This article is based on the “Religion and Human Rights 2,0” research, a survey carried out in Croatia (N = 1286) conducted on high school, Gymnasium, students 17-19 years old. It examines the influence of parents’ religiosity on the religious practice of adolescents among Catholics (N = 1097). There are three dominant questions to be addressed in the article: a) how much and how does the religiosity of their parents influence the religious practice of young people? b) how much does the religiosity of parents affect the specific dimensions of religious practice (the frequency of prayer, the frequency of going to church) of young people? c) does the impact of the parent’s religiosity on the child differ in cases where they are both the same sex and in cases in which they are not? The results, obtained by a series of linear regression analyses show that in a) and b) there is some influence of the religiosity of parents on young people. It is also shown that c) there is a dominant influence of the same-sex parent on the child in this respect (mother-daughter, father-son), while the incentive or compulsion to go to mass shows the effect only in the father-daughter dyad. The findings confirm the importance of parental religiosity for youth religiosity a little bit more for church attendance than for the frequency of prayer. They call for the use of elements of parental religiosity in the research of youth religiosity. They also point to the greater effect of parents’ religious beliefs and the importance they attach to their child’s religiosity than the coercion/incentive to religious practices.
The impression of “eluding religion” in the face of trying to define it, to understand it and explore it weakens when we approach it in a way suggested by Esad Ćimić in 1988. “There are three possible levels of approach to religion, i.e. there are three basic forms of existence of religion: religion per se, religion as a socio-historical fact and religion as a personal experience. Religion per se is the ideal form of the existence of religion. It does not exclude and renounce the value of historical and personal forms of the appearance of religion, but rather designs them, serving them as a benchmark. Religion in itself is an ideal option that constantly reminds us of the difference between sacred and secular. Entering social and historical life, religion takes on the qualities of the world and its laws. Then we talk about religion as a socio-historical fact”...
Religiosity, on the other hand, is what Simmel described as “a life’s drive... subjective experience of connection with the secretive code of life itself”
Several research studies conducted on religiosity in Croatia were dedicated to the subject of religiosity in the general sense. Some of these will be presented later. This article, however, will be specifically dedicated to the relationship of religiosity of parents and the religiosity of their children.
Other than this relationship, what is there to be seen in terms of the relationship of the type of religiosity that is recognizable in parents and the religious practices of young people? More precisely, can young people be expected to practice religious rituals more if they are encouraged/coerced by their parents to do so, or is it more reliable in this sense to rely on how much of a role religion plays in their parents’ lives? Furthermore, the question is, does the religiosity of parents have the same effect on both genders of youth? Is there any role played by the parent’s gender and the gender of the child? If we articulate these questions as objectives that this article is trying to achieve, they are a) to investigate whether the religiosity of parents shows an effect on the religious practice of children, if so b) in what way, c) whether this effect differs if we take into account the gender of the child and d) whether the parent’s gender is relevant. To answer these questions, the following briefly outlines the broader religious picture of Croatian society with a special emphasis on Catholicism, then an overview of the indicative research on (primary) religious socialization and its effects and its reception mechanism is presented. Finally, we show the results of the survey in light of these studies and the expectations based on them. The results and findings of this study should indicate the importance of including the religiosity of parents in future research of the religiosity of young people, to take into account which parental techniques (or characteristics of parental style) show effects on the religiosity of young people. They should also open up space for further examination of how much and what kind of impact perception and “playing” of parental roles have in the context of religious socialization regarding the gender of the child.
Croatia is a religiously homogeneous country. Catholics as a religious group have
been the dominant majority for many years with more than 75 % of the population, and
in the last 20 years, this proportion is closer to 90 % (87,9 % according to the
2001 census and 86,3 % in 2011 census)2. In a society of such a distinct
cultural characteristic, it would be unusual not to recognize it in the practices,
institutions, rituals and daily lives of its members. Catholic religious teaching is
an elective school subject, Catholic holidays are non-working days, institutions of
humanitarian character (Caritas) operate, religious rites of transition are highly
represented, Catholic media are active and free, as well as declarative towards
Catholic social movements, etc. In short, Catholicism permeates Croatian society on
multiple levels. Previous research has shown this, and it is particularly reflected
in the acceptance of religious rites of transition (at birth, marriage, and death)
even in those who declare themselves non-religious and atheists
Society socializes its members through its institutions and actors in social reality. Individuals learn the rules of the game (norms) in society or its relatively bounded spheres through family, school, friends, acquaintances, church, media, professional groups, etc. It is a process by which society maintains and allows the transfer of culture between generations. It can be seen in two ways: a) as a process by which an individual adopts social rules themselves and accepts them as part of their personality, b) a process in which individuals direct their actions according to the expectations of others (in the second part of this article it is clear that in this study the emphasis is precisely on this process of external “socialization pressure”)
These are the issues that are addressed by the social learning theory
Since the mid-1950s and Allport’s study on the mediation of children’s identification
with parents in the intergenerational transmission of prejudice (1954), a clear
one-line research model (parents – child) has gained great significance
Most people are likely to say that a role model in terms of social learning for
adolescents will be a parent of the same gender and the research generally confirms
that thought. On this trail, Troll and Bengtson (1979) find that: 1) fathers have a
greater influence on the formation of values in children than mothers, 2) there is a
greater similarity in children and parents of the same gender, than in the opposite,
c) daughters are more sensitive to the influence of parents than sons
The survey “Religion and Human Rights” (RHR)8 was conducted in November and December 2014 in more than 25 countries and with 25000 respondents/students, most of them European (see more about the research and project in Appendix A).
SAMPLE AND RESPONDENTS
Non-probabilistic quota sample was used, consisting of 1286 pupils (out of 13063 pupils from 4th grade) from 20 counties of the Republic of Croatia and the City of Zagreb (more details on sample in Appendix A). We used the deliberate sampling method. Students of grammar schools were proportionally represented in the sample by counties according to the proportion of grammar school students at the state level. 75,4 % of respondents were 18 years old, and 23,4 % younger while the remaining 1,2 % had turned 19. Girls were represented in the share of 63,6 % (N = 816), and boys in 36,4 % (N = 468); this is almost the same gender distribution as in grammar schools nationally where girls are represented 62 % to 38 % according to the Croatian Bureau of Statistics9. This article refers to Catholics only (N = 1097) because they are the main research interest, i.e. their religious practices and religiosity of their parents.
INSTRUMENTS AND METHODS10
Descriptive statistical methods were used in the first part of the study, i.e. a description of the obtained frequencies and the proportion of results in terms of confessional affiliation and religious self-identification, the frequency of going to mass and the frequency of prayer. Confessional affiliation and religious self-identification is presented by a category variable, and respondents were to mark belonging to one of the religious communities offered – Roman Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Pentecostals, members of another Christian tradition, Muslims, Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, members of another Islamic tradition, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, other religious affiliations, religious without belonging to a community, non-religious. The frequency of going to mass was measured by the question: “How often do you participate in religious services in a church or mosque or another place?”, the range of answers offered was: 1 – never, 2 – barely ever, 3 – several times a year, 4 – once to three times a month, 5 – once a week, 6 - more than once a week, 7 – once a day, 8 – several times a day, 9 – I do not know. The frequency of prayer was measured by asking: “How often do you pray?” with the same range of possible answers as for the prior question.
In the second part of the research we used an instrument we called the religiosity of
parents. It has already been used in the works of Cornwall
The religiosity of parents was represented by a set (6) of predictors in the linear regression model that was performed six times. The first two times for all Catholics, where the dependent variables were (1) the frequency of going to church and (2) the frequency of prayer. Following the Glock and Stark model these two variables represent religious practice. The other two times were sub-samples separately for boys and girls using the same independent variables.
Thus, the sequence of analysis is first to show the proportion of Catholics in the population surveyed and their frequency of religious practice, both prayer and going to mass. Then, by using inferential statistical methods, i.e. linear regressions, determine 1) the relationship between the religiosity of the parents and the religious practice in young Catholics in both of the examined aspects (in terms of the frequency of going to mass and the frequency of prayer), 2) the relationship between the religiosity of the individual parent and the religious practice of the child in the case of a daughter and son (i.e. on the sub-samples by gender). The analyses were done in IBM’s SPSS version 20.
THE RESULTS
To get an idea of the proportion of young Catholics in the youth population, it is useful to look at the proportion of Catholics in the entire population according to 1999 and 2008 EVS (European Values Study) data.
EVS 1999. | EVS 2008. | RHR 2014. (17 − 19 yrs.) | |
---|---|---|---|
Roman Catholics (%) | 86,8 | 80,6 | 85,8 |
Table 1 shows the percentage of Catholics represented in this sample, they are the target group in this article, and their percentage is slightly higher in the Religion and Human Rights project than that in the entire population recorded in the last wave of EVS. It should be said that this deviation is not great and that it clearly outlines the dominance of Catholics as a confessional group among young people. All the other confessional groups occupy only 2,2 % of the sample, religious without belonging to a community 2,1 %, and 9,9 % of respondents expressed as non-religious.
Religious Practice of Young People (Catholics)
If we present components of religious practice according to the frequency of their practice, the results are as follows in the table below.
Frequency of going to church | Frequency of prayer | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | % | Cumulative | F | % | Cumulative | |
Never | 83 | 8,1 | 8,1 | 26 | 2,5 | 2,5 |
Barely ever | 129 | 12,6 | 20,8 | 71 | 6,9 | 9,4 |
Several times a year | 246 | 24,1 | 44,9 | 68 | 6,6 | 16,0 |
Once to three times a month | 165 | 16,2 | 61,1 | 88 | 8,5 | 24,5 |
Once a week | 314 | 30,8 | 91,9 | 81 | 7,8 | 32,3 |
More than once a week | 80 | 7,8 | 99,7 | 143 | 13,8 | 46,2 |
Once a day | 2 | 0,2 | 99,9 | 401 | 38,8 | 85,0 |
Several times a day | 1 | 0,1 | 100,0 | 155 | 15,0 | 100,0 |
Total | 1020 | 100,0 | 1033 | 100,0 | ||
I do not know | 30 | 37 | ||||
No answer | 47 | 27 | ||||
Total with “do not know” and “unanswered” | 1097 | 1097 |
Table 2 shows that around 39 % of young Catholics go to mass once a week or more often, while around 75 % pray once a week or more often.
Religiosity of Parents and Religious Practice of Young People (Catholics)
In the first case the linear regression model had the frequency of going to mass as a criterion variable, and in the second the frequency of prayer. A set of predictors previously listed under the name of the religiosity of the parents, for the sake of the overview, is somewhat concise and shown below, and both models are presented in the same table for better visibility of the essential elements.
Frequency of going to church | Frequency of prayer | |
---|---|---|
Believing in God - father | ,114* | |
Believing in God - mother | ||
Accepting his beliefs - father | ,152* | |
Accepting her beliefs - mother | ,195** | ,126* |
Degree of incentive/coercion to mass – father | ,186** | |
Degree of incentive/coercion to mass – mother | ||
R² | ,239 | ,153 |
Adj, R² | ,233 | ,146 |
*p<,05,**p<,005,***p<,00 |
From this table, by the quantity of variance explained, it is read that the regression model is more appropriate to predict the frequency of attendance at mass (about 23 % of the variance explained) than the frequency of prayer (about 15 % explained variance). All the predictors are positive, which means that the effect of independent variables is the increase in dependent variables (stronger belief of parents, more importance that children adopt their religious beliefs and a higher degree of encouragement results in greater religious practice, i.e. going to mass and prayer). The table also indicates that the best predictor for participation in mass is the importance that the mother attaches to her child accepting her beliefs (β = ,195), and then the father’s desire to go to mass (β = ,186). It is also evident that in addition to the importance that the father (β = ,152) and the mother (β = ,126) attach to the child accepting their beliefs, the father’s faith in God is a good predictor of the frequency of prayer (β = ,114). The only common significant predictor for both models is the importance that a mother attaches to a child accepting her beliefs. These results point to several things a) the religiosity of parents shows an effect on the religious practice of adolescents (there is a respectable percentage of variance explained in both cases) b) effect is stronger on the frequency of going to mass than on the frequency of prayer, c) in terms of prayer, the effect of the father’s religiosity is somewhat stronger, as it manifests itself in two spheres (the belief and importance it attaches to the child to adopt his beliefs) than the mother’s (the importance of accepting her religious beliefs), and d) the importance that the mother assigns to accepting her beliefs and the degree of encouragement/coercion of the father show relevance in attendance at mass. To find out whether the claims c) and d) stand for both genders of adolescents, a more detailed analysis is needed on the subsamples (groups) of young men and girls separately.
Parents’ Religiosity and Religious Practice by Gender
In the following case, two regression models were used that had the frequency of going to mass for the criterion variable, the first for girls (left column), the second for young men (right column). The religiosity of parents is a set of the same predictors as in the previous case. Both models are in the same table below.
Frequency of going to church | Frequency of prayer | |
---|---|---|
Believing in God - father | ||
Believing in God - mother | ||
Accepting his beliefs - father | 0,313* | |
Accepting her beliefs - mother | 0,265*** | |
Degree of incentive/coercion to mass – father | 0,230** | |
Degree of incentive/coercion to mass – mother | ||
R² | 0,244 | 0,248 |
Adj, R² | 0,234 | 0,23 |
*p<,05,**p<,005,***p<,00 |
Equally explained variances (about 23 %) for girls and young men indicate that parental religiosity proves to be important in going to mass equally for both genders. However, the influence of mother and father on boys and girls is different. For boys, a significant predictor (β = ,313) is only the importance that the father attaches to the acceptance of his religious beliefs and, for girls, the importance that the mother attaches to the acceptance of her religious beliefs (β = ,265) comes first and then the father’s incentive/coercion (β = ,230). In short, the frequency of going to mass for young men can be foreseen based on how much the father cares for their sons to adopt their religious beliefs, while this practice can be predicted in girls based on the importance that mothers place on their daughters to adopt their religious beliefs. Their father’s encouragement/coercion to mass plays a fairly important role in the case of girls.
As in the case of going to church, two regression models were used, only this time the criterion variable was the frequency of prayer. The first for girls (left column), the second for young men (right column). Religiosity of parents is a set of the same predictors as in all previous cases. Both models are shown in the same table (5).
Frequency of going to church | Frequency of prayer | |
---|---|---|
Believing in God - father | 0,179* | |
Believing in God - mother | 0,141* | |
Accepting his beliefs - father | 0,235* | |
Accepting her beliefs - mother | 0,184* | |
Degree of incentive/coercion to mass – father | ||
Degree of incentive/coercion to mass – mother | ||
R² | 0,171 | 0,163 |
Adj, R² | 0,16 | 0,144 |
*p<,05,**p<,005,***p<,00 |
Once again, the religiosity of parents proves equally important for the frequency of prayer in both genders. This time, the dyads effects of parents and same-gender children are clearly seen. The more their mothers expect from girls to adopt their beliefs (β = ,184) and believe in God more (β = ,141) the more often they pray. The more important it is for their fathers to accept their beliefs (β = ,235) and believe in God more, boys pray more (β = ,179). It is shown that the incitement/coercion to attend mass does not show an effect on frequency of prayer in any gender. Although some of this betas (β) are not particularly strong, they give us clear indication of forming these dyads.
As a general conclusion, it can be drawn that parental religious context plays a very important role in young people’s religious practice. It seems like Church attendance as a visible and public ritual owes its share to mothers’ “role modeling” and fathers’ direct incentive. This can be plainly articulated as soft and hard stimulus from mother and father which somewhat corresponds to stereotypical parental personality traits, namely permissive and gentle mothers vs strict and rough fathers. Since religiousness in the institutional sense (church attendance) represents desirable behavior in Croatia it does not surprise that it’s partly a consequence of fathers’ direct push for a child to represent his family appropriately i.e. care about its reputation. This also partly explains the weaker relationship of religiosity of parents and frequency of prayer. Forcing someone to prayer does not make any sense and is almost impossible. This kind of intimate act and relationship with God results from more intrinsic factors and habitualized family rituals. Believing in God and accepting parent’s beliefs plays a greater role in the frequency of prayer as it presents an inextricable element of the greater family religious context.
Going to church in the case of boys can be seen as the most convincing “religious role modeling” in this research. Young men either look up to their fathers in this sense or modern dads are good at communicating their beliefs to their sons, or both. The same can be said about mothers and daughters in this respect, although the father’s coercion/incentive to daughters cannot be left out. It could be stated that fathers “press” girls harder to represent the stereotype of more polite and conformist children in public spaces (church) as this is expected from young girls. On the other hand, it could not be omitted that “it takes two to tango” as young girls do conform to fathers’ requirements more. The more conspicuous rebelliousness in creating an autonomy from pater familias could be the reason for the insignificance of this factor in boys’ church attendance
If we rule out the degree of incentive or coercion to mass as a factor in prayer frequency because of its analytical and rational disconnectivity, the leftovers are exactly what could be expected. On the one hand, the same gender parent-child relationship should be similar in this regard to that in other spheres of social life such as household and work roles. The greater similarity of social position and expected social behavior (gender roles) from mother and daughter rather than mother and son binds them together and makes them more alike especially because women and men have different roles in some religious rituals. Therefore it can be presumed that young men will look up to their fathers, i.e. young women to mothers as they already know established patterns of behavior well and provide them first-hand experience and example. An important remark considering the weaker relationship of parent’s religiosity and their children’s prayer frequency is that prayer is more intrinsic and difficult to subject to external social forces, hence it is a reflection of “religious personality” to a greater extent. Generally speaking, the greater efficiency of parental soft stimuli in children religious practice is partly the result of “religious parental style” because it presents religious practices as pleasant and warm (family) activities which do not need emphasized external control and request for obedience
The first restriction and call for caution in generalizing the results arises from the sampling method. The target is a “narrowly focused” age group (17-19 yrs.), and only in one type of secondary school - Gymnasium. For this reason, it should be borne in mind that this work does not apply to all young people. Also, it applies only to those declared as Catholics. The inability of researchers to be in the field and give appropriate instruction for teachers raises the question of ensuring the necessary conditions for filling out questionnaires such as whether the respondents had sufficient time, whether any ambiguities were resolved, and how effective social facilitation or social inhibition could have been due to (un)controlled conditions for filling out the questionnaire. The international character and multinational leadership of the research resulted in the inability to adapt certain variables/questions to the Croatian context, e.g. the example of confessional affiliation/religious self-identification, and examination of perceptions like tension and discrimination between races. In the instruments used, it would not be resentful if they were more substantive. More specifically, the variables (predictors) presented here as the religiosity of parents expressed a) how much do the respondents estimate that the father or mother “believe”, i.e. how strong are their religious beliefs, b) how much do the respondents estimate that their parents care to adopt their religious beliefs and c) to what degree they are encouraged/forced to go to church. The question arises as to how more usable the instrument would have been if it contained more variables about parents’ religious practices and family religious activities. Besides, it is to note that the assessment/attribution of the subjects on the religiosity of their parents calls for caution when concluding on the “actual” religiosity of parents, as it may be that respondents exaggerate or underestimate the level of their religiosity14. The longitudinal character would largely be helpful in research such as this, as it could make it possible to monitor variability in the religiosity of the subjects on the one hand, and their parents on the other as well as their interaction at various periods of life.
Firstly, it is pointed out that the number of people who declare themselves as Roman
Catholic in Croatia is stable, at least since 1999 and is between 80 % and 90 % of
the population. In this case, in the age group of high schoolers (17-19 years old)
it is 85,8 %. Although the period of adolescence in comparison to childhood is a
period of decline in the frequency of the practice of religious practices, it is
also more intense compared to mature age, and grows again in old age
The results of the relationship between parents’ religiosity and the religious practice of young people can be summed up by the following assertions: a) the more religious parents are, the more importance they give that their children adopt their religious beliefs, the more frequent religious practice among young Catholics is, b) their influence is greater in terms of going to mass than on the frequency of prayer, c) the practically exclusive dyads of father−son and mother–daughter crystallized, i.e. the religiosity of mothers and the importance they place on their daughters to adopt their beliefs are reflected in prayer and going to mass, the same being the case in the relationship between father and son, d) the degree of incentive or coercion of parents for their children to attend mass shows an effect only in the case of father-daughter.
The results summarized in a) remind us that family, namely, parents are still a strong factor in the religiosity of young people. This can be concluded because the percentage of variance explained is high, considering only six selected predictors. In fact, a number of other studies presented in the article included far more elements of family religious socialization like how often parents pray and go to church, how often they read the Bible, religious texts, and watch religious media shows, how much they agree on their religious beliefs, etc. In addition to religiosity and religious practices of parents, as Roberts and Yamane
The rationale for claim b) can go in at least two directions: 1) it is easier for parents to gain a greater degree of control over going to mass, 2) a rare common prayer in the family provides less opportunity for a stable pattern of behavior. Findings in c) and d) point towards the conclusion that parents serve primarily as a model for learning to children of the same gender in terms of religious socialization. This could be assumed in the context of the previous research and findings presented above on the high probability of transfer of values and patterns of behavior in same-gender dyads typical of societies with relatively separate gender roles
1For more on the topic, see Dillon
2In 1991, two censuses were conducted, one Yugoslavian and one after the independence of the Republic of Croatia, with both accounting Catholics for just over 75 % of the population. Data for 2001 and 2011 was obtained from www.dzs.hr and are accessible in the category of “population censuses” (accessed 25.10.2017)
3From EVS, 2008, as shown in http://www.atlasofeuropeanvalues.eu/new/europa.php?ids=178&year=2008&country=HR, accessed 25th October 2017.
4The data relates to North America and Europe.
5For the full list here should be added school, religious community, religious tradition, and media, namely it turns out that everyone in the literature recognizes the agents of socialization important in different contexts, whilst parental religious socialization is the most reliable and persuasive predictor of the religiosity of adolescents.
6The page number cannot be entered because it is an online version
of the book edited by D. L. Thomas, The Religion and Family Connection: Social
Science Perspectives
7Russell & Saebel
8Data in this survey obtained from the international project “Religion and Human Rights”, more details on: http://www.rp.theologie.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/religion_and_human_rights_2012_2019/
9Statistical Press release, April 2014, https://www.dzs.hr/Hrv_Eng/publication/2014/SI-1521.pdf, accessed 30th March 2020.
10The questionnaire was standardized by an international team of experts so that the scales and instrument are not exactly in line with the local tradition of measuring confessional affiliation and religious self-identification by two variables
11Contains questions/variables: 1) Daily influence of religious
beliefs, 2) Bible reading frequency, 3) Frequency of viewing of religious TV shows,
4) Frequency of prayer, 5) Frequency of participation in church-related activities
(excluding Mass), 6) Frequency of going to Mass
12Values in parentheses are excluded from the analysis (in the first two questions under 6 and 7, the other two under 5 and 6 and in the fifth and sixth under 4 and 5)
13EVS data available in: Rimac
14Illustrative case in this sense is the research of Acock and
Bengston
15See Marinović Jerolimov,
The project was funded by the University of Würzburg and it aimed at: a) discovering theoretical and socially relevant relationships (religious beliefs and practices) and attitudes towards human rights, b) determining the direction of these relationships as regards the influence of religion on attitudes to human rights, c) analyzing differences within and between religious groups and countries of northern, western, eastern and southern Europe, d) theoretically and empirically formulating legitimate hypotheses on the influence of religion on human rights attitudes that will be tested in future research. About 1,300 respondents participated in the survey in Croatia. Because the target group was young, high school students who were assumed to continue their education and fill prominent places in society, project managers decided to choose grammar school students for respondents. In the words of the project manager “we chose young people for the target group... because this population is a litmus paper that outlines social trends well...”
County name | Sample share | Frequency (N of respondents) |
The City of Zagreb | 27,5 % | 354 |
Splitsko-dalmatinska | 14,2 % | 149 |
Osiječko-baranjska | 7,3 % | 94 |
Zadarska | 5,6 % | 62 |
Zagrebačka | 4,7 % | 61 |
Primorsko-goranska | 4,7 % | 60 |
Dubrovačko-neretvanska | 4,6 % | 59 |
Istarska | 3,9 % | 50 |
Vukovarsko-srijemska | 3,4 % | 44 |
Brodsko-posavska | 2,7 % | 35 |
Sisačko-moslavačka | 2,5 % | 32 |
Koprivničko-križevačka | 2,4 % | 31 |
Međimurska | 2,3 % | 30 |
Krapinsko-zagorska | 2,3 % | 30 |
Šibensko-kninska | 2,3 % | 30 |
Požeško-slavonska | 2,3 % | 30 |
Karlovačka | 2,3 % | 30 |
Bjelovarsko-bilogorska | 2,2 % | 28 |
Virovitičko-podravska | 1,9 % | 24 |
Varaždinska | 1,7 % | 22 |
Ličko-senjska County was omitted from the sample because only five respondents were available.