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-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T13:56:38.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Relationship Initiation and Growth

from Part II - Developmental Arc of Relationships

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2018

By
Denise Haunani Solomon  and
Michael E. Roloff
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

This chapter examines the implications of gender for friendship and romantic relationships across the lifespan. We not only examine the contribution of biological sex but also the contribution of gender-related traits for these relationships in childhood, early adulthood, adulthood, and older age. When we examine biological sex, we discuss sex similarities as well as sex differences, typically finding that similarities outweigh differences. We discuss the nature of friendship and romantic relationships at each phase of the lifespan as well as present research on both the positive (e.g., intimacy) and negative (e.g., conflict) aspects of those relationships. Our review of the friendship literature not only addresses traditional same-sex friendship but also includes discussions of cross-sex friendship and friends-with-benefits relationships. For romantic relationships, we discuss the implications of gender not only for their development but also their maintenance and termination through separation/divorce and widowhood. We discuss how sex differences in relationships can be understood from both a gender-role socialization perspective (i.e., men are socialized to be agentic, women are socialized to be communal) as well as differential status (i.e., men’s higher status compared to that of women) and emphasize the importance of social constructionism for understanding research in this area.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships , pp. 79 - 89
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

Afifi, T. D., Merrill, A. F., & Davis, S. (2016). The theory of resilience and relational load. Personal Relationships, 23, 663–683. doi: 10.1111/pere.12159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altman, L., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Antheunis, M. L., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2010). Getting acquainted through social network sites: Testing a model of online uncertainty reduction and social attraction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 100–109. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.07.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2008). Becoming friends by chance. Psychological Science, 19, 439–440. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02106.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2011). A closer look at first sight: Social relations lens model analysis of personality and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance. European Journal of Personality, 25, 225–238. doi: 10.1002/per.790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauminger, N., Finzi-Dottan, R., Chason, S., & Har-Even, D. (2008). Intimacy in adolescent friendship: The roles of attachment, coherence, and self-disclosure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 409–428. doi: 10.1177/0265407508090966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, L. A. (1990). Dialectical contradictions in relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 69–88. doi: 10.1177/0265407590071004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, L. A., & Buchanan, L. (2016). Relational turning points. In Berger, C. R. & Roloff, M. E. (eds.) and Wilson, S. R., Dillard, J. P., Caughlin, J., & Solomon, D. H. (associate eds.) International encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (Vol. 2, pp. 1469–1473). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Baxter, L. A., & Norwood, K. M. (2016). Relational dialectics theory. In Berger, C. R. & Roloff, M. E. (eds.) and Wilson, S. R., Dillard, J. P., Caughlin, J., & Solomon, D. H. (associate eds.) International encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (Vol. 2, pp. 1443–1451). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Berger, C. R. (1988). Uncertainty and information exchange in developing relationships. In Duck, S. W. (ed.) Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 239–255). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Berger, C. R. (1997). Producing messages under uncertainty. In Greene, J. O. (ed.) Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 221–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00023992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 713–715. doi: 10.1037/h0044721CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, J. J., Stinson, D. A., & Wood, J. V. (2013). The bold and the bashful: Self-esteem, gender, and relationship initiation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 685–691. doi: 10.1177/1948550613476309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, C. L., Shaver, P. R., & Abrahams, M. F. (2014). Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 709–722. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025006006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457–475. doi: 10.1037/0033–2909.116.3.457CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunningham, M. R. (1989). Reactions to heterosexual opening gambits: Female selectivity and male responsiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 27–41. doi: 10.1177/0146167289151003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deyo, J., Walt, P., & Davis, L. (2011). Rapidly recognizing relationships: Observing speed dating in the south. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 12, 71–78. doi: 10.1080/17459435.2011.601527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastwick, P. W., Eagly, A. H., Finkel, E. J., & Johnson, S. E. (2011). Implicit and explicit preferences for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner: A double dissociation in predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 993–1011. doi: 10.1037/a0024061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., & Hunt, L. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 623–665. doi: 10.1037/a0032432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeney, B. C., & Lemay, E. P. (2012). Surviving relationship threats: The role of emotional capital. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1004–1017. doi: 10.1177/0146167212442971CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figueredo, A. J., Sefcek, J. A., & Jones, D. N. (2006). The ideal romantic partner personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 431–441. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, E. J., & Eastwick, P. W. (2015). Interpersonal attraction: In search of a theoretical Rosetta stone. In Simpson, J. A. & Dovidio, J. F. (eds.) APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 3: Interpersonal relations (pp. 179–210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/14344–007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 3–66. doi: 10.1177/1529100612436522CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 933–940. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.79.6.933CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.76.1.72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, J., Warber, K. M., & Makstaller, D. C. (2013). The role of Facebook in romantic relationship development: An exploration of Knapp’s relational stage model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 771–794. doi: 10.1177/0265407512468370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisby, B., Dillow, M., Gaughan, S., & Nordlund, J. (2011). Flirtatious communication: An experimental examination of perceptions of social-sexual communication motivated by evolutionary forces. Sex Roles, 64, 682–694. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010–9864-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Lai, C. (2011). First comes love, then comes Google: An investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research, 38, 70–100. doi: 10.1177/0093650210377091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ha, T., Berg, J., Engels, R., & Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A. (2012). Effects of attractiveness and status in dating desire in homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 673–682. doi: 10.1007/s10508-011–9855-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, J. A., Carter, S., Cody, M. J., & Albright, J. M. (2010). Individual differences in the communication of romantic interest: Development of the flirting styles inventory. Communication Quarterly, 58, 365–393. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2010.524874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitsch, G. J., Hortacsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010). What makes you click? Mate preferences in online dating. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 8, 393–427. doi: 10.1007/s11129-010–9088-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huston, T. L., Surra, C. A., Fitzgerald, N. M., & Cate, R. (1981). From courtship to marriage: Mate selection as an interpersonal process. In Duck, S. & Gilmour, R. (eds.), Personal relationships 2: Developing personal relationships (pp. 53–88). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ireland, M. E., Slatcher, R. B., Eastwick, P. W., Scissors, L. E., Finkel, E. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science, 22, 39–44. doi: 10.1177/0956797610392928CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janz, P., Pepping, C. A., & Halford, W. K. (2015). Individual differences in dispositional mindfulness and initial romantic attraction: A speed dating experiment. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 14–19. doi: 10.1037/t05514-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinke, C. L., Meeker, F. B., & Staneski, R. A. (1986). Preference for opening lines: Comparing ratings by men and women. Sex Roles, 15, 585–600 doi: 10.1007/BF00288216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klohnen, E. C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is attractive – self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity, or attachment security? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 709–722. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.85.4.709CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Needham Heights, MA: Allen & Bacon.Google Scholar
Knobloch, L. K., & Theiss, J. A. (2011). Relational uncertainty and relationship talk within courtship: A longitudinal actor–partner interdependence model. Communication Monographs, 78, 3–26. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2010.542471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinger, G. (1988). Development and change. In Kelley, H. H. et al. (eds.) Close relationships (pp. 315–359). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.82.6.947CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, N. P., & Meltzer, A. L. (2015). The validity of sex-differentiated mate preferences: Reconciling the seemingly conflicting evidence. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 9, 89–106. doi: 10.1037/ebs0000036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., Tov, W., Sng, O., Fletcher, G. J. O., Valentine, K. A., Jiang, Y. G., & Balliet, D. (2013). Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 757–776. doi: 10.1037/a0033777CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lönnqvist, J., & Itkonen, J. V. A. (2016). Homogeneity of personal values and personality traits in Facebook social networks. Journal of Research in Personality, 60, 24–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2015.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, S., & Zhang, G. (2009). What leads to romantic attraction: Similarity, reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating study. Journal of Personality, 77, 933–963. doi: 10.1111.j.1467–6494.2009.00570.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacGregor, J. C. D., & Cavallo, J. V. (2011). Breaking the rules: Personal control increases women’s direct relationship initiation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 848–867. doi: 10.1177/0265407510397986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGee, E., & Shevlin, M. (2009). Effect of humor on interpersonal attraction and mate selection. The Journal of Psychology, 143, 67–77. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.143.1.67–77CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McIntosh, W. D., Locker, L., Briley, K., Ryan, R., & Scott, A. J. (2011). What do older adults seek in their potential romantic partners? Evidence from online personal ads. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 72, 67–82. doi: 10.2190/AG.72.1.dCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mongeau, P. A., Knight, K., Williams, J., Eden, J., & Shaw, C. (2013). Identifying and explicating variation among friends with benefits relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 37–47. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2011.623797CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2013a). A meta-analytic investigation of the processes underlying the similarity-attraction effect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 64–94. doi: 10.1177/0265407512452989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2013b). A two-dimensional model for the study of interpersonal attraction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 59–86. doi: 10.1177/1088868313501887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889–922. doi: 10.1177/0265407508096700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, M. M. (2010). Human nonverbal courtship behavior: A brief historical review. The Journal of Sex Research, 47, 171–180. doi: 10.1080/00224490903402520CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morry, M. M., Kito, M., & Ortiz, L. (2011). The attraction-similarity model and dating couples: Projection, perceived similarity, and psychological benefits. Personal Relationships, 18, 125–143. doi: 10.1111/j.1475–6811.2010.01293.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (2015). Maintaining mutual commitment in the face of risk. Relationship Science, 1, 57–60. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.11.005Google Scholar
Nahemow, L., & Lawton, M. P. (1975). Similarity and propinquity in friendship formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 205–213. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.32.2.205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, P. A., & Thorne, A. (2012). Personality and metaphor use: How extraverted and introverted young adults experience becoming friends. European Journal of Personality, 26, 600–612. doi: 10.1002/per.1839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Friends with benefits relationships as a start to exclusive romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 982–996. doi:10.1177/0265407512448275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, J., Fincham, F. D., & Manthos, M. (2013). Friendship after a friends with benefits relationship: Deception, psychological functioning, and social connectedness. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1443–1449. doi: 10.1007/s10508-013–0160-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poulsen, F. O., Holman, T. B., Busby, D. M., & Carroll, J. S. (2012). Physical attraction, attachment styles, and dating development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 301–319. doi: 10.1177/0265407512456673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. (2002). A meta-analysis of sex differences in romantic attraction: Do rating contexts moderate tactic effectiveness judgments? The British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 387–402. doi: 10.1348/014466602760344278CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, C. R. (2013). Trends and variation in assortative mating: Causes and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 451–470. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071312–145544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, C. R., & Graf, N. L. (2009). Assortative matching among same-sex and different-sex couples in the United States, 1990–2000. Demographic Research, 21, 843–878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, R., Wegener, D. T., Sankaran, K., Singh, S., Lin, P. K. F., Seow, M. X., Teng, J. S. Q., & Shuli, S. (2015). On the importance of trust in interpersonal attraction from attitude similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 829–850. doi: 0.1177/0265407515576993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, D. H. (2016). Relational turbulence model. In Berger, C. R. & Roloff, M. E. (eds.) and Wilson, S. R., Dillard, J. P., Caughlin, J., & Solomon, D. H. (associate eds.) International encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (Vol. 2, pp. 1460–1468). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Solomon, D. H., Knobloch, L. K., Theiss, J. A., & McLaren, R. M. (2016). Relational turbulence theory: Explaining variation in subjective experiences and communication within romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 42, 507–532. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, D. H., & Theiss, J. A. (2011). Relational turbulence: What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. In Cupach, W. R. & Spitzberg, B. H. (eds.) The dark side of close relationships II (pp. 197–216). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sprecher, S. (1998). Insiders’ perspectives on reasons for attraction to a close other. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprecher, S., & Treger, S. (2015). The benefits of turn-taking reciprocal self-disclosures in get-acquainted interactions. Personal Relationships, 22, 460–475. doi: 10.1111/pere.12090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprecher, S., Wenzel, A., & Harvey, J. (eds.). (2008). Handbook of relationship initiation. New York, NY: Psychological Press.Google Scholar
Stinson, D. A., Cameron, J. J., & Robinson, K. J. (2014). The good, the bad, and the risky: Self-esteem, rewards and costs, and interpersonal risk regulation during relationship initiation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 1109–1136. doi: 10.1177/0265407514558961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stopfer, J. M., Egloff, B., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2013). Being popular in online social networks: How agentic, communal, and creativity traits relate to judgments of status and liking. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 592–598. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surra, C., Gray, C., Boettcher, T., Cottle, N., & West, A. (2006). From courtship to universal properties: Research on dating and mate selection, 1950–2203. In Vangelisti, A. L. & Perlman, D. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 113–130). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511606632.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tait, S. E., & Jeske, D. (2015). Hello stranger! Trust and self-disclosure effects on online information sharing. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 5, 42–55. doi: 10.4018/ijcbpl.2015010104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenney, E. R., Turkheimer, E., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2009). Being liked is more than having a good personality: The role of matching. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 579–585. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.03.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tidwell, N. D., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Perceived, not actual, similarity predicts initial attraction in a live romantic context: Evidence from the speed-dating paradigm. Personal Relationships, 20, 199–215. doi: 10.1111/j.1475–6811.2012.01405.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., Penke, L., & Perrett, D. I. (2014). Judging a man by the width of his face: The role of facial ratios and dominance in mate choice at speed-dating events. Psychological Science, 25, 806–811. doi: 10.1177/0956797613511823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, T. J., Butrie, L. K., & Hoffman, K. M. (2009). Women’s direct opening lines are perceived as most effective. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 145–149. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, S. S., Moon, S. I., Kwon, K. H., Evans, C. A., & Stefanone, M. A. (2010). Face off: Implications of visual cues on initiating friendship on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 226–234. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weger, H., & Emmett, M. C. (2009). Romantic intent, relationship uncertainty, and relationship maintenance in young adults’ cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 964–988. doi: 10.1177/0265407509347937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, R. D., & Houser, M. E. (2010). Extending the four-category model of adult attachment: An interpersonal model of friendship attachment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 351–366. doi: 10.1177/0265407509349632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wortman, J., & Wood, D. (2011). The personality traits of liked people. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 519–528. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2011.06.006CrossRefGoogle 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
×