This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 03 February 2014, At: 04:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Basic and Applied SocialPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hbas20

Attitudes TowardVoluntary and InvoluntaryChildlessnessClaudia Lampman & Seana Dowling-GuyerPublished online: 22 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Claudia Lampman & Seana Dowling-Guyer (1995) AttitudesToward Voluntary and Involuntary Childlessness, Basic and Applied SocialPsychology, 17:1-2, 213-222

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973533.1995.9646140

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any

form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

42 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1995, 17(1 & 2), 213-222 Copyright o 1995, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Attitudes Toward Voluntary and Involuntary Childlessness

Claudia Lampman and Seana Dowling-Guyer University of Alaska Anchorage

Prior research has documented negative attitudes toward the voluntarily childless. Although research indicates that infertile couples perceive their condition to be discrediting, the extent to which the public considers involuntary childlessness as a negative attribute is unclear. Infertility might be construed by many to be a disease of professional couples overly concerned with careers or too stressed to conceive. In this experiment, 215 university students read one of six scenarios describing a couple as either: (a) voluntarily childless, involuntarily childless, or having children; or (b) holding profes- sional or nonprofessional employment. Subjects rated each member of the couple on 26 characteristics (e.g., ambitious, caring, and stressed) and responded to 12 items concerning the quality and strength of the couple's relationship. Results support prior research demonstrating a stigma of voluntary childlessness but suggest that involuntary childlessness is not universally stigmatizing and may actually lead to some positive attributions. Recommendations for future research and applications are discussed.

It is estimated that as many as one in five couples will have difficulty conceiving (Goodman & Rothman, 1984; Leader, Taylor, & Daniluk, 1984; Menning, 1980) and that approximately half of these couples will never have a biological child of their own (Goodman & Rothrnan, 1984; Leader, Taylor, & Daniluk, 1984). Moreover, infertile couples often endure years of painful, costly, and time-consuming medical tests and treatment. Research indicates that the process of coping with fertility problems is significantly stressful, affecting one's self-image, emotional stability, and relationships with other people (Fleming & Burry, 1987; Forrest & Gilbert, 1992; Frank, 1984; Goodman & Rothman, 1984; Menning, 1980). Although social

Requests for reprints should be sent to Claudia Lampman, Department of Psychology, University of Alaska, 3211 Providence Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508-8224.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

42 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

21 4 LAMPMAN AND DOWLING-GUYER

support (especially communicating with other infertile individuals) has been found to be helpful (Goodman & Rothman, 1984), studies also suggest that many social relationships are strained by infertility (Goodman & Rothman, 1984). Infertile individuals (particularly women) report that it is quite difficult to spend time around children or pregnant women, even if it means suspending friendships and avoiding family gatherings. Such encounters are not only reminders of one's infertility but are also likely to lead to difficult questions about family plans (Miall, 1986). Thus, the issue of whether (or to what degree) to disclose fertility problems is a difficult decision faced by all infertile couples.

In addition to coping with the stressors of infertility management, such as financing treatment and disclosing fertility problems, many infertile couples face childlessness for at least some period in their lives.' Unfortunately, childlessness is often the only sign of infertility that society sees. Because norms dictate that couples should have (and should want to have) children (Miall, 1985), childlessness is a form of nonnormative, and thus potentially stigmatizing, behavior. Research indicates that voluntarily childless couples are seen as unhappily married, psychologically maladjusted, emotionally immature, materialistic, career driven, selfish, lonely, unhappy, and mis- guided in their choice to remain childless (Blake, 1979; Mid , 1986; Peterson, 1983; Veevers, 1980).

Infertile individuals may also be subject to some of these negative views of childlessness. This may be due, in part, to misconceptions of naive observers that a couple's childlessness is by choice. Commission of the fundamental attribution error- the tendency to make a dispositional rather than situational attribution of others' behavior (Ross & Nisbett, 1991)- may expose infertile couples to negative attitudes stemming from the belief that they are willingly childless.

Research documents that individuals coping with involuntary childless- ness perceive their childless status as stigmatizing (Miall, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989). Surprisingly, however, it is the involuntary nature of the childless- ness that is troublesome. M i d (1986) found that infertile women believed disclosure of fertility problems would lead others to think less of them; these women believed infertility represented some sort of failure. Interviews with infertile women indicate that they perceive others believe infertility is caused by psychological or sexual problems, usually attributable to the female member of the couple (Miall, 1985). Infertile women have reported receiving advice to relax, take vacations, stop working so hard, quit their jobs, stop being so anxious, and even adopt a child as methods to "cure"

'Not all infertile couples are childless. Infertility is a medical condition, whereas childless- ness is a demographic condition. Infertility can develop after a couple already has biological, adopted, or stepchildren.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

42 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY CHILDLESSNESS 21 5

infertility (Lampman & Dowling-Guyer, 1993; Miall, 1985). Not only does research fail to support the notion that psychological problems or stress are major precipitating factors in infertility, there is also no evidence to suggest that stress reduction (such as adoption) leads to improved fertility (Rock, Tietze, & McLaughlin, 1965). However, if stress is seen as a cause of infertility by the general public, it is important to determine whether certain intrapersonal characteristics are believed to be the source of this stress (rather than anxiety surrounding the failure to conceive). For example, infertile individuals may be viewed as too anxious or stressed to conceive because they are seen as overly concerned with their careers or too driven to get pregnant. Infertility, therefore, may be seen as a disease of professional couples who are suffering from excessive career-related stress or are postponing parenthood to further careers (especially for women whose fertility declines with age).

Although the involuntarily childless perceive their condition to be discrediting, the extent to which the general public actually considers it a negative attribute is unclear. A review of the literature indicates that no recent research has been conducted to address the general public's attitudes toward infertility or involuntary childlessness. It is probable that recent technological advances in the treatment of infertility, such as in-vitro fertilization and gamete intra-fallopian transfer, have increased both media attention to and thus awareness of the problem.

In 1978, Polit surveyed 192 adults to assess stereotypes relating to family size. She found that parents of only children and voluntarily childless couples were viewed more negatively than families with more than one child. In fact, Polit (1978) found that involuntarily childless couples and parents with as many as eight children were rated highly in terms of social desirability. The fact that such positive attitudes existed toward a very large family makes the generalizability of these findings to 1994 questionable.

Over 15 years ago, Calhoun and Selby (1980) conducted an experimental social perception study assessing college students' attitudes toward child- lessness. Subjects in this study received information about a married couple applying for a bank loan; then, they rated each member of the couple on perceived psychological adjustment and disturbance, likelihood of seeking a divorce within 10 years, and subjects' liking for each spouse. Both the voluntarily and involuntarily childless husband was viewed as more psycho- logically disturbed than the husband with children. Moreover, subjects' degree of liking for the wife and the wife's perceived psychological adjustment were lower when the couple was described as voluntarily rather than involuntarily childless. Although the results point toward some negative stereotypes of both voluntarily and involuntarily childless men, the results generally indicate no negative stereotypical views of an involuntarily childless women.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

42 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

21 6 LAMPMAN AND DOWLING-GUYER

There is a limitation of this study that should be addressed in future research. The woman in Calhoun and Selby's (1980) study was described as a childless homemaker. Attitudes may be different toward a woman holding a job because job-related stress may be seen as a cause of infertility- especially for a woman in a professional position. Consequently, future research on attitudes toward involuntary childlessness should include descriptions of a woman who works outside the home.

The purpose of our study was to explore attitudes toward voluntary versus involuntary childlessness among the general public. An experimental design was used to compare the perceived attributes and characteristics of a couple described as follows: (a) involuntarily childless, (b) voluntarily childless, or (c) having children. To investigate whether professional, childless couples (especially women) may be viewed more negatively than nonprofessional couples, both members of the couple were described as holding jobs, and the professional status of the jobs was manipulated. Each member of the couple was rated on a number of psychological attributes, including characteristics identified in previous research with both volun- tarily and involuntarily childless couples to be stigmatizing. In addition, the couple was rated on a number of items concerning the strength and quality of their relationship.

METHOD

Subjects

A total of 215 undergraduate students enrolled in introductory psychology and sociology classes at the University of Alaska Anchorage served as subjects. Sixty-six percent of the subjects were girls. The mean age was 25.1 years (SD = 8.1), with a range from 18 to 55.2 Over 78% of the subjects were White, 6% African American, 5% Hispanic, and 4% Alaska Native or Eskimo. Sixty-six percent of the subjects were singIe, 20% married, and 11% separated or divorced. Seventy-two percent were without children, whereas 28% had at least one child. Subjects were volunteers who received extra credit for participating in the study.

Instrument

Subjects read one of six scenarios describing a couple. An example of the scenario is as follows:

'The original sample included 227 university students. Twelve 56- to 62-year-old subjects were dropped from the sample. Although the age distribution is still significantly skewed, it reflects the nontraditional makeup of the University of Alaska Anchorage. Furthermore, age was not significantly correlated with the dependent variables.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

42 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY CHILDLESSNESS 21 7

Jim and Rebecca Taylor have been married for 7 years. Jim is 33 years old; Rebecca is 30. They met at a party given by a mutual friend and decided to get married about 1 year later. Jim and Rebecca live in Anchorage and want very much to have children, although they are unable to have children of their own [italics added]. Both Jim and Rebecca have been steadily employed throughout their marriage. Jim has been an auto mechanic [italics added] for 10 years, and Rebecca has been a beautician [italics added] at a local shop for the past 6 years. Together, they earn about $60,000 per year.

Child status was varied by describing the couple as "having two children" or "not planning on having any children." Professional status was varied by changing the couple's jobs to a bank manager (Jim) and career counselor (~ebecca).~ Salary remained constant to control for differences due to fi- nancial security rather than professional status. Subjects then rated Jim and Rebecca separately on 26 characteristics using 7-point bipolar scales. Items included happy-unhappy, lonely-not lonely, ambitious-unambitious, successful-not successful, sensitive-insensitive, stressed-not stressed, anxious-not anxious, confident-not confident, reliable-unreliable, competent-incompetent, and loving-not loving. Subjects also rated the strength and quality of the couple's relationship on 12 items using a 5-point scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). These items included the likelihood of staying married, whether they had a happy mar- riage, whether their sex life was fulfilling, whether they worried about the future, whether they argued over money, and whether they would have a good life together.

Procedure

Subjects were asked to participate in a study about impression formation. After providing informed consent, subjects were randomly assigned to groups and read one of the six scenarios in this 3 x 2 between-groups factorial study. Independent variables consisted of child status (having children, involuntarily childless, or voluntarily childless) and professional status (professional employment vs. nonprofessional employment). After reading the scenario, subjects rated Jim and Rebecca separately and as a couple on a variety of characteristics. Then, they completed a demographics questionnaire assessing subjects' age, sex, marital status, number of chil- dren, religious affiliation, and race/ethnicity.

3 ~ i l o t testing of the stimulus materials revealed that both manipulations (child status and professional status) were successful. Subjects' attended to the information and rated the couple differently depending on condition.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

42 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

Data Analysis

Several scales were formed by taking the mean of subjects' responses on a series of items.4 The first scale, Drive, was formed by averaging responses to nine items: ambitious, determined, hardworking, successful, success oriented, competent, confident, reliable, and well-adjusted. Internal con- sistency for this scale was quite high for ratings of both Jim (Cronbach's alpha = .89) and Rebecca (alpha = .92). A second scale, Caring, consisted of responses to the following items: caring, loving, sincere, kind, sensitive, and nurturing (alpha = .87 and .91 for Jim and Rebecca, respectively). A third scale, Emotional Health, assessed six items: stressed, lonely, feels sorry for herself/himself, anxious, feels inferior, and happy (alphas = .67 and .76 for Jim and Rebecca, respectively). Finally, a fourth scale, Relationship, was formed by taking the mean response to the 12 items concerning the quality and strength of the couple's relationship (alpha = .84).

RESULTS

Data were analyzed using a series of 3 x 2 x 2 (Child Status x Professional Status x Sex of Subject) analyses of variance (ANOVAs). The Drive, Caring, and Emotional Health scales were significantly intercorrelated; therefore, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was chosen to test hypotheses with these scales.

Separate MANOVAs were used to examine the effects of child status, professional status, and sex for ratings of Jim and Rebecca on the Drive, Caring, and Emotional Health scales. No significant multivariate interac- tions involving the main independent variable of interest (child status) were found for either ratings of Jim or Rebecca. There was a significant multivariate main effect of child status for Jim, F(6, 396) = 2.20, p < .05, due to significant univariate effects of both Drive, F(2, 200) = 3.09, p < .05, and Caring, F(2, 200) = 4.66, p < .01. Jim was rated as significantly less driven when portrayed as voluntarily childless (M = 4.75) than when described as either involuntarily childless (M = 5.31) or having children (M = 5.1 1). He was also seen as less caring (M = 4.57) when characterized as childless by choice than when depicted as unable to have children (M = 4.98) or as a father of two (M = 5.23).

There was also a significant multivariate Professional Status x Sex interaction for Jim, F(3, 198) = 3.72, p < .05, apparently due to extremely

4A factor analysis conducted during pilot testing of the instruments was used to guide formation of these scales.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

42 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY CHILDLESSNESS 21 9

strong views about Jim's level of Drive, F(l,200) = 9.04, p < .0l. Jim was rated as much more driven (especially by female subjects) when described as a bank manager (M = 5.09 for male subjects and M = 5.53 for female subjects) than when said to be an auto mechanic (M = 4.93 for male subjects and M = 4.62 for female subjects).

A MANOVA on ratings of Rebecca also yielded a significant multivariate main effect of child status, F(6, 396) = 4.83, p < .001. The multivariate main effect of child status for Rebecca, however, was related to significant univariate main effects on all three scales: Drive, F(2,200) = 4.41, p < .01; Caring, F(2, 200) = 6.15, p < .01; and Emotional Health, F(2, 200) = 4.85, p < .01. Rebecca was viewed as significantly less driven when described as planning not to have children (M = 4.77) than when described as having children (M = 5.17) or as unable to have children (M = 5.28). Similarly, she was rated as less caring (M = 4.91) when described as voluntarily childless than when said to be involuntarily childless (M = 5.53) or a mother (M = 5.54). Finally, Rebecca was seen as significantly less emotionally healthy when depicted as involuntarily childless (M = 4.24) than when described as having two children (M = 4.67). Ratings of Rebecca when involuntarily childless, however, did not differ significantly from her ratings when she was described as childless by choice (M = 4.57).

As for Jim, a significant multivariate Professional Status x Sex interac- tion was found for Rebecca, F(3, 198) = 3.59, p < .05. Again, this interaction was primarily due to a significant univariate effect of Drive, F(1, 200) = 10.65, p < .001. Rebecca was rated as most driven by female subjects when depicted as holding a professional position as a career counselor (M = 5.65 for female subjects and M = 4.90 for male subjects) than when described as having a nonprofessional job as a beautician (M = 4.71 for female subjects and M = 4.78 for male subjects).

A 3 x 2 x 2 ANOVA with the Relationship scale as the dependent variable also indicated a significant main effect of child status, F(2,201) = 4.94, p < .01. The couple's relationship was rated significantly more positively when Jim and Rebecca were depicted as involuntarily childless (M = 3.75) than when they were portrayed as voluntarily childless (M = 3.46) or as having two children (M = 3.56).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study suggest that childlessness can be a discrediting attribute for both those childless by choice and by chance. However, involuntary childlessness is clearly not uniformly stigmatizing and may even lead to certain positive attributions.

Subjects who read about a voluntarily childless couple rated the male

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

42 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

220 LAMPMAN AND DOWLING-GUYER

member of the couple as less caring and driven than subjects who read about an involuntarily childless couple or a couple with children. The female member of the couple was also rated as less driven and caring when childless by choice. However, she was seen as more emotionally healthy when described as a mother than when depicted as childless (voluntarily or involuntarily). Although the female member of the couple was described as more anxious and stressed when involuntarily childless, it does not appear that such stress was attributed to her career or an intense drive to conceive. The professional status of the couple did not interact with family constel- lation to influence attitudes, suggesting that professional couples are not viewed as more susceptible to infertility. The female member of the couple was also not rated as any more driven when portrayed as involuntarily childless than when described as a mother. Coping with involuntary childlessness may simply be viewed as more distressing for women than men. Alternatively, the methodology of this study may have influenced the results. Because both the professional man and woman were rated as more driven than those described as holding nonprofessional employment, we can be somewhat confident that these results are not just due to a failure of the manipulation. However, the choice of professional jobs (bank manager and career counselor) may not have manipulated job-related stress strongly enough. In a future study, researchers may vary the amount of career- or job-related stress for an involuntarily childless couple to examine whether it is seen as a source of infertility. Researchers may also wish to examine attitudes among a more heterogeneous sample of subjects, as our findings should not be generalized beyond university students.

Ratings of the couple's relationship were most positive for the involun- tarily childless couple. This positive perception does not support research suggesting that infertility causes others to think less of the infertile (Miall, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989). It may suggest, in fact, that infertile couples are seen as more committed to family life because of their motivation to conceive. Or, infertility may be seen as a life crisis that brings a couple closer together. It is important to discern whether the general public views infertility as a significantly stressful life event that should be afforded the same social courtesies (e.g., leaving work early or scheduling work or social events around treatment) as other difficult events. Because many infertility treatments are not covered by medical insurance, it is also important for researchers to examine whether the general public views infertility as a medical condition. If people perceive that infertility is not a major life crisis, they may see fertility treatment as elective and not deserving of insurance coverage. This information could be quite useful to those lobbying for insurance coverage of fertility treatment.

Taken together, the results of this experiment suggests that disclosure of fertility problems will not necessarily be met with negative attitudes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

42 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY CHILDLESSNESS 221

Although infertile couples may perceive their condition to be discrediting, this study provides little evidence to support that widespread negative attitudes exist. However, our results confirm that voluntary childlessness is discrediting. Being a member of a couple planning to remain childless appears to make one vulnerable to a host of negative attitudes, including being viewed as lazy, insensitive, lonely, and unhappy. Unfortunately, people may respond to a couple's childlessness indiscriminately, not knowing whether it is by choice. Because many infertile couples also experience childlessness and may choose not to disclose the reasons why, they may fall victim to the negative attitudes usually reserved for the voluntarily childless. Couples choosing child-free living as a resolution to infertility may also have to deal with such attitudes as a time when their childlessness is a very salient part of the relationship. Future studies should address reactions to childlessness when the reason (voluntary vs. involun- tary) is unknown. It is quite possible people assume childlessness is voluntary, as we have a tendency to make personal attributions over situational attributions when judging the behavior of others (Ross & Nisbett, 1991).

The process of coping with involuntary childlessness or living as a childless couple can be affected significantly by societal norms and atti- tudes. The reactions of people in both one's intimate and general social milieu can either positively or negatively affect the coping process. There- fore, understanding potential reactions to childlessness is essential for health care providers and counselors helping individuals manage and cope with infertility and for couples choosing child-free living, either as a resolution to infertility or as a lifestyle choice.

REFERENCES

Blake, J. (1979). Is zero preferred? American attitudes toward childlessness in 1970. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 245-257.

Calhoun, L. G., & Selby, J. W. (1980). Voluntary childlessness, involuntary childlessness, and having children: A study of social perceptions. Family Relations, 29, 181-183.

Fleming, J., & Burry, K. (1987). Coping with infertility. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 6, 37-41.

Forrest, L., & Gilbert, M. S. (1992). Infertility: An unanticipated and prolonged life crisis. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 44, 42-58.

Frank, D. I. (1984). Counseling the infertile couple. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing, 22, 17-23.

Goodman, K., & Rothman, B. (1984). Group work in infertility treatment. Social Work with Groups, 7, 79-97.

Lampman, C., & Dowlimg-Guyer, S. (1993, September). Psychological aspects of infertility: Research findings and recommendations. Paper presented at the RESOLVE Insights Into Infertility Conference, Anchorage, Alaska.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

42 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

222 LAMPMAN AND DOWLING-GUYER

Leader, A., Taylor, P. J., & Daniluk, J. (1984). Infertility: Clinical and psychological aspects. Psychiatric Annals, 14, 461-467.

Menning, B. (1980). The emotional needs of infertile couples. Fertility and Sterility, 34, 313-319.

Miall, C. E. (1985). Perceptions of informal sanctioning and the stigma of involuntary childlessness. Deviant Behavior, 6, 383-403.

Miall, C. E. (1986). The stigma of involuntary childlessness. Social Problems, 33, 268-282. Miall, C . E. (1987). The stigma of adoptive parent status: Perceptions of community attitudes

toward adoption and the experience of informal social sanctioning. Family Relations, 36, 34-39.

Miall, C. E. (1989). Reproductive technology vs. the stigma of involuntary childlessness. Social Casework: The Journaf of Contemporary Social Work, 70, 43-50.

Peterson, R. A. (1983). Attitudes toward the childless spouse. Sex Roles, 9, 321-331. Polit, D. F. (1978). Stereotypes relating to family-size status. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 40, 105-1 14. Rock, J., Tietze, C., & McLaughlin, M. B. (1965). Effect of adoption in infertility. Fertility

and Sterility, 16, 305-312. Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives in social

psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Veevers, J. (1980). Childless by choice. Toronto: Butterworth.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

42 0

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

014