!
Research!Brief! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! December!2021!
The$Religious$Marriage$Paradox:$Younger$Marriage,$Less$Divorce$
By:$Lyman$Stone$and$Brad$Wilcox$
The$new$marriage$norm$for$American$men$and$women$is$to$marry$around$the$age$of$30,$
according$to$the$U.S.$Census.$Many$young$adults$believe$that$marrying$closer$to$age$30$
reduces$their$risk$of$divorce,$and,$indeed,$there$is$research$consistent$w it h$t hat$belief.$But$we$
also$have$evidence$suggesting$that$religious$Americans$are$less$likely$to$divorce$even$as$they$
are$more$likely$to$marry$younger$than$30.$This$paradoxical$pattern$raises$two$questions$
worth$exploring:$Is$the$way$religious$Americans$form$their$marriages$different$than$the$way$
marriages$are$formed$by$their$more$secular$peers?$And$do$religious$marriages$formed$by$
twenty-somethings$face$different$divorce$odds$than$marriages$formed$by$secular$Americans$
in$the$same$age$group?$
$
The$answer$to$that$last$
question$is$complicated$
by$the$role$of$
cohabitation$in$
contemporary$family$
formation.$Today,$more$
than$70%$of$marriages$
are$preceded$by$
cohabitation,$as$Figure$1$
indicates.$Increased$
cohabitation$is$both$
cause$and$consequence$
of$the$rise$in$the$age$at$
first$marriage.$But$what$
most$young$adults$do$
not$know$is$that$
cohabiting$before$
marriage,$especially$with$someone$besides$your$future$spouse,$is$also$associated$with$an$
!"#$%&'%($risk$of$divorce,$as$a$recent$Stanford$study$reports.$$
$
So,$one$reason$that$religious$marriages$in$America$may$be$more$stable$is$that$religion$
reduces$young$adults’$odds$of$cohabiting$prior$to$marriage,$even$though$it$increases$their$
likelihood$of$marrying$at$a$relatively$young$age.$Accordingly,$in$this$Institute$for$Family$
Studies$research$brief,$we$explore$the$relationships$between$religion,$cohabitation,$age$at$
marriage,$and$divorce$by$looking$at$data$from$the$National$Survey$of$Family$Growth$(NSFG).$
2$
$
$
Researching!Religion!and!Family!
$
To$address$the$questions$addressed$in$this$research$brief,$we$merge$data$from$the$National$
Survey$of$Family$Growth$from$1995$to$2019,$using$responses$from$over$53,000$women$ages$
15$to$49$to$recreate$their$individual-level$family$histories.$(We$focus$on$women$because$men$
were$not$included$in$the$NSFG$until$recently.)
1
$
$
The$NSFG$included$two$important$questions$about$religion:$first,$the$respondent’s$current$
religious$affiliation,$and$second,$what$ rel igion$they$were$raised$in.$Current$religious$affil iation$
is$not$a$very$informative$variable$for$understanding$how$religion$influences$family$life$
because,$for$example,$marriage$might$motivate$people$to$become$more$religious$(or$
cohabitation$might$motivate$people$to$become$less$religious).$But$religious$upbringing$
(measured$by$a$woman’s$reported$religious$denomination$“in$which$she$was$raised”$around$
age$14)$occurs$)%*+$%,the$vast$majority$of$marriages$or$cohabitations,$so$is$not$influenced$by$
them.$$
$
Thus,$we$explore$how$religious$-.)$!"/!"/$influences$family$life.$Young$adults$don’t$choose$
what$religion$they’re$raised$in,$so$this$is$about$as$close$as$we$can$get$to$what$researchers$call$
“exogenous”$treatment,$meaning$something$like$experimental$conditions.$But$because$
religious$upbringing$could$be$correlated$with$many$other$variables,$we$also$include$some$
important$controls:$a$woman’s$educational$status$in$each$year$of$her$life$(i.e.,$enrolled$in$high$
school,$dropped$out,$enrolled$in$college,$college$gradua t e,$etc.),$her$race$or$ethnicity,$her$
mother’s$highest$educational$attainment,$and$whether$she$grew$up$in$an$“intact”$family.$We$
also$control$for$
survey$wave$and$
decade.$
!
Does!Religion!
Influence!
Marriage!and!
Cohabitation?$
$
In$the$1960s,$
about$5%$of$
newlyweds$
cohabited$before$
marriage.$In$the$
2010s,$it$was$
more$than$70%,$
an$enormous$
increase.$Figure$2
2
$
$
1
$We#pool#data#in#much#the#same#way#that#Michael#Rosenfeld#and#Katharina#Roesler#did#in#the#Stanford#study#mentioned#
above,#and#are#appreciative#of#correspondence#with#them#and#their#sharing#of#replication#files,#which#helped#us#to#produce#a#
comparable#approach:#https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.12530.##
2
$Note#(Figure#2):#Control#variables#include#binary#INTACT18#Yes/No;#race/ethnic#coded#as#Non-Hispanic#White,#Non-
Hispanic#Black,#and#Other;#maternal#educational#attainment#coded#in#four#categories;#time-varying#respondent#educational#
attainment#and#enrollment#in#six#categories#constructed#from#NSFG#educational#history#data;#time-varying#dummy#variables#
for#decade;#and#non-time-varying#dummy#variables#for#survey#wave#in#which#a#woman#was#sampled;#time#increments#are#
3$
$
shows,$after$incorporating$the$effects$of$control$variables,$that$in$a$typical$year$of$life,$about$
5%$of$nonreligious$women$ages$18-49$who$have$not$yet$married$or$cohabited$will$begin$a$
cohabiting$union.$That$figure$is$nearer$4%$for$women$with$a$Christian$upbringing,$nearer$3%$
for$women$with$a$non-Christian$religious$upbringing$(i.e.,$Mormons$and$Jehovah’s$Witnesses$
as$well$as$Jews,$Muslims,$Hindus,$and$others),$and$about$4%$for$religious$women$on$the$
whole.$In$other$words,$after$controlling$for$a$variety$of$background$factors,$women$who$grew$
up$religious$are$about$20%$less$likely$to$begin$a$cohabiting$union$in$any$given$year$than$their$
non-religious$peers.$As$a$result,$by$age$35,$about$65%$of$women$with$a$non-religious$
upbringing$had$cohabited$at$least$once,$versus$under$50%$of$women$with$a$religious$
upbringing.$Not$only$does$religion$reduce$the$odds$that$young$adults$cohabit,$it$also$increases$
the$odds$that$they$marry$directly,$or$without$cohabiting$first.$$
$
Figure$3
3
$illustrates$the$links$between$religion$and$what$we$call$(!$%#0,marriages,$that$is,$
marriages$that$did$not$include$premarital$cohabitation.$The$trends$depicted$below$in$Figure$3$
show$up$in$similar$form$for$all$marriages,$but$direct$marriages$are$particularly$important$
because$they$are$a$closer$proxy$for$the$“traditional”$relationship$pathways$promoted$by$
many$religions.$$
$
For$women$with$a$non-religious$upbringing$who$have$not$yet$married$or$cohabited,$about$
1%$are$likely$to$begin$a$direct$marriage$in$a$given$year.$For$religious$people$generally,$it’s$a$
little$more$than$
1.5%.$But$for$
women$with$
Evangelical$
Protestant$or$
Non-Christian$
Religious$
upbringings,$the$
rate$of$entrance$
into$marriage$is$
over$2%:$this$is$
01!#%,the$rate$of$
entrance$into$
“direct”$
marriage.$By$age$
35,$about$28%$of$
women$with$a$
non-religious$
upbringing$had$
entered$a$direct$
marriage$
$
annual#with#5-year#categorical#codes#for#simplified#reporting,#however#when#single-year-of-age#dummies#are#used#results#
are#essentially#identical.#
3
$Note#(Figure#3):#Control#variables#include#binary#INTACT18#Yes/No;#race/ethnic#coded#as#Non-Hispanic#White,#Non-
Hispanic#Black,#and#Other;#maternal#educational#attainment#coded#in#four#categories;#time-varying#respondent#educational#
attainment#and#enrollment#in#six#categories#constructed#from#NSFG#educational#history#data;#time-varying#dummy#variables#
for#decade;#and#non-time-varying#dummy#variables#for#survey#wave#in#which#a#woman#was#sampled;#time#increments#are#
annual#with#5-year#categorical#codes#for#simplified#reporting,#however#when#single-year-of-age#dummies#are#used#results#
are#essentially#identical.#
4$
$
without$cohabiting,$compared$to$approximately$43%$of$women$with$a$religious$upbringing.$
In$other$words,$religiosity$is$associated$with$vastly$greater$likelihood$of$going$directly$from$
singleness$to$a$married$union,$and$generally$at$younger$ages.$$
$
Overall,$then,$religion$greatly$influences$the$nature$and$age$of$relationship$formation.$Young$
women$raised$in$a$religious$home$cohabit$less,$but$they$marry$more,$and$especially$earlier:$in$
this$sample$tracking$marriage$patterns$over$the$last$40$years,$women$with$non-religious$
upbringings$wed$around$age$25,$religious$women$wed$generally$around$age$24,$and$women$
with$Evangelical$Protestant$upbringings$wed$around$23.5.$$
!
Does!Religion!Influence!Breakup!and!Divorce?!
$
Earlier$marriage$is$a$known$risk$factor$for$divorce.$Premarital$cohabitation$is$too.$Since$
religiosity$tends$to$motivate$%&$2!%$,marriage$but$2%'',cohabitation,$the$effects$on$divorce$are$
not$easy$to$guess.$What$we$really$want$to$know$is:$conditional$on$getting$married,$do$
religious$people$get$
divorced$less?$$
$
The$answer$appears$to$
be$yes.$3!04+-0$controls$
for$age$at$marriage$or$an$
indicator$for$premarital$
cohabitation,$women$
with$a$religious$
upbringing$do$have$
slightly$lower$
likelihoods$of$divorce.$
As$shown$in$Figure$4,
4
$
the$annual$divorce$rate$
among$married$women$
with$a$nonreligious$
upbringing$is$around$
5%.$For$religious$
women,$it’s$around$
4.5%.$The$effect$is$clearest$for$Catholic$and$Mainline$Protestant$women,$and$less$clear$for$
Evangelical$Protestant$women.$Overall,$if$we$control$for$basic$socioeconomic$background$and$
a$woman’s$educational$career$trajectory,$the$typical$marriage$of$a$woman$with$a$religious$
upbringing$is$about$10%$less$likely$to$end$in$divorce$within$the$first$15$years$of$marriage$
than$the$typical$marriage$of$a$woman$with$a$non-religious$upbringing.$
$
Adding$controls$for$age$at$marriage$yields$about$the$same$results,$suggesting$that$even$
though$religious$people$get$married$younger,$their$divorce$rates$are$still$a$bit$lower.$But$it$
may$just$be$that$religious$people$cohabit$less,$and$that$is$what$drives$the$reduction$in$
divorce.$To$assess$this$point,$we$analyze$only$marriages$with$no$premarital$cohabitation,$and$
$
4
$Note#(Figure#4):#Control#variables#include#binary#INTACT18#Yes/No;#race/ethnic#coded#as#Non-Hispanic#White,#Non-
Hispanic#Black,#and#Other;#maternal#educational#attainment#coded#in#four#categories;#time-varying#respondent#educational#
attainment#and#enrollment#in#six#categories#constructed#from#NSFG#educational#history#data;#time-varying#dummy#variables#
for#decade;#and#non-time-varying#dummy#variables#for#survey#wave#in#which#a#woman#was#sampled;#time#increments#are#
year#of#marriage#up#to#the#year#16.#
5$
$
find$no$effect$of$religion:$women$with$a$religious$upbringing$have$about$the$same$likelihood$
of$divorce$as$other$women$with$the$same$relationship$history$and$socioeconomic$status.$
Most$of$the$benefit$of$
religiosity$in$terms$of$
reducing$divorce$occurs$
because$religious$
marriages$are$more$likely$
to$be$(!$%#0,marriages,$
rather$than$marriages$with$
premarital$cohabitation.$In$
other$words,$one$reason$
that$women$raised$in$a$
religious$home$are$less$
likely$to$divorce$is$that$
they$are$less$likely$to$
cohabit$prior$to$marrying.$
$
But$while$less$cohabitation$
explains$5+'0,of$the$
benefit,$it$does$not$explain$
&22,of$it.$We$also$estimated$
specific$divorce$rates$by$
marital$duration$for$
marriages$of$women$with$
religious$or$non-religious$
upbringings,$split$by$the$age$at$which$they$got$married.$Because$this$creates$very$small$
sample$sizes,$differences$by$religion$were$not$always$statistically$significant,$so$results$must$
be$interpreted$with$caution.$$
$
Figure$5
5
$shows$the$estimated$annual$divorce$probability$with$all$the$same$control$variables,$
but$with$estimates$produced$separately$for$women$with$different$religious$upbringings$and$
marriage$types.$Figure$5$makes$it$possible$to$answer$three$specific$questions:$what$is$the$
effect$of$premarital$cohabitation?$What$is$the$effect$of$age$at$marriage?$And$what$is$the$effect$
of$religious$upbringing?$$
!
Premarital!Cohabitation!
$
Starting$with$premarital$cohabitation,$women$with$direct$marriages$(the$darker-colored$
bars)$tended$to$have$lower$divorce$rates$than$women$with$the$same$religious$background$
and$the$same$age$at$marriage,$but$who$married$after$cohabiting.$This$was$%'.%#!&226$true$for$
religious$women$who$married$before$age$25.$For$women$marrying$after$age$30,$the$
relationship$seems$to$flip,$though$estimates$are$less$reliable$because,$since$we$can$only$
observe$women$until$a$maximum$of$age$44$in$some$survey$waves$and$age$49$in$others,$
women$who$married$past$age$30$had$fewer$years$of$marriage$included$in$the$analysis.$But$
$
5
$Note#(Figure#5):#Control#variables#include#binary #INTACT18 #Ye s / No;#race/ethnic #co ded#as#Non -Hispanic#White,#Non-
Hispanic#Black,#and#Other;#maternal#educationa l#attain ment#coded #in#fo u r #ca te g o r ie s ;#time-varying#respondent#educational#
attainment#and#enrollment#in#six#categories#constructed#from#NSFG#educational#history#data;#time-varying#dummy#variables#
for#decade;#and#non-time-varying#dummy#variables#for#survey#wave#in#which#a#woman#was#sampled;#time#increments#are#
year#of#marriage#up#to#the#year#16.#
6$
$
.&$0!#-2&$26$for$youthful$marriages$before$age$20$or$in$the$early$20s,$cohabiting$before$
marriage$appears$to$be$a$major$risk$factor$for$divorce.$
!
Age!at!Marriage!
$
Age$at$marriage$also$matters,$but$in$different$ways$for$different$groups.$For$religious$women$
who$cohabitated$before$marriage,$age$is$extremely$important.$Women$raised$in$a$religious$
household$who$cohabit$have$very$high$divorce$risks$if$they$marry$before$age$20,$but$the$
lowest$risks$of$any$group$of$women$who$marry$in$their$30s.$For$women$raised$in$a$
nonreligious$home$who$cohabited$before$marriage,$delaying$marriage$from$the$teens$into$the$
mid-20s$may$reduce$divorce$risk,$but$delaying$marriage$into$the$30s$doesn’t$appear$to$lower$
the$divorce$risk$at$all,$and$may$even$be$associated$with$a$4!/4%$$risk.$That$is$to$say,$for$
nonreligious$women$who$cohabitated$before$marriage,$there$is$something$like$a$Nike-swoosh$
shape$to$divorce$risks.$Our$results$parallel $ the$work$of$sociologist$Nicholas$Wolfinger$here.$
For$these$women,$getting$married$in$their$late$20s$maximizes$marital$stability.$
$
For$religious$women$who$had$direct$marriages,$marrying$before$age$20$does$have$some$
risks,$but$by$age$20-24,$age$at$marriage$doesn’t$appear$to$carry$as$much$weight:$religious$
women$who$marry$directly$have$the$same$likelihood$of$divorce$if$they$get$married$at$age$20-
24$or$age$25-29,$with$a$modest$increase$in$their$30s.$$
And$finally,$the$same$trend$holds$for$non-religious$women$in$direct$marriages:$they$have$
somewhat$elevated$divorce$risks$if$they$marry$before$age$20,$low$and$stable$risks$during$
their$20s,$and$somewhat$higher$risks$if$they$marry$in$their$30s.$However,$because$the$sample$
size$of$these$non-religious$women$marrying$in$their$twenties$is$much$smaller,$error$margins$
are$extremely$wide.$
$
These$results$suggest$delaying$marriage$doesn’t$always$make$it$more$stable.$If$marriage$is$
delayed$)6,#+4&)!0!"/,!"'0%&(,$divorce$risks$are$higher:$non-religious$women$with$prior$
cohabitation$who$married$in$their$late$20s$or$30s$have$the$same$or$higher$divorce$rates$as$
non-religious$women$who$married$directly$or$without$cohabiting$first,$in$their$early$20s.$
Postponing$marriage$by$substituting$cohabitation$may$not$reduce$divorce$risks.$Moreover,$
for$many$groups,$(%'.!0%,not$observing$many$latter-marriage$years$where$divorce$might$have$
occurred,$divorce$risks$among$those$who$marry$at$age$30$or$older$rose$for$many$groups.$Our$
results$suggest$there$may$be$a$“sweet$spot”$for$marriage$in$the$20s:$early$20s$for$direct-
marriers,$and$late-20s$for$cohabiters.$Postponement$beyond$that$age$does$little$for$marital$
stability,$judging$by$the$NSFG$data.$
!
Conclusion!
$
It$is$commonly$believed$that$postponing$marriage$until$the$late-20s$or$early-30s$reduces$the$
odds$of$divorce,$because$greater$maturity$results$in$a$wiser$choice$of$a$partner,$and$there’s$
some$truth$to$this.$However,$there’s$a$significant$complexity$under$the$surface:$the$life$
orientations$associated$with$delayed$marriage$are$often$also$associated$with$(and$even$
causal$of)$greater$acceptance$of$premarital$cohabitation,$which$is$also$linked$to$a$higher$risk$
of$divorce.$The$net$result$of$this$is$that$life$orientations$that$motivate$earlier$marriage,$like$
religiosity,$do$not$necessarily$create$the$higher$l ik elihoods$of$divorce$usually$associated$with$
early$marriage$because$they$discourage$cohabitation.$Yes,$very$young$marriage$still$has$risks$
(as$does$very$late$marriage),$but$religious$upbringings$seem$to$partly$compensate$for$those$
risks,$especially$among$women$marrying$in$their$20s.$
7$
$
$
Our$results$also$suggest$that$religion$fosters$relationship$stability$by$pushing$young$adults$
away$from$cohabitation,$which$is$highly$unstable,$and$towards$marriage,$which$is$much$more$
stable.$It’s$notable$that$figure$5$did$not$show$meaningful$differences$in$divorce$rates$between$
religious$and$non-religious$women$who$4&(,04%,'&5%,$%2&0!+"'4!.,4!'0+$!%':$religion$seems$to$
impact$relationships$mostly$by$changing$the$kind$of$union$a$woman$enters$in$young$
adulthood,$not$its$durability$once$formed.$Insofar$as$religion$#4&"/%',04%,06.%,+*,-"!+",that$
women$begin$as$young$adults,$and$since$dissolution$likelihoods$vary$widely$by$union$type,$
the$effect$of$religion$on$women’s$experience$of$union$instability$can$be$huge.$Figure$6
6
$
provides$a$simple$illustration$of$divorce$or$breakup$risk$by$year,$by$union$type.$,
$
Women$who$were$raised$religious$are$more$likely$to$have$a$first$union$which$is$a$direct$first$
marriage,$and$so$their$first$unions$are$more$likely$to$experience$breakup$risks$similar$to$the$
light$blue$bar$at$left.$Non-religious$women$are$much$more$likely$to$cohabit$as$their$first$
union,$which$has$
astronomically$higher$
breakup$risks,$as$shown$
in$the$red$bar$at$right.$$
$
The$effect$of$
cohabitation$on$
marriage$is$indeed$
statistically$significant$
(premarital$
cohabitation$increases$
divorce$probabilities$by$
about$15%),$but$the$
biggest$effect$religion$
has$on$union$stability$
isn’t$about$14&0,
4&..%"',+"#%,&,1+5&",
!',5&$$!%(,$but$more$
about$her$relationship$
choices$before$
marriage—the$fact$that$she$(!(,get$married,$rather$than$start$a$series$of$cohabiting$
relationships.$To$the$extent$that$the$ effect s$associated$with$religious$upbringing$are$ causal,$
they$show$that$religiosity$could$dramatically$reduce$women’s$experience$of$relationship$
instability$in$early$adulthood.$
$
What$remains$unclear$is$4+1,religion$may$foster$more$stable$marriages.$There$are$three$
broad$possibilities:$religion$might$induce$people$to$“make$lemons$out$of$lemonade,”$it$might$
give$people$institutional$or$community$support,$or$it$might$positively$alter$the$quality$of$
romantic$pairings.$$
$
$
6
$Note#(Figure#6):#Control#variables#include#binary#INTACT18#Yes/No;#race/ethnic#coded#as#Non-Hispanic#White,#Non-
Hispanic#Black,#and#Other;#maternal#educational#attainment#coded#in#four#categories;#time-varying#respondent#educational#
attainment#and#enrollment#in#six#categories#constructed#from#NSFG#educational#history#data;#time-varying#dummy#variables#
for#decade;#age#at#unio n #for mation#in#five#categories;#and#non-time-varying#dummy#variables#for#survey#wave#in#which#a#
woman#was#sampled;#time#increments#are#year#of#union#up#to#the#year#16.#
8$
$
The$first$explanation$is$simple,$if$pessimistic.$If$religion$induces$women$who$1+-2(,4&7%,
entered$a$cohabiting$union$to$get$married$instead,$maybe$those$marriages$aren’t$better$
quality$than$the$cohabiting$union$would$have$been,$but$because$of$their$religious$views,$these$
women$choose$to$not$divorce.$$
$
The$second$possibility$is$that$religion$actually$changes$the$experience$of$being$married.$
Religious$communities$might$provide$institutional$support$to$married$couples:$other$married$
couple$friends$to$provide$peers$and$support,$community$or$pastoral$interventions$to$correct$
spousal$behavior,$material$or$financial$support$in$times$of$hardship,$etc.$$
$
And$finally,$religion$may$change$exactly$who$women$marry$in$important$ways.$First,$religion$
could$alter$the$potential$spouses$to$which$women$are$exposed.$Via$church$communities,$
religious$women$may$be$able$to$access$a$larger$and$more$marriage-friendly$pool$of$potential$
spouses.$Second,$religion$could$alter$the$criteria$that$women$have$for$selecting$partners.$
Knowing$that$cohabitation$is$disfavored$and$desiring$the$companionship$of$a$committed$
union,$religious$women$might$more$actively$pursue$“husband$material”$partners$earlier$in$
life$than$other$women.$Third,$religion$might$alter$the$dynamics$between$partners$in$
important$ways.$Religious$women$might$look$for$spouses$who$share$values,$beliefs,$or$
practices$that$are$important$for$union$stability.$Sharing$these$values$might$reduce$the$
potential$for$conflict$down$the$road.$
$
Exactly$which$of$these$factors$is$at$work$is$difficult$to$say.$But$one$way$or$another,$this$
Institute$for$Family$Studies$research$brief$suggests$that$waiting$to$marry$until$you’re$30$does$
not$always$increase$your$odds$of$forging$a$stable$marriage.$Especially$for$religious$men$and$
women$who$avoid$cohabitation,$our$analysis$of$the$NSFG$indicates$that$they$can$marry$in$
their$20s$without$serious$adverse$divorce$risks.$The$upshot$of$all$this$is$that$the$religious$
model$of$marriage$and$family$appears$to$boost$the$odds$that$young$adults$can$marry$before$
30$without$increasing$their$risk$of$landing$in$divorce$court.$
,
865&",90+"%,!',&,:%'%&$#4,;%22+1,&0,04%,<"'0!0-0%,*+$,;&5!26,90-(!%'=,>4!%*,<"*+$5&0!+",?**!#%$,+*,
04%,.+.-2&0!+",$%'%&$#4,*!$5,@%5+/$&.4!#,<"0%22!/%"#%=,&"(,&",A(B-"#0,;%22+1,&0,04%,A5%$!#&",
C"0%$.$!'%,<"'0!0-0%D,E$&(,3!2#+F,!',@!$%#0+$,+*,04%,G&0!+"&2,H&$$!&/%,I$+B%#0,&0,04%,J"!7%$'!06,
+*,K!$/!"!&,&"(,&,9%"!+$,;%22+1,+*,04%,<"'0!0-0%,*+$,;&5!26,90-(!%'D,
©$>+.6$!/40,LMLN,<"'0!0-0%,*+$,;&5!26,90-(!%'D,
$
$
,
