See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314626699

Marital Typologies

Chapter · December 2015

DOI: 10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic186

CITATIONS READS

0 2,434

2 authors:

Ascan F. Koerner Susanne M. Jones

University of Minnesota Twin Cities University of Minnesota Twin Cities
48 PUBLICATIONS 2,487 CITATIONS 42 PUBLICATIONS 1,635 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Susanne M. Jones on 19 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Marital Typologies
Ascan F. Koerner and Susanne M. Jones
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA

Marriage typologies are dynamic theoretical constructs that describe marriage types
in relation to specific underlying dimensions or attributes. As a basic social institution
in continuously changing and evolving societies, marriage itself is constantly chan­
ging and redefined in its societal context, most recently evident in the rapidly
increasing acceptance of same‐sex marriages, at least in the West. In addition, like
many other scholarly typologies, marriage typologies do not necessarily reflect
essential or inherent differences between marriages but also are the result of
researchers imposing order on a varied and disordered population of “marital” rela­
tionships by way of data reduction (VanLear, Koerner, & Allen, 2006). As such, they
are based at least as much on the t­ heoretical needs and interests of researchers as on
essential properties of marriages. As a consequence of these dynamics, the invention,
use, and disuse of specific marriage typologies changes over time, responding as
much to changes in the interest of researchers as to changes in marriage itself.
For marriage typologies to be useful, they have to have at least one of two character­
istics. The first characteristic is empirical validity. This happens when marriages are not
evenly distributed in the conceptual space defined by the categorization variables and
the relevant relationship or communication variables(s) that define them. Rather, there
are observable clusters of marriages with similar values or value combinations on the
underlying dimension(s) and values or value combinations that are rare. Such c­ lusters of
families within the same categories or with similar values or value combinations consti­
tute distinct types. The second characteristic is that dimensions or a­ ttributes interact
with one another. In this case, marriage types are created when it is theorized or observed
that relevant relationship or communication dimensions interact with one another such
that the effect a dimension has on marital communication is determined by the value
the marriage has on other relevant variables. For example, the conflict type of a marriage
is determined by how a spouse responds to the other spouse’s initial aggression.
Marital typologies that have one or both of these characteristics can be used to
­organize observations and to explain and predict behaviors and outcomes. Although
often related, these two functions of organizing and predicting, respectively, are theo­
retically independent. Typologies that fulfill the first function of organizing observa­
tions often make intuitive sense because they are frequently based on some easily
observable ­attribute of the individuals or marriage that makes identification of the type
easy even for the casual observer. Because social scientifically relevant outcomes,

The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication, First Edition.

Edited by Charles R. Berger and Michael E. Roloff.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI:10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic0186
2

however, ­usually depend on processes and dynamics that are not based on as easily
observed attributes, such observational typologies are often not as useful for explaining
and predicting behaviors and outcomes.
Typologies that are good at fulfilling the second function to explain and to predict
outcomes are usually based on relevant and important processes and dynamics within
marriages that lead to the predicted behaviors and outcomes. Therefore, such p ­ redictive
marriage types are not as easily apparent and it is not uncommon to find that these
typologies of marriages are more meaningful to researchers than to the persons in these
marriages. For theoretical reasons, however, most scholars favor typologies that fulfill
the function of explaining and predicting over those that just organize marriages along
some attributes but fail to explain why.

Underlying assumptions of marital typologies

Determinations about similarities and differences in attributes that allow marriages to

be assigned to certain types are usually based on assumptions or observations about
similarities in attributes of spouses or couples, or on similarities in the dynamics and
processes of marriages. Typologies based on the assumption of similarity of attributes
include typologies based on structural attributes (e.g., first vs. second marriage, same‐
vs. opposite‐sex marriage, and intra‐ethnic vs. mixed‐race marriage) or psychological
attributes, such as personality, attitudes, or beliefs of spouses. The underlying
­assumption of these typologies is that the attributes individuals bring to marriages or
contextual attributes that surround them determine marital functioning and outcomes.
Differences between marriages can be explained by their individual attributes or the
external attributes that define their marriages.
Typologies based on interpersonal dynamics and communication processes, by
­contrast, are more interaction focused and assume that similar inputs can result in
­dissimilar outcomes, depending on process. Examples include typologies based on conflict
behaviors (Gottman, 1993), responses to partner demands (Caughlin & Scott, 2010), and
marital communication (Fitzpatrick, 1988). The underlying assumptions of these typol­
ogies are that dyads in marriages constitute systems that respond to similar c­ hallenges and
circumstances differently than other couples would, but whose p ­ references for particular
processes lead to predictable outcomes, such as marital ­satisfaction and marital stability.

Pseudo‐typologies of marriage

In some research, marriages are assigned to different categories based on single ­attributes
that are often based on demographic variables, such as race or sexual o ­ rientation.
These categories are easy to construct, but they do not always meet the ­definition of
typology provided earlier, which is why they are more accurately referred to as pseudo‐
typologies. Specifically, such typologies might have no empirical validity for variables
other than those used for classification, which means that absent a ­theoretical base, they
are tautological and do not have explanatory power. For example, it is easy to assign
 3

marriages into different racial categories, but unless research ­establishes that marriages
of different races differ in relevant communication or outcome variables, all the typology
does is establish that marriages differ in their racial makeup. Such a typology is of little
theoretical utility to communication scholars. Often such marital typologies are based
on observable and socially meaningful characteristics of the spouses or the couple,
but there only is the presumption that this characteristic is a meaningful predictor of
­communicative behavior or relationship outcomes. Researchers then investigate if
and how these couples are communicating differently from couples in other categories
or how these couples differ on important outcomes, such as satisfaction and stability.
Only after such differences are confirmed does a true typology exist.
Another group of single attribute‐based pseudo‐typologies are those that focus
on particular outcomes to classify marriages. Most typically, such typologies focus on
­desirable attributes such as marital satisfaction or stability and attempt to identify c­ orrelates
to those attributes. For example, there is a large body of research devoted to identifying the
correlates of marital satisfaction that compares satisfied to dissatisfied couples, or stable
couples to divorcing ones (Markman, Rhoades, Stanley, Ragan, & Whitton, 2010). Again,
only after it is established that there are demonstrable ­differences in the communication
behaviors of these couples do useful typologies emerge (e.g., Gottman, 1993).

Marriage typologies based on single attributes

Sometimes, a single variable is used to distinguish between marital types. One such
important attribute that has received considerable attention by scholars and is a good
predictor of communication behaviors is spouses’ gender role orientation. Although
gender is a broad concept and different scholars employ somewhat different definitions
of the term, in marital research gender role orientation is most frequently operational­
ized as their orientation to spouses’ work outside the home and the distribution of
labor inside the home. One classic example of such a typology is Scanzoni’s (1980)
­marital typology, which identified three marriage types: (a) husband as head and wife
as complement (public/career sphere, home sphere); (b) husband as senior partner and
wife as junior partner; and (c) husband and wife as equal partners. Similarly, Ross,
Mirowsky, and Huber (1983) identified four marriage types ranging from
­complementary Type I (­separate spheres for husbands [work] and wives [home],
preferred by both), Type II (wives work and are responsible for all homework, both
spouses prefer wives not to work), Type III (wives work and are responsible for all
homework, both spouses prefer wives to work) to parallel Type IV (both husbands and
wives share work and home responsibilities, preferred by both). Using this typology to
predict depression, these scholars found that spouses whose preferences and actual
behavior aligned were less depressed than those where preferences and behavior were
contrary to each other (Ross, Mirowsky, & Huber, 1983).
Another typology based on couples’ work and household chores specifically for
dual‐career couples is Rosenfeld, Bowen, and Richman’s (1995) marital typology.
These scholars classified marriages based on spouses’ involvement in family and work‐
related activities and their adjustment to it. Collapsing couples are those in which wives
4

adjust poorly to demands at work and home and husbands adjust poorly to demands at
work and only moderately to demands at home. Work‐directed couples, as the name
implies, are those in which both spouses adjust well to work‐related demands, but the
wife adjusts only moderately and the husband poorly to demands at home. Finally, tra-
ditional‐role couples are those in which the wife adjusts well to demands at home but
poorly to demands at work, whereas the husband adjusts well to demands in both areas.
In terms of satisfaction, wives are most satisfied in work‐directed couples, whereas
husbands were most satisfied in traditional‐role marriages, suggesting that the
­
­challenges of dual careers require some sort of trade‐off between spouses.

Marriage typologies based on interpersonal processes

Other typologies are not based on particular attributes that define types, but rather
focus on specific communication or relational processes, such as problem‐solving,
conflict, or parenting. A prime example for a typology that is based on a single commu­
nication process is Gottman’s (1993) couple conflict style typology. This typology is
based on research that finds that conflict behavior is the best predictor of relational
stability; it categorizes marriages into three functional and two dysfunctional types
based on their conflict communication. Of the functional types, the validating marriage
is the most intuitive one. In this type, both spouses openly communicate their needs
and desires and are receptive of those of their partners. They are supportive of the
needs and desires of their partners, engage in collaborative problem‐solving, and
throughout the conflict maintain and communicate largely positive affect. They are
also able to repair damages caused to the relationship during conflict by apologizing for
expressing negative affect and hurting the other.
The second functional type, the volatile marriage, is less intuitive. In this type, both
partners are competitive rather than collaborative during conflict, that is, they pursue
their own interests and disregard those of their partners. Furthermore, they also express
negative affect to one another during conflict. Surprisingly, these behaviors do not
undermine the general affection and commitment these spouses have for one another,
mainly because competition is not antithetical to their relationship schema and
­expectations. In addition, these couples also compensate for the hurt and negative
emotions by expressing a surplus of positive affect before and after conflict that allows
them to maintain their overall positive relationship (Gottman, 1993).
The avoidant couple type is also rather counterintuitive. In this type the spouses avoid
conflict interactions and usually do not even acknowledge their divergent or conflicting
interests. As a result, these couples do not engage in much overt conflict communication
or problem‐solving and consequently fail to resolve their conflicts. Rather, they manage
their emotional responses to conflict by waiting for the negative feelings associated with
perceived goal blockage by the spouse to dissipate. Although these couples often fail to
resolve their differences, they individually accommodate each other and thus resolve
their differences indirectly. In addition, by avoiding overt conflict communication they
also avoid creating hurt feelings and therefore are able to maintain their relationships
even in the absence of expressions of positive affect for the other (Gottman, 1993).
 5

Gottman (1993) also identified two dysfunctional and unstable marriage types, the
hostile and the hostile‐detached couple. Conflict in these marriages is characterized by
the open expression of negative affect, often with the intent to hurt or denigrate the
other. Because of the significant emotional toll that these interactions have on the
spouses, couples with these conflict styles are unlikely to stay married for long and
­usually end up divorcing.
While Gottman’s typology is the most well known and probably best researched
typology based on a single interpersonal process, other marital researchers also
have identified interpersonal processes that can be used to classify marriage types.
Closely related to research on marital conflict is research on demand–withdrawal
patterns in marriage. Although demand–withdrawal in marital research is most
frequently used as a continuous variable, it has also been successfully used to clas­
sify different marriage types. For example, Klinetob and Smith (1996) identified
four different types of ­marriages based on their demand–withdrawal patterns.
In the first type, the bidirectional marriage, both husbands’ and wives’ behaviors
predicted subsequent behaviors of their spouses. For example, both husbands’
and wives’ demands were associated with their partner’s withdrawal, and both hus­
bands’ and wives’ withdrawal was associated with their partner’s demand. In husband‐
dominant marriages, husbands’ behaviors p ­ redicted wives’ subsequent behaviors,
but wives’ behavior did not predict husbands’ subsequent behaviors. For example,
a husband’s withdrawal predicted a wife’s demand, but not vice versa. Similarly, in
wife‐dominant marriages, wives’ behaviors predicted husbands’ subsequent behav­
iors, but husbands’ behaviors did not predict wives’ subsequent behaviors. For
example, a wife’s demand predicted a husband’s withdrawal, but not vice versa.
Finally, in nondependent marriages, neither spouses’ behaviors p ­redicted the
subsequent behaviors of their spouses at least in that there were no observable
demand–withdrawal patterns in these marriages.
It is important to note that while some couples in the research have clear pref­
erences for one interaction type over the others, most couples did exhibit some
­flexibility in their demand–withdrawal patterns and often changed patterns in
regard to topic or whose issue was discussed (Klinetob & Smith, 1996). In fact,
in regard to marital s­ atisfaction, Klinetob and Smith found that the couples who
were the least flexible in regard to their demand–withdrawal patterns were also the
least satisfied.
Not all marriage typologies based on interpersonal processes focus on only one
­process, however. One example of a marital typology based on multiple interpersonal
processes is the marital typology introduced by Caughlin and Huston (2006).
These authors took what is often considered to be a one‐dimensional construct and
argued that positive affect and antagonism are two independent variables rather than
representing end points of a single continuum. Using affect and antagonism as
­orthogonal dimensions, it is possible to define four marriage types. Tempestuous
­marriages are high on both affection and antagonism, Warm marriages are high
on affection and low on antagonism, Hostile marriages are low on affection and high on
antagonism, and Bland marriages are low on both dimensions. Three of these four
types are relatively stable, while hostile marriages usually end in divorce.
6

Marriage typologies based on attributes

and interpersonal processes

There also are typologies of marriages that are broader in scope in that they do not use
single attributes or interpersonal processes to classify marriages. Rather they recognize
that both attributes and processes are often independent of one another and use both
attributes and interpersonal processes in their classification. One early example of such
a typology is Snyder and Smith’s (1986) classification of marriage types based on
responses to Snyder and Smith’s 11‐factor marital satisfaction inventory (MSI), which
assesses marital functioning and adjustment on a wide range of interpersonal processes,
including sexual satisfaction, parenting, and conflict. Snyder and Smith identified five
marriage types. Two non‐distressed types (Types I & II) had low conflict, and were
distinguished primarily by a greater conventionality in Type II. Two distressed types
(Types IV & V) had high conflict and low relationship and sexual satisfaction. These
types were distinguished primarily by the fact that Type IV spouses reported relatively
high satisfaction with their children and parenting, whereas Type V spouses were
­dissatisfied in these areas as well. Finally, Type III marriages were moderately d ­ istressed,
but husbands and wives were less symmetrical in their scores on the 11 MSI subscales
and distressed about different areas in their relationships.
Another typology that is based on both attributes and processes is Olson’s marriage
types, which are based on his computerized marital assessment program ENRICH
(Lavee & Olson, 1993; Olson & Fowers, 1993). Widely used in marital therapy and
enrichment programs, it uses spouses’ self‐reports to measure their perceptions of
14 dimensions of marital life and communication. Marriage types are then derived
from their scores on 10 of these dimensions (i.e., personality issues, communication,
conflict resolution, financial management, leisure activities, sexual relationship, children
and parenting, family and friends, equalitarian roles, and religious orientation). Using
cluster analysis on the scores of 8,383 couples on the 10 dimensions, Lavee and Olson
(1993) identified seven marriage types: devitalized couples (40%), conflicted cou­
ples (14%), financially focused couples (11%), traditional couples (10%), vitalized
couples (9%), balanced couples (8%), and harmonious couples (8%). In contrast,
with a sample of 6,267 couples, Olson and Fowers (1993) identified five marriage
types: devitalized couples (36%), conflicted couples (25%), traditional couples
(16%), vitalized couples (12%), and harmonious couples (11%).
In both samples, the largest type of marriage was the devitalized marriage, which is
those marriages scoring lowest on all dimensions and also the least satisfied. A reason for
this large proportion of dissatisfied marriages could be that the samples are not ­necessarily
representative as a large proportion of couples in the ENRICH data stem from couples in
marital therapy or marital enrichment programs. The largest difference between the two
studies was in the conflicted marriage type (14% vs. 25%, r­ espectively), and of course the
elimination of the financially focused and balanced marriage types from the second
study. Although the underlying dimensions are reflective of a c­ omprehensive review of
the marital literature, the types themselves are not particularly intuitive, which might be
the reason that they have not found nearly as wide an application in research as in
counseling and therapy contexts. Another reason is probably that classification is entirely
 7

based on cluster analysis, which not only can vary from sample to sample, but also fails
to provide a clear theoretical justification for the types.
A final example of a typology based on an assessment of multiple attributes and
interpersonal processes that was one of the earliest of this type, and still probably the
most influential, is Fitzpatrick’s (1988) marital typology. This typology categorizes
marriages based on how marriages are represented cognitively by spouses in terms of
relevant beliefs about marriage and how these beliefs are expressed in communication
behaviors, which are assessed through self‐report by the relational dimensions
inventory (RDI, Fitzpatrick, 1988). Specifically assessed are spouses’ reports of their
ideology, including beliefs spouses have about the sex roles of husbands and wives: for
example, how married couples should relate to their communities, and whether wives
should take husbands’ names. The RDI also assesses the behavioral interdependence of
couples. Spouses report how they share their physical and psychological space by, for
example, having separate bedrooms or offices and maintaining privacy about financial
matters and personal correspondence. Finally, the RDI also assesses spousal communi-
cation and whether couples tend to engage in or to avoid conflict and what they do, say,
and feel during such conflict interactions.
Based on their scores on these three dimensions, individuals are assigned to
one of three marital types: traditional, independent, and separate. Traditionals have
­conventional ideological values and beliefs about marriage and family life, are very
interdependent in their marriages, and report an expressive communication style with
their spouses. Independents have nonconventional values and beliefs about marriage
and family life, especially about sex roles and the pursuit of self‐related goals outside of
marriage, are behaviorally moderately interdependent in their marriages, and report a
very expressive communication style with their spouses. Separates have conventional
ideological values and beliefs about marriage and family life, are very independent in
their marriages, and report very little expressivity in their marital communication. For
about two thirds of ­marriages, both spouses have the same marital type; the remaining
marriages fall into mixed types, of which the most frequent type is that of a traditional
wife and a separate husband.
In addition to being a reliable and valid measure of marital types that is broadly
applicable to marital research, Fitzpatrick’s (1988) typology has several additional
strengths. Most importantly, it is based equally on theory and empirical observation.
The three underlying dimensions of ideology, interdependence, and communication
are based on prevailing theories of marital communication and functioning, while the
three marital types represent three empirically observed clusters of a possible eight
types that exist in the conceptual space defined by the three dimensions. Additionally,
these three types make intuitive sense and correspond with other marital types,
particularly Gottman’s (1993) and Caughlin and Huston’s (2006) typologies.
­
Specifically, Fitzpatrick’s traditional marriages correspond to Gottman’s validating and
Caughlin and Huston’s warm type, Fitzpatrick’s independent marriages correspond to
Gottman’s volatile and Caughlin and Huston’s tempestuous type, and Fitzpatrick’s sep-
arate ­marriages correspond to Gottman’s avoidant and Caughlin and Huston’s bland
type. That these three different typologies converge gives one great confidence in the
validity of all three typologies.
8

Future directions

A great number of marital typologies exist that classify marriages based on attributes,
interpersonal processes, or both. The best combine a sound theoretical basis with
strong empirical evidence for their classifications and give researchers a valid and
­useful tool to better describe, understand, and theorize about marital relationships
and communication. Although typologies addressing basic interpersonal processes
that exist today will continue to inform future research, the dynamic and continually
­changing nature of structural and social dimensions of marriage and the ongoing
refinement of marital communication theories portend the continuous refinement and
development of marriage typologies in the future.

SEE ALSO: Conflict Avoidance; Conflict Styles and Strategies; Demand–Withdrawal

Sequences in Conflict; Dual‐Earner Marriage; Extramarital Affairs; Family Typologies;
LGBT Relationships; Romantic Relationships in the Workplace

References

Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (2006). The affective structure of marriage. In A. Vangelisti &
D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 131–155). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Caughlin, J. P., & Scott, A. M. (2010). Toward a communication theory of the demand/withdraw
pattern of interaction in interpersonal relationships. In S. Smith & S. Wilson (Eds.), New
directions in interpersonal communication research (pp. 180–200). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives: Communication in marriage. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Gottman, J. M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital
interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 61, 6–15. doi: 10.1037/0022‐006X.61.1.6
Klinetob, N. A., & Smith, D. A. (1996). Demand–withdraw communication in marital
­interaction: Tests of interspousal contingency and gender role hypotheses. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 58, 945–957. doi: 10.2307/353982
Lavee, Y., & Olson, D. H. (1993). Seven types of marriage: Empirical typology based on ENRICH.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 19, 325–340. doi: 10.1111/j.1752‐0606.1993.tb00996.x
Markman, H. J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Ragan, E. P., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). The
­premarital communication roots of marital distress and divorce: The first five years of
marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 289–298. doi: 10.1037/a0019481
Olson, D. H., & Fowers, B. J. (1993). Five types of marriage: An empirical typology based on
ENRICH. The Family Journal, 1, 196–207. doi: 10.1177/1066480793013002
Rosenfeld, L. B., Bowen, G. L., & Richman, J. M. (1995). Communication and social support in
three types of dual‐career marriages. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining
family interactions (pp. 257–289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ross, C. E., Mirowsky, J., & Huber, J. (1983). Dividing work, sharing work, and in‐between: Marriage
patterns and depression. American Sociological Review, 48, 809–823. doi: 10.2307/2095327
Scanzoni, J. H. (1980). Contemporary marriage types: A research note. Journal of Family Issues,
1, 125–139.
 9

Snyder, D. K., & Smith, G. T. (1986). Classification of marital relationships: An empirical

approach. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 137–146. doi: 10.2307/352237
Van Lear, A., Koerner, A. F., & Allen, D. (2006). Relationship typologies. In A. Vangelisti &
D. Perlman, (Eds.) The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 91–111). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.

Further reading

Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. (2000). Research on the nature and determinants
of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 964–980. doi:
10.1111/j.1741‐3737.2000.00964.x
Caughlin, J. P., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2000). An individual difference explanation of why married
couples engage in the demand/withdraw pattern of conflict. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 17, 523–551. doi: 10.1177/0265407500174004
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple
will divorce over a 14‐year period. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 737–745. doi:
10.1111/j.1741‐3737.2000.00737.x
Huston, T. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1995). How parenthood affects marriage. In M. A. Fitzpatrick
& A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 147–176). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Scanzoni, J. H., & Scanzoni, L. D. (1976). Men, women, and change: A sociology of marriage and
family. New York, NY: McGraw‐Hill.
Snyder, D. K. (1979). Multidimensional assessment of marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 41, 813–823. doi: 10.2307/351481

Ascan F. Koerner (PhD, University of Wisconsin, Madison) is an associate professor

of communication studies at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. His research
focuses mainly on family communication patterns and the cognitive representations of
relationships and their influence on interpersonal communication, including message
production and message interpretations. His research has appeared in communication
journals such as Communication Monographs, Communication Theory, and Human
Communication Research, and in interdisciplinary journals such as the Journal of
Marriage and Family and the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships and a number
of edited volumes.
Susanne M. Jones is an associate professor in the Department of Communication
Studies at the University of Minnesota‐Twin Cities. Her research interests include
supportive communication, cognition and emotion, mindfulness and communication,
and nonverbal communication.

View publication stats