Defining Attitude Concept

Eagly & Chaiken (1993): emphasize the tripartite (multicomponent) classification. •”tendencies to evaluate an entity with some degree of favor or disfavor, ordinarily expressed in cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses” and formed on the basis of cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes. Evaluating = refers to all classes of evaluative responding, whether overt (verbal) or covert (nonverbal), cognitive, affective, or behavioral.

Defining Attitude Concept
Tripartite (“trilogy of mind”) originally linked to “Faculty Psychology” Tripartite view of attitudinal responding: do attitudes have all three aspects? Grounded in 18th C. Enlightenment view of attitude (Cognition, Affection, Conation – act of striving). Kant, Leibniz, Scottish School: interest in consciousness and introspection. Debates about how many innate “faculties” of mind existed.

Defining Attitude Concept
Preceded development of experimental psy in 19th C., and faded with its rise of latter in early 1920’s. Wundt, late 19th C in Germany, associationism was anti-introspection and discredited Faculty Psychology. But trilogy of mind remained in Psychology’s vocabulary. William McDougall (1923), Outline of Psychology (wrote 1st social psy text in 1908)

Defining Attitude Concept
McDougall (1923): “We often speak of an intellectual or cognitive activity; or of an act of willing or of resolving, choosing, striving, purposing; or again of a state of feeling. But it is generally admitted that all mental activity has these three aspects, cognitive, conative, and affective…”

Defining Attitude Concept
Tripartite view in contrast to Thurstone (1931: “Attitude is the affect for or against a psychological object.”); & later, Fishbein & Ajzen. Influenced Allport (1935): “An attitude is a mental or neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence on the individual’s response to all objects and situations to which it is related.”

Defining Attitude Concept Tripartite view played central role in attitude theory and attitude change research in its heyday in ’50s and ’60s. Rosenberg & Hovland (1960) model: Attitude is an inferred property of the 3 response classes. . and the consistency of responses (formed on the basis of 3 different types of processes).

. affective/emotional.Defining Attitude Concept Zanna & Rempel (1986) evaluative appraisal model. Model suggest that attitudes are separate cognitive entities which may be accessed from memory independent of the affective. cognitive. Do attitudes have to have all 3 aspects? Z&R: categorization of a stimulus object along an evaluative dimension based upon 3 general classes of information: cognitive. or behavioral information on which they are based. past behaviors or behavioral intentions.

That these classes of information can determine evaluations separately or in combination. the model becomes single component (evaluative. preferences) . the model is belief based.Defining Attitude Concept 6 implications of this view: 1. When evaluations are based primarily on utilitarian beliefs about an attitude object. When evaluations are based primarily on affect produced by the object. 3. 2.

Defining Attitude Concept 4. model is like self-perception. When evaluations based on inferences from past behavior. If attitudes are based on different sources of information. Are such attitudes differentially susceptible to different methods of persuasion? . 5. do equivalent evaluations based on different sources differentially predict and guide behavior? (Priming) 6.

. Attitude is the tendency or latent property of the person that gives rise to judgments and categorizations. But the attitude is not the response per se. and varied consequences on the output side.-there is an implicit or explicit response to an entity based on the “evaluative residue” of past experience (or beliefs or feelings) that predisposes the person to a favorable or unfavorable response. Attitudes can have varied antecedents on the input side.Defining Attitude Concept Attitudes as “tendencies to evaluate” .

Defining Attitude Concept Attitudes as Enduring or temporary constructions. Not same as context effects – latent construct can be stable but sensitive to context. . others are formed then changed. Schwartz: Attitudes-as-construction view. constantly emerging anew in specific situations. Equates variability in the expression of attitudes with variability in the evaluative tendency that constitutes attitudes. Most if not all attitudes are unstable. Some attitudes are relatively enduring (formed early in life and carry through life. some formed but fade) N.

bad. Attitudes of which the person is not conscious at the moment of action (implicit attitudes) are also strongly predictive of behavior.Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Chen & Bargh (1999): categorize good vs. Nonconsciously predisposes behavior toward object. Access attitude from memory. .

not automatic activation. or action toward social objects.90). we are conscious of our attitudes” (p. thought. as we act.Implicit and Explicit Attitudes D. Bias toward the conscious operation of attitudes. Myers (1990): “our attitudes predict our actions…if.” . Greenwald & Banaji (1995) on implicit attitudes: “Implicit attitudes are introspectively unidentified (or inaccurately identified) traces of past experience that mediate favorable or unfavorable feeling.

one of which is more accessible than the other? Dual Attitude Model (Wilson. Lindsey. & Schooler. 2000) .Implicit and Explicit Attitudes What about those times when people have more than one evaluation of the same attitude object.

Dual Attitude Model Working Example: A White American reared in a racist family who learned to be prejudiced against African Americans. What is this person’s attitude toward African Americans? . he adopts egalitarian views and abhors prejudice of all kinds. As an adult.

Lindsey. ●Proposes that the attitude people endorse at any point in time depends on whether they have the capacity to retrieve the explicit attitude. other is explicit attitude). . implicit attitude.Dual Attitude Model Dual Attitude Model (Wilson. and whether explicit overrides implicit. 2000) ●Model proposes that people can have “dual attitudes.” which are different evaluations of the same attitude object (one is automatic. & Schooler.

and influence implicit responses (uncontrollable responses and ones that are not seen as an expression of attitude and therefore are not controlled)” Greenwald & Banaji. are activated automatically. . 1995.Dual Attitude Model Remember: Implicit attitudes are “evaluations that have an unknown origin (people are unaware of the basis of their evaluation).

2. A(e) and A(i) toward same attitude object can coexist in memory.Dual Attitude Model 5 Basic Hypotheses: 1. . A(e) requires more capacity and motivation to retrieve from memory. A(i) is automatically activated. When able to retrieve A(e). it overrrides A(i) and A(e) is reported. When dual attitudes exist.

like old habits.g. .e. change more slowly. Attitude change techniques target A(e) but not A(i). A(e)’s change relatively easily.Dual Attitude Model 3.. A(i) influences implicit responses (i. neural imaging). Even when A(e) is retrieved.. whereas Ai. uncontrollable responses like nonverbal behaviors) or responses that they do not view as an expression of their attitude and do not attempt to control (e. 4.

. dual attitudes. don’t experience a subjective state of conflict from holding dual attitudes. People with dual attitudes report the attitude that is most accessible. Define attitudinal ambivalence vs. Dual attitudes not same as ambivalent attitudes or attitudes with discrepant affective and cognitive components.Dual Attitude Model 5.

Indirect measures rely on more circuitous methods of obtaining info. Assume that self-reports are of questionable validity because people are frequently unaware of their attitudes or unwilling to disclose them publicly. . Asked direct questions about their thoughts. feelings.Segue to Measurement Direct measures: rely on self-reported attitudes. or behaviors toward attitude objects. Indirect measures: do not alert respondents to the identity of the object of the attitude being measured.

Different Types of Evaluative Response .

A(e) that are spontaneous correlate more highly with A(i)] 4. Method-related characteristics of the two measures (e. Complete independence of the underlying constructs. 3.g. et al. 2005) 5 accounts for low r’s between explicit and implicit: 1.. prejudicial attitudes).. Motivational biases in explicit self-reports (e. Factors influencing the retrieval of information from memory [dual attitudes model.g. lack of “correspondence”).Implicit-Explicit Measures (Hofmann. Lack of introspective access to implicitly assessed attitudes (introspection may increase awareness). 5. . 2.

.g. effortful retrieval? higher r’s with spontaneous self-report (less thought) . research topic involved. 2005) Quantitative meta-analysis (126 studies) •Used IAT as implicit measure.14) •Moderators (e. various explicit measures used.Implicit-Explicit Measures (Hofmann. awareness of A(i).24 (sd=. et al. •Overall effect size = .

Attitude Measurement .

Attitude Measurement .

Attitude Measurement .

. Fishbein & Ajzen’s behavioral criteria: Self-report validity problems can also be addressed by measuring behavior appropriately.Behavioral Indicators Assumption: that proper measurement on the behavior side is equally important and that we do not have to abandon attitude construct as long as we use properly scaled behavioral criteria and a valid attitude measure.


Repeated observations of same single act: repeated observations of same behavior at different observation times (e. . context. time. unobtrusive measure of popularity of an art exhibit). 2. Measure can be dichotomous or continuous.g.Behavioral Indicators 1.. target). Observations combined into repeated observation criterion. Specific act or single act criterion: Should include 4 elements (action.

Multiple act. Cell entries can be summed. Multiple act criterion: Observation of different behaviors. repeated observation: Gold standard. scaled. 4. averaged.Behavioral Indicators 3. .

Attitude Measurement .

Esp. behavioral components. focused on psychophysiological methods. . affective.Return to Multimethod Approach Guglielmi (199): Multidimensional view of prejudicial attitudes that makes use of multimethod strategies . Argues for both implicit and explicit measures of cognitive.

used info collected earlier to establish “accuracy” . beginning with Bogus Pipeline. Was the change due to social desirability? Hooked up participants to fancy machine. Sigall and colleagues (1971): trying to account for decline in anti-Black sentiment using the adjective checklist procedure.Return to Multimethod Approach Long history. attached electrodes.

no machine. . Control: same task.Return to Multimethod Approach The asked to rate on 7-point scale how characteristic each of 22 traits was of Blacks and Whites (half rated each group). In order to determine “to what extent people are in touch with their real feelings” E allegedly checked participant’s verbal response against machine’s reading.

. Significant racial prejudice exposed. leads to them spilling their guts. Same concept as polygraph and lie detection – suspects need to believe that the machine will unmask their deception. Inc. Same with No Lie MRI.Return to Multimethod Approach Found that students were much more likely to assign negative traits to Blacks under the bogus pipeline condition than Control. and the polygraph industry claiming efficacy.

Return to Multimethod Approach Which approaches are best? How does one choose? Does it really matter which technique one uses? What general conclusions should be reached? .

intergroup attitudes). One’s choice of measurement strategy can affect the results obtained and conclusions drawn about focal attitude (esp.Some general conclusions Caveat: Answers depend in part on the attitude “objects” under investigation.  Various assessment techniques are not interchangeable. .

Some general conclusions 2. physiological reactions. etc.) uncover more negative feelings and beliefs. 3. Which set of findings more closely represents “true” attitudes? Results from direct measures must be viewed with some skepticism. . gender. but social desirability biases more problematic in certain contexts than others (atts toward fat and toward gay/lesbian people vs. Responses that are difficult to control (e. reaction times following racial primes.g. Use of more subtle self-report measures and indirect measures yields a different picture. ethnicity).. race.

. A combination of indirect and direct measures may be needed to fully understand people’s attitudes toward some groups and other attitude objects. Fazio et al. 1995) .Some general conclusions 4.g. Need such an approach to detect attitudinal subtleties (e.

low prejudice scores on both direct and indirect measures.Some general conclusions Fazio et al: Whites can be divided into three categories with respect to attitudes towards Blacks: “truly nonprejudiced”: no negative beliefs or feelings about Blacks. do not try to hide their negative feelings (either because prejudice is OK or because they fail to recognize that their attitudes are prejudiced) . “truly prejudiced”: high scores on both direct and indirect measures.

RTs). look nonprejudiced on direct. self-measures. but negative attitudes more apparent on more subtle measures (e. Point: one needs to adopt a multi-method approach and compare responses to both direct and indirect measures to detect these differences. .g.Some general conclusions “mixed” group: have automatic negative reactions to Blacks. some behavioral measures) or measures that tap uncontrollable responses (e...g. but are motivated to control their prejudiced responses.

but in fact only modestly correlated. Different instruments are designed to measure different aspects of intergroup and other kinds of attitudes. stereotype measures more cognitive. unobtrusive behavioral measures and social distance measures intended to assess discriminatory tendencies. 6. Physiological measures tap affective component. Tempting to always think that affective. and behavioral measures are equivalent. .Some general conclusions 5. cognitive.

g. Brigham. Johnson. 2004. & Gaertner. . Others deny having negative beliefs about outgroups. Point: Researchers’ measurement strategies will be shaped by the particular facets of the attitudes of greatest interest to them. Can’t assume that tripartite attitude model holds all or even most of the time (Schneider. pp. yet believe it is wrong to act on them..29-30). 1996): Some people hold negative beliefs about outgroups. and often they will find it necessary to use more than one type of measure.Some general conclusions e. yet experience negative feelings toward those groups. (Dovidio.

46) . in other words.Intra-attitudinal Structure Matters: The allure of “safer” tobacco products  “The more successfully a cigarette reduces risk. p. It might. In a worst-case scenario. policy and litigation in a flash. it could reverse a half-century of antismoking education. do exactly the opposite of what it is intended to do. Or make kids smokers. the more it might encourage smokers not to quit. 2005.” (Gertner. Or lure ex-smokers to resume their habit.

NEJM). marketing of reduced harm products. but with no resultant decrease in morbidity (Fairchild & Cosgrove. underscoring need for science to fill the information gap on attitudes toward harm reduction and federal regulation of reduced harm products (H. 2000. 140. 2004. “Out of • Similar concerns have been raised about the the Ashes”.Tobacco harm reduction • Availability of “low-yield cigarettes” has led to public perceptions of “safer” cigarettes. “Title V – FDA Regulations of Tobacco Products.R. referred to House Subcommittee on Health. Myers. 2/14/03) . American Journal of Public Health.

lozenges. or pharmaceutical agents that are meant to aid in smoking cessation (e.g. nicotine patch).Two Key Background Concepts   Harm reduction: relates to actually seeing a reduction in mortality or morbidity with the use of a product.g. Two categories – variants of traditional tobacco cigarettes (e. . nicotine gum.. Potentially reduced-exposure products (PREPs): tobacco products that have been modified or designed in some way to reduce users’ exposure to tobacco toxins. new cigarettes that heat rather than burn tobacco).. smokeless tobacco.

Kim. Borgida. Consistent with prior research in other social issue domains.The Psychology of Attitudes: Role of Attitude Structure: Cognitive versus affective bases Experience with smoking / harm reduction Knowledge about smoking / harm reduction Stark. & Pickens (2006): The psychological bases of attitudes may influence the way consumers respond to ads about reduced harm/reduced risk products. .

9% Male. Fall 2003 •438 adult participants returned the survey (38% return rate)    58. 95.7% Caucasian Mean age: 54. South Dakota. and Wisconsin).Method Survey: Minnesota Center for Survey Research •sent to 1.9% smoked in last 30 days. . North Dakota.300 randomly selected households in 5-state Upper Midwest region (Minnesota.2 years 21. Iowa.

p<. p<. p<. p<. Predicting attitudes toward harm reduction:  Affective score and experience significantly predict – More positive feelings.394.163.346  Consistency: b=.551. lead to more positive harm reduction attitudes  Affective Score: b=.163.099  Experience: b= -. p<.006 .0001  Cognitive Score: b=.099  Knowledge: b=. being a smoker.055.

0001  Cognitive score: b= -.477.44  Non-smokers:  Affective score: b=.122.079. p<. non-smokers’ attitudes are best predicted by their thoughts and beliefs  Smokers:  Affective score: b=. Predicting attitudes toward harm reduction by level of experience: – Smokers’ attitudes are best predicted by their feelings. p<. p<.414. p<.0001 .534  Cognitive score: b=.

relaxation) may create positive attitudes that are difficult to counter with information on the health risks of these products. thoughts and beliefs were the primary predictor. their feelings about harm reduction were the primary predictor of overall attitudes toward harm reduction. reduction of cravings. . for non-smokers.Does structure matter and for whom?   For smokers. Feelings associated with smoking (taste.

. – Strong feelings toward harm reduction might result in resistance towards some types of health messages – increased interest in resistance processes in persuasion field. Structural when: bases of attitudes may matter – Educating people about these products and their associated risks. – Persuading smokers to use these products to reduce their health risk.

. .:945...1 .

14..31/.3510.51 .: 365...69...::796793:0.65...69.5.69..9.:945.69: ::47..3 09./...6.51.309.796794.:9 :/5 5:/.90..69:1: 1656.1065:....334769..51 09.5165..&3..31.. /..

9769.&3.9.69. 5:/.309.

5.3 .779679.:95/.3:6/..796/34: 4. .


9.3510.:967673.69.: .6/:9.6..09.09. 97.69:   &700.69:53.65:064/515.0..65:6:.4/.65 .965&631 5031345.  .9.  .16/:9.965 .0..646:69 065.4 065.56: %7. 195.0.0.  "/:9.69:53.16/:9..1 6/:9.697./..:90...9.0.6509.65...4:   56/.0..965&631 &700.65:6:.4:53...69.5/106..5.9: 4.

5/:441  .9:0.31  .965"/:9.69:   3.69:   3.656 195.9.16/:9.965"/: 97.73.1 :0.. 97.16/: 3.69./.65631 3...0....65631 :.91 335..

. .:945...1 .

.:9:6065.145:65.1:.  /.30647655.4.9..36 7910.51730.61: .4.2::6 43..6 3.95.: :7 60:1657:067:6360.: 9:69/6.0. 4. ..3 4.3.0 334   3..%.4730.69.4.617796.61:...

69 /555.5.6:#735 &.69 /555.0 65:.95.6 3.6910355.95.0065..:  .6:#735 65:.6 .510633.%.617796.4.33.

6910355.5. ..0065.

:./3:..07.3.31:9.:...0 ..45.9.939.0130.6:. :5.5.796019  .0023:. 662177.009..05 .0.504.02:5./ .6:60.10.

65.4.617796.6 3.95.%..:21.69.0 '.

65.. '.:21.69.

05  .765.5:.4..:.9..4..:0.0967  56919.5.5.. 7673.3 35:.331300217.36 0.0.39:765:.9:.945..15  65.:2 564.: .: 9/. 9.06.:6

7.7.1:.6/3.65 ::70.963 &50.9 107..::55..565.751:.:940469323..65 .%. &.02:519.:.: ..4 .51 .0.0 651.6 .406507.617796.63.3791076:1 &.9.5131.:7639.6 3./6: 77350651. ..:51 .:2.65.450.4.0.95.!6 .4:7335.903.053354..:7639..4.:.653.9..6..5131.!6 % 50 .

59.6 3.617796.9.01 .05865::.3 06503:65::631/9.90 ..616:65 066:6:.%..0 0.7796.9/:..0:.4.95.334.

..60..0...:6/../6.5 ...5:9:175157...306503:65: .51.65.058:.956.1: .9.1 :7 5.96:.9967 . . 5.3.&6459.90.:945...../3 "5:0606 4. 9:3.16/0.0.5..:5195:..9.:.5.65 .5106503:65:19.::::45..

306503:65:   :6469:/.3:3.&6459.


.35:.:9:4:.515190.963   7:6360.../ 1.6065.6515:469036:3979:5.51/3:  0:.6.:60.65..65:  9.0 519 .51.6.4..195..:9:.:64:27.9769.1:%:3.91. .0.9: .0509.91.3:/..0.5065..9 103.0..4:633659..0:4 /. /.:9:31:.:..::469796/34..:964190.70..3794: .:.0 5069 4695.4. 4.39.50..31:9...:.9 .57673 : 9.5 6.9 %:765::./3.

9.3   .6.5.306503:65:  064/5.15.:9:4.16/0..0..0.1:. ..633 519:.:   .517673:..:  !1:0.&6459.. 4..3:/./511.516..7796.61.3..51190...6565190....91 :64967:.6.

35: .9/0..6.....:0..51 5190...979101 .6./ 0.9356579101565.6.02:367910:069:65 /6..3.:9: .91: 3..69065...69:.190..3.6.:.1:.:7910:" 69/0..61.4.9 5.9379101:069:65/6..&6459./3:69 35:.9 ..515190.306503:65: .1:.:9:1656.02: ...9.

.63.946.9 791019:765::36625657910165 190.963.0.6065.. :3.1...&6459.64.05..65: .02: /..9..306503:65: 41967.

190. :3.

95.34....:9:    :64/.:9: 694./39:765::   %': #65.9633.34.6551:.:9:.43.65469:/...69.:9: /.6.4. .5..75065.167..1: 469..77...

43...6.167. #65.6551:.

99:765::.515190.:9:..7796. .0.190.: 1950: . .4.

:9:5.0.:.0.51 :60.5:.  065.516.7.:.51/.9:/.1  .9 8.6..:9:.5150:   '47. .:9:.0.:9:.306503:65:  95...9251: 6.35..653461:..34.:9:469 065.306993.91:51.52..69.504..6.64. 0647655.511./.31:.74.56/.5.5.:::: 1:0945.69.96.69.:65...9967.1: #:6360.34.:.:9 195...:70.945.&6459.3.34.

6:967: ...::4 .:965.5 5.967: .9.14613631:./3:.9:15..3369546:.4 65:65  ...7950 5..35:..97..967: .6.65./3:.9.0.91.&6459..6...4 "..59  &64 76736315.6.306503:65:    616 9.4 &0519  77 ./6./6.5. /3..6 .6.

 &0519  77 .

9.:9 ..6 :469.:6.7.3351.:..1:69.:.764.0.9...909:4.6.%:.. 5. #65..4 ..9:.9.9..71 /.516.5.:945.:33/:.565.50::.03.


9. 5.

90...9 ..9:'.:4629: 56.9.6/.469..910: 9:2 .: '469:00::33..9..4.15. "939.5069.0..68.3396 :.00679610..3&.

56..68. "939.

/..69:4 .:5.616 5. 69:.9.9691: 16. 56. "94.511. 4.6.. 6776:.0.:4629:.3.221::4629: .


3. .::05.063199:.96 .0.


59   7  .655.5...96..:  9.3.05.:462510.65  7630.513.

006.94910.'6/.636.65 .3./3.


 .3.65.3.: /.  .9./6.9479610.9479610.6..94910.3 93.:  %  '.65:6'6/.5.569101..109. .1:.65:6:.9031 6:96  490..5119.3  %  '.765 .:1. ". ".6569101.6.65. :: 9:  ! &43..:.569:3.5695.3 %3.6. 4. 6:96  490..3..36#/30.: 9991.65 .: 519:0695 5169:050.5695./59..:5469/1.310..5694.91.9.:31..92.90.6 7/307907.006#9610.633..9065095:..36#/30.66:&/0644.

: ..94910. ..: 6.6593..:.339101. #6.0.0296516507..0.5.69469/1.. 910.'6.6593.655469.33:5.79610.6.:.3.6.94910.33:5....

5.. #6.339101.

9..6..69:  .. .00679610.:.:.9.76:979610.3..0 .5...:   :4623:: .65    506..9.6/.69: ./5461169 1:515:64..0060.5 /95..00650..0.6..54 365: 506.6/.9..94.57..65: '60.0..94..1.:..6/. .9.006.6..15:46250::.6/.6/.6/.65: '60.006 697..: #%#:  .006.5.:6 ..

.9056.9:60..5350 ./.0.. 4  #025:  ' 7:06360.:: 7950..1:.::6. .9491019:279610.94910..: 65::./6.92 691.:4625.5.3::164.79699:.65 5631..5: .90.1&.9 65.3/.:4625..'#:06366..1:4./6..65 &.1:%636 ..065:49:9:7651..1&.94910.9 .9::.6. 9101.90.

5.51643:30..61 &9 55:6...6 9.969&9%:.90 :5.16:631:5.

6 9.51643:30..16:631:5. :5...:.

 .5.:.5 ..9:   :462153.3   .:. !69.:9  9.    .26.5..965 55:6.13. 779 1:. &6. .51:065:5 .7.95 9.: .07.:9.951.. .9..0.33 . 6.26..1.

:069.94910..5.  6976:..5.#910.&069/  7  5631/  7  65::.94910.65.91..1.1:..&069/  7  0.5.65 0.35: /5.65 #910..517950:50.1:.&069/  7  65.:4629 3..6 46976:...50/  7  7950/..91..6.94910.6.3 7910.1: 0.


 7  .

1:.1:..5..9 35: 565.7910.#910...65 /3367950 /3367950  &4629:.91.9/:...94910.1/.6.

35: 565.

.. 7910.1:.:069/  7  65.6..9/:.:069/.9.:4629:.:.51/3: &4629: 0.1/.


 7  !65.


:069/  7  65.:4629: 0.:069/  7  .

1: .794.6.65 69:4629: ...33.97910..69669./6.935:..6569565..91./6.516964 69:4629: .90.6::.94.935:.9.94910.94910.65 9...94910.

6569565.91.6.:4629:  .94910.

.:4629:  . 76:..::60.3.794....9103.1:..51/3:9.6065.:..6565.:.9:2:6.69  35:.65609.  910..9 ..65 4.5: 93..09.1.5694..: ....: 79610.:4625 .97910..6.

.6 910.3.9:2  &..&.5 9::.91::64.3.:79610.91.:6531 .9:.50..4::.4.9 5 5  10.15:4629:.::60.9.3/.::6.7:6 .:15...654.9.6..:.51 .3..: 509..: .:.4::.57673./6. 9:3.19:2:   #9:.59::.507960:::579:.96535:.90..6.1:4.6:.:79610.94910.9..

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful