objects be replaced at regular intervals (McCracken, 1987). The economy also produces objects whose sole purpose is to be collected. Overall, people now have more objects to dispose of, and those objects are often of less utility to others who already have their own possessions.
In terms of the family's influence on the process, contemporary domestic structures in the United States further complicate the disposal process. Couples now typically have fewer children than in the past, family members live greater distances apart, and people marry later and delay childbearing. Consequently, there are fewer children and grandchildren to be recipients of cherished possessions. Moreover, the increase in divorces and alternative family structures pose unique challenges to ensuring that objects remain with blood relatives.
Nuclear families increasingly define themselves as independent consumptive units. Newly formed families no longer need or appreciate their parents' second-hand furniture. Young people would rather buy stylish new things. They decorate as a means of expressing their independence. In fact, research suggests a developmental gap exists between the young, who value activity-centered possessions, and older adults, who treasure symbols of personal relationships (Csikzentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981; Kamptner, 1991). These logistical and preferential barriers create hurdles in the transfer of personal possessions, including family heirlooms.
Furthermore, changes in social institutions, especially the economy, have significantly altered the nature of people's relationship with objects at the social–psychological level. The classic work of William James (1890) and more recently the constructionist analysis of Dittmar (1992) and Cushman (1990) provide the foundation for our discussion of changes at the micro level in the material self.
Micro Level: The Material Self
In his influential conceptualization of self, William James (1890) emphasized the importance of the relationship between the individual and objects. He identified one of the three components of the self as the material self, which includes any tangible object referred to as "mine." The material self extends beyond a person's physical body to include objects in the environment. Utilizing a social constructionist framework, Dittmar (1992) argues that "material objects can symbolically communicate the personal qualities of individuals that are, for instance, artistic, extroverted, conventional, adventurous or open-minded. Objects can also serve as signs of political values, group membership, or social categories, such as class or gender" (p. 79).
In addition, McCracken (1987) found that elders use objects as memory cues for present and previous social identities. For example, objects from a deceased spouse preserve the identity of the husband or wife, but in retaining the objects, the person is also preserving his/her own family identity as spouse. Likewise, objects from one's job or vocation, such as tools or clothing (e.g., uniforms, hard hats, suits), maintain particular social selves. Therefore, the preservation and redistribution of certain objects are important because these represent a strategic effort to preserve the self (Unruh, 1983).
Generally, a historical trend reflecting the rise of the autonomous individual over a dependent collective self presents challenges in the redistribution of cherished items to significant others in the latter stages of life (Cushman, 1990; Dittmar, 1992). In highly differentiated industrialized societies, people assume more statuses at any one moment than ever before. In contemporary society, many statuses are fleeting, as people move in and out of secondary groups. Lurie (1981) says it best: "Life itself has been turned into a series of fashionable games, each of which, like jogging or scuba-diving or tennis, demands a different costume or in this case, a different set of costumes (winter/summer, day/night, formal/informal)" (p. 129). People now actively create "superfluous personalities" or "looks" through consumer goods that are often cued by the media and advertisers (McCracken, 1987).
As a result of these trends, some elements of the material self are not shared with members of a person's primary group. Many parts of the material self are known only by the individual or by other members of a now-defunct secondary group. For example, material residues of long-extinct secondary group memberships (e.g., bowling league trophies) or outgrown life-cycle stages (e.g., toys) account for an increasing proportion, compared with the past, of what people own and, therefore, who they are. Consequently, family members may fail to recognize a person's connection to certain objects. As a result of this "alienated material self," things accumulated from secondary group associations may not be defined as family treasures while remaining important elements of the material self. Objects associated with the postmodern "alienated material self" present challenges to successful exchange because primary group members are disconnected from the relational context of the object's meaning, and thus, "nobody wants your stuff."
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Participants were recruited from independent living retirement communities and assisted living facilities and through "snowball sampling." The initial contact for those in assisted and independent living facilities was made through the activities director of the facility. The director selected individuals who were mobile, mentally alert, and articulate. We first conducted a general information session at the facility. We briefly explained that we were interested in what kinds of objects people cherish, what made the objects special, and how they decided which objects to bring with them when they moved. We provided personal examples of cherished objects and then asked them to share their own experiences with the group. At the conclusion of the presentation, a sign-up sheet was passed around for people to indicate their interest in being interviewed further and to provide contact information. Some participants were also recruited through the snowball effect, where subjects suggested other participants for the study. We chose this population because these people had been forced to consider how to dispose of their possessions owing to moving from larger to smaller residences; however, many of them had confronted issues associated with final gift exchange prior to this move.
Participants were interviewed in their homes during 1- to 2-hr sessions. Many of the objects discussed in the interviews were displayed or readily accessible. The following questions were used to motivate conversations about the objects: What possessions do you value most? How did you acquire these things? Why are they special to you? Do you have them with you now? If yes, do you plan to give them away at some point? If so, to whom will you give the objects and why? If you do not have the objects with you, how did you dispose of them and why? How did you feel about parting with a valued object?
During the interviews, objects became memory cues for reminiscence and story telling. Consequently, we were able to trace the interaction of the social history of specific objects with individual biographies. Because of the space limitations of their new homes, all of the participants had to decide what to keep, what to dispose of, and what disposal method to use. Although the focus of our research was valued possessions, the interviews inevitably included information about what the subjects did with other less-valued possessions and why these objects were not valued and thus disposed of in a particular manner. As the interviews concluded, we asked our respondents to provide advice to others going through the process of disposing of personal possessions, especially valued possessions.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
calls Goffman's spiraling strategy, we created a set of classifications or a heuristic based on transcribed interviews with people who had experienced downsizing as a result of moving to smaller residences. The components of the heuristic include the value that an object has to the family, the economy, and the self. The initial components revealed during the interviews were the family and the economy. The family, as referred to by the respondents, included grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews. The economy represents commodity relations in the marketplace, for example, yard sales, antique auctions, and estate sales. Following the spiraling strategy, our analysis also revealed the importance of a cherished object to a person's past or current identity. Thus, the self was added to the final heuristic model. In essence, we looked for patterns in the gift-giving accounts of the subjects and refined our explanatory model as odd cases necessitated.
The three factors that make up this model were dominant influences in the decision-making process of the people we interviewed. The heuristic consists of eight "ideal types" of the final gift exchange process (Figure 1). An ideal type is an abstract description constructed by accentuating certain features of real cases so as to pinpoint their most essential characteristics (Giddens, Duneier, & Appelbaum, 2003; Weber, 1979). The heuristic, along with the personal accounts of our respondents, enabled us to better understand the complexity of the final gift-giving and -receiving dynamic. We first describe the eight ideal-type scenarios and then apply the heuristic to identify the dilemmas associated with the process and suggest solutions.
|
2. Self (high value) x Family (high value) x Economy (low value)
The next category is associated with a situation in which family members value an object that is also an important part of the owner's self but that has little market value. The owner will want to keep it because of its importance to the self but can give the item to a receptive family member if unable to find room for it in his/her new home. For example, a retired engineer who worked in the nascent television industry indicated his most cherished objects were the 80 videos in which he had chronicled his life. He planned to give these to his children. This "museum of his life" will be a powerful reminder of him and his craft to his children and grandchildren. The videos found a welcoming audience (family value) while having little or no economic value.
3. Self (high value) x Family (low value) x Economy (high value)
In this situation, the object is valued by the economy but not by the family. The owner views the possession as part of the self and wants to keep it, either in the new living quarters or in storage, if space is limited. The owner may be tempted to sell the cherished possession, but the object's value to the self means that this would be a painful decision. One woman summed up this situation in describing her own personal treasures: crystal and furniture stored in her attic. She stated, "Well, kids now days are making so much money when they get out of school and start these jobs, they don't want your old stuff. They just go to Pottery Barn. The closets are jammed with that kind of stuff." These items were important to her and had economic value, but no one in the family wanted them.
4. Self (high value) x Family (low value) x Economy (low value)
Alas, no one wants you (self) at all. This can be a very sad situation for the person who is emotionally attached to an object that has no value to family or in the market. The owner will keep the object if space is available, knowing that the object will ultimately be thrown or given away. The following account by a widowed, childless, retired schoolteacher illustrates this situation. She describes her inability to throw out a frog vase with a gaping mouth that once held a houseplant. "I just love that old frog—never thought a frog would have that influence over me! I just love that old frog, don't know why. I would die if I dropped him and he broke." As people buy more mass-produced items just because they like or want the objects, they will ultimately confront the problem of finding another person who shares the same unique taste or wants the object because of its association with the giver.
5. Self (low value) x Family (high value) x Economy (high value)
This scenario describes an object valued by both the family and the economy, but of little emotional value to the present owner. When family members appreciate an object as an heirloom or because of its association with the present owner, the owner can pass the object to a receptive relative. The following account highlights this dynamic. "Grandma wanted me to have her table silver. I truly did not care for it. It was ugly. ... There is no way that I would sell grandma's silver ... so I put it away and hid it in the bathroom. ... I let it go to a niece." The respondent gave away the heirloom as soon as a viable family member showed interest.
It is noteworthy that people often capitalize on family occasions such as weddings or housewarmings to ensure continued stewardship of family heirlooms. It is also important to note at this point that although this study emphasizes the perspective of the gift giver rather than the receiver, every receiver ultimately becomes a gift giver and must find an appreciative recipient for cherished possessions.
6. Self (low value) x Family (high value) x Economy (low value)
This ideal-type situation suggests a scenario in which family members value an object that has low market value, and the owner also has little attachment to it. The owner gives the item to a receptive family member—problem solved. For example, a mother suggested, "We gave Jay [her son] my dad's Clemson ring because Dad had always said he could have it. He would have been so proud to know that he [son] graduated from Clemson." A "logical" candidate within the family was easily identified, thus eliminating the question of what to do with the ring.
7. Self (low value) x Family (low value) x Economy (high value)
The outcome of this combination of factors seems straightforward. The owner is likely to sell the object because of its exchange value and lack of value to family or self. People are often surprised by how much others will pay for objects that they view as "old junk." One couple that had a yard sale explained, "Some stuff sold for an exorbitant amount of money. Junk, literally, my husband had a box [from] cleaning out his workshop so he just put stuff he was going to take to the curb [for trash pickup]. We forgot to take it out. It sold for 15 dollars!"
8. Self (low value) x Family (low value) x Economy (low value)
No one cares about it, and it has little monetary value. Give it away; throw it away. Just get rid of it. One couple stated it best: "Anything that has no value to us, we get rid of daily. We have a big hopper where we put anything that we don't want. We dump it right there, and it's gone."
The following discussion illustrates how the heuristic incorporates economy, family, and self to identify eight unique scenarios in the disposal of personal possessions. Each scenario presents different challenges and solutions. It should be noted that one disposal strategy would not likely fit every person, object, or situation equally well. We contend that confronting a situation such as "downsizing," particularly when combined with concerns for social immortality, requires multiple solutions.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
This research contributes to understanding the macro and micro connection associated with disposing of personal possessions. We argue that institutional change, specifically the impact of market forces and family structure, influences people's relationship to objects (material self), including the process of disposing of particularly valued objects that are part of the self. As people age, they are confronted with questions concerning what will happen to their cherished possessions and how to pass on objects that preserve important aspects of self. The heuristic adds to theory by providing an analytic framework for studying the complexity of this type of gift giving.
The heuristic's eight ideal types are not only useful in explaining the disposal process involving the personal possessions of older adults in the study, but also reveal dilemmas, particularly related to objects that are part of the gift giver's self (high value). The primary focus of the final gift exchange process involves finding the appropriate recipient—one who will not only gratefully accept the object but also repay the gift by ensuring social immortality for the self of the gift giver. Although the heuristic includes the influence of social institutions of family and the economy, we emphasize the influence of the micro-level "self" in the final gift exchange.
Using the heuristic to analyze the participants' real world experiences, we found important differences among family members in the meaning and value of objects. First, family members do not always have a shared definition of an object as a family heirloom or treasure. In addition, the self of each family member may have different attachments to particular objects. Second, even when there is agreement about the object's value to family, people do not agree on the appropriate recipient of a family treasure. As a result, gift givers may have problems finding a welcoming person to accept a cherished personal possession. This problem is compounded when only a limited number of potential recipients exist. For example, the only logical candidate may not want it, the giver may not want to offer the object to the obvious family recipient, or no appropriate family recipient may exist.
Moreover, givers are sometimes surprised, dismayed, and even hurt by the response of an intended recipient. The problem is magnified when only one logical recipient exists. The following description of a mother's failed attempt to give a very large painting of herself to her only daughter illustrates this point. "The daughter, you cannot give to either because she has a house full. ... In fact, when I said something about the portrait ... she says, ‘I do not have room, Mother,’ which was hurtful because I thought she would always say yes. I certainly planned on getting that but she didn't [her voice trails off] so, when I'm gone, I won't know what became of it." The painting still dominates the older woman's small living room.
Failed exchanges can be personally painful. In part, gift giving is often a veiled attempt at social immortality. Therefore, the rejection of the painting can be interpreted as a personal affront. The mother was hurt and could not understand why the daughter would not want the portrait. Moreover, the encounter changed the emotional meaning of the painting for the owner. The painting became a painful reminder of her daughter's ingratitude, and its rejection redefined the nature of the mother–daughter relationship.
This account highlights the gap that existed between the mother and the daughter regarding the portrait's significance. A shortage of alternative candidates (smaller families) and a consumer economy (houses full of "stuff") provided the structural determinants for this scenario. At the micro level, the painting was clearly part of the mother's material self that she wanted to preserve.
In contrast, if several people value and want an item, the dilemma focuses on who gets the object and how to prevent family conflicts. Some objects cannot be divided or broken into equal pieces without destroying their physical integrity and/or symbolic meaning. Likewise, different objects do not have equipollence or equal affect. It is not just a matter of he gets this and she gets that.
This type of problem becomes more complex if the giver decides to sidestep the logical or expected recipient. Givers often want to know that the gift will be defined in a manner consistent with the meaning that the object has for them (self, family heirloom, etc.). The likelihood of violating gift-giving norms increases when an object is an extension of the self and also has sizable market value. Because the mass-market economy reduces the use value of many objects while increasing the exchange value, the giver may fear certain kin will sell the gift. Here is an example of a sad situation in which a mother was reluctant to give things to her only child, an estranged daughter. The mother chose to offer her possessions to strangers or sell them to those who would appreciate them rather than give the items to her daughter, who would likely not value them as family treasures or for their connection to her mother. "It is not that I don't want her to have stuff, I do. But she does not take care of stuff. She wants it but doesn't take care of it. My mother has ten books that she collected about my family, about me, all in Danish. There is no sense for her [the daughter] to have it because she couldn't read it. ... It won't stay there. It will disappear is what it boils down to." When the only logical candidate must be bypassed, it creates stress for the giver, who attempts to swim against the normative tide. It may also produce resentment on the part of the slighted "rightful" heir. In this case, the mother felt that although her daughter did not really want the objects, she would be angry about not receiving her mother's possessions.
The heuristic can also be used to help people avoid some of these problems. The three elements of the heuristic, the micro-level material self and the social structures of family and economy, are sources not only of potential problems but also of solutions. Thus, by synthesizing ideas generated from the heuristic with the personal experiences of our respondents, we offer some general advice on ways to avoid the dilemmas of the final gift exchange process. First, the "self" aspect of the heuristic directs attention to the need for people to accept their physical mortality. As the old adage states, "You cannot take it with you." However, there are many ways to "gift-wrap ourselves." Older adults should actively seek homes for their most cherished possessions before illness or unexpected circumstances limit their decision-making ability. The middle stage of life, as many people voluntarily move into smaller residences, offers an excellent opportunity to begin addressing the issue. The following account captures this sentiment. "Tell them to start early for one thing. ... I just decided that I had to make up my mind and just go do it ... work your plan." People feel empowered when they have a strategy, but awareness of the need for a plan is the first step.
Second, problems associated with the family part of the heuristic may be avoided if gift givers do not blindly assume that relatives share their attachments to objects. One respondent offered this advice: "I asked them what they wanted, what is special to them in the house." Besides creating shared definitions of value and agreement on who gets what, asking families members about their feelings and preferences for certain objects helps prevent cherished objects from unknowingly being discarded.
People may be surprised at what family members do not want. If no one expresses an interest in a cherished possession, the gift giver may want to share the story behind the object and what makes it special. One respondent described how he and his recent bride spent time with his terminally ill mother as she went through her possessions, reliving their personal and family significance. The daughter-in-law had originally communicated little interest in her mother-in-law's things; however, she warmed to many items when she knew how the objects related to her new husband's life. Likewise, another woman noted the usefulness in using story to place things. "Phil at one time ground up his crayons in a coffee mill that has been handed down to me from my mother, and so a number of years ago I gave it to him and I said, ‘Phil, this has meaning to you. There are still chunks of crayons in there.’ Those things I knew to give away while I could tell the stories behind them. They are so important." An essential element in the successful transfer of an object is that the receivers understand the significance of the object to the giver and/or to family history (Holstein & Gubrium, 2000).
On the other hand, the gift giver may experience a situation in which many family members want the same item. A gift giver who wants an object to go to a particular person may take steps to ensure that the desired person gets the object. One respondent stated, "My mother had the table refinished [after a fire that destroyed the old home place] and it has a lot of memories. The two boys will probably fight over it, but Robert with the middle name Cash (the mother's family name)—he thinks he is privy to it. It's logical." To reconcile the dilemma, the woman put "Robert" on the underside of the piece to show her wishes. Two other ways to address this issue include attaching a letter (codicil) to the will listing the desired recipients or giving the object to the person.
A potential giver should also accept the fact that no family member may want his/her cherished possessions. It may be more constructive for the owner to seek a kindred spirit who shares his/her appreciation for or connection with the object. One subject of Danish descent donated over 150 books to an international library. She took pride in the fact that others saw the value of the books and would enjoy them even if her family could not. The economy may also provide a satisfactory mechanism for disposing of personal possessions. Many of the people we interviewed sold items in estate or yard sales. Others gained comfort (as well as a tax write-off) by donating them to the Salvation Army or Goodwill Industries.
Finally, the results of this research suggest research questions for examining the continuity of objects' meaning and the relationship between self and objects in a mass-market, consumer society. For example, will the final gift exchange process remain the same? Are the gift-giving dilemmas reviewed here transitional? Will increasing economic influences climax with the total separation of possessions from the shared contextual meanings of family members? In other words, will all objects become alienable objects and ultimately be brought back into the sphere of exchange for money? One respondent's disposal strategy foreshadows this scenario. She invited her children to her estate sale to bid on items and pay like everyone else. Finally, will the trend toward an industry of reminiscence, including life histories, family trees, scrapbooks, and videos, replace the role of cherished objects and family heirlooms in fostering social immortality? Questions such as these, inspired by the heuristic, need further exploration.
In light of our restricted sample, additional applications of the heuristic are needed. In particular, Dittmar's research (1992) highlights the influence of gender and class, and Kamptner's work (1989) indicates a need to take into account age changes in the perception of treasured possessions. Regardless of such limitations, the heuristic shows promise as a tool for raising interesting questions and promoting a more refined examination of the final gift-giving process as well as the relationship between people and objects.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
The authors thank Douglas Eckberg for his helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript, Jennifer Hensdill for her contribution to the project, and the reviewers and editor for their constructive suggestions.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Received for publication December 27, 2003. Accepted for publication March 22, 2004.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
