National Health Statistics Reports

Number 111  May 31, 2018

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics

A Demographic, Attitudinal, and Behavioral Profile of 

Cohabiting Adults in the United States, 2011–2015

Colleen N. Nugent, Ph.D., and Jill Daugherty, Ph.D.

Abstract

Objective—This report provides a profile of sexually experienced, cohabiting 

adults aged 18–44 in the United States based on 2011–2015 data from the National 

Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). Additionally, this report compares these cohabiting 

adults with those sexually experienced adults who are currently married and those who 

are unmarried and not currently cohabiting. Data are shown by selected demographic 

characteristics, attitudes, and family formation behaviors.

Methods—NSFG data used in this report were collected through in-person 

interviews from September 2011 through September 2015 with nationally 

representative samples of 6,674 men and 8,292 women aged 18–44 who were sexually 

experienced. The overall response rate for the 2011–2015 NSFG was 71%: 72% for 

women and 70% for men.

Results—Overall, 17.1% of women and 15.9% of men aged 18–44 who were 

sexually experienced were cohabiting at the time of interview. Compared with those 

who were married or unmarried and not cohabiting, cohabiting women and men were 

more likely to have no high school diploma or GED. Both cohabiters and unmarried, 

noncohabiting individuals reported lower household incomes than married persons. 

Cohabiting women and men were more supportive of premarital cohabitation, the 

idea that living together before marriage may help prevent divorce, and of raising 

children in cohabiting unions, compared with married and unmarried, noncohabiting 

adults. Cohabiting individuals were more likely to report having had their first sexual 

intercourse before the age of 18 and having cohabited two or more times in the past 

than both married and unmarried, noncohabiting individuals. They were also more 

likely than married men and women to have had an unintended birth.

Keywords: cohabitation • marital status • attitudes • family formation • 

National Survey of Family Growth 

behavior that now precedes most 

marriages (8–10). In addition, national 

data show that births to unmarried 

women are currently more likely to 

occur in a cohabiting union than in a 

noncohabiting union, a pattern that has 

accelerated in recent years (11–15). 

Alongside these shifts, changes have 

occurred in how Americans define family, 

with some variation by sociodemographic 

subgroup in the cultural significance 

of marriage and attitudes about family 

formation (16). However, there is 

limited knowledge regarding how 

current cohabiters are different from 

other marital or cohabiting status 

groups in terms of their demographic 

characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors. 

This is an important gap to fill, given that 

cohabitation is an increasingly common 

stage of union formation and context for 

childbearing.

This report describes selected 

demographic characteristics; attitudes 

about sexual behavior, cohabitation, 

marriage, divorce, and childbearing; as 

well as indicators of fertility and family 

formation related to sexual behavior, 

household structure, and childbearing 

across three groups of women and 

men—currently cohabiting; currently 

married; and unmarried, not cohabiting. 

Using 2011–2015 data from the National 

Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), this 

report presents nationally representative 

estimates based on sexually experienced 

Introduction

According to recent data, more than 

one-half of U.S. adults of reproductive 

age have cohabited at some point in their 

lives, and this percentage has increased 

steadily over the last 2 decades (1–5). 

During this same time period, a rise in 

the rates of serial cohabitation—having 

multiple cohabiting relationships in 

sequence—has also occurred (6,7). 

Cohabitation is currently the most 

common first coresidential union among 

young adults, and it is a partnering 
Page 2 National Health Statistics Reports  Number 111  May 31, 2018

women and men aged 18–44 in the 

United States.

Methods

Data source

NSFG is a nationally representative 

in-person survey of the U.S. household 

population. Interviews were conducted 

by female interviewers with men and 

women aged 15–44. Further details on 

sample design, fieldwork procedures, 

and interview content are available 

elsewhere (17–19). This report is based 

on combined NSFG data for 2011–2013 

and 2013–2015, resulting in a data file of 

4 years of interviews spanning 2011–

2015. The combined data set contains a 

total of 20,621 interviews—11,300 with 

women and 9,321 with men. The overall 

response rate for the 2011–2015 NSFG 

was 71%: 72% for women and 70% for 

men. This analysis is restricted to 8,292 

women and 6,674 men aged 18–44 who 

were sexually experienced, defined as 

having ever had vaginal intercourse with 

a partner of the opposite sex. The 18–44 

age range was chosen because the focus 

of this report is on comparing those 

currently in a cohabiting union with other 

marital status groups, and the prevalence 

of cohabitation or marriage among U.S. 

teenagers aged 15–17 is low (20). For 

example, for 2011–2015, only 1% of 

male teens and 0.3% of female teens had 

ever been married (20). Additionally, 

cohabiting and marital unions in NSFG 

presume the respondents are in a sexual 

relationship, so the comparison group 

of unmarried, noncohabiting persons 

is similarly limited to only sexually 

experienced adults.

Measurement of marital or 

cohabiting status and other 

key variables

The analyses in this report highlight 

differences among three marital or 

cohabiting status groups, with a special 

focus on comparing current cohabiters 

with those who are currently married and 

those who are neither currently married 

nor cohabiting. Marital or cohabiting 

status reflects the respondent’s status 

at the time of interview, and as with all 

interviewer-administered items in NSFG, 

it is defined in relation to opposite-sex 

partners or spouses. 

The data presented in this report 

are shown with respect to several 

key background or demographic 

characteristics, including age, Hispanic 

origin and race, educational attainment, 

and poverty-level income. Hispanic 

origin and race are classified according to 

1997 Office of Management and Budget 

guidelines for the presentation of race 

and ethnic-origin data in federal statistics 

(21). In this report, the categories 

Hispanic; non-Hispanic white, single 

race; non-Hispanic black, single race; and 

non-Hispanic other, single or multiple 

race, are shown. Poverty-level income is 

based on household size and household 

income. The questions on household 

income ask married or cohabiting 

respondents to include income from 

their spouses or cohabiting partners and 

any other family members living in the 

household.

Selected attitudes described in this 

report include agreement with statements 

about the appropriateness of sexual 

intercourse among teenagers, couples 

living together before marriage, divorce 

as a solution to marital problems, and 

raising children as an unmarried person 

(while cohabiting with a partner or 

not). Key fertility and family formation 

indicators include: age at first sexual 

intercourse, number of biological 

children, currently living with children or 

not, ever having had an unintended birth, 

future birth intentions, total number of 

cohabitations, and contraceptive use at 

last sexual intercourse. These measures 

are described in detail in the Definition 

of terms.

Statistical analysis

Statistics for this report were 

produced using SAS version 9.4 

software (SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.). 

SAS survey procedures were used 

to account for the complex sample 

design of NSFG to produce standard 

errors. All estimates in this report were 

based on sampling weights designed 

to produce unbiased estimates that 

were nationally representative of the 

reproductive-aged household population 

of the United States. These analyses 

were conducted using the 4-year sample 

weights constructed for 2011–2015 data; 

population size estimates in this report 

reflect the approximate midpoint of 

2011–2015 interviewing (July 2013).

All estimates presented meet the 

National Center for Health Statistics 

guidelines for presentation of proportions 

(22). Distributions of demographic 

characteristics, attitudes, and fertility 

behaviors among marital or cohabiting 

status groups may vary significantly for 

men compared with women. Therefore, 

estimates were stratified by sex, and 

comparisons between cohabiting men and 

women were made where appropriate. 

When percentages between groups were 

compared, statistical significance was 

determined by using two-tailed t tests 

at the 5% level. No adjustments were 

made for multiple comparisons. Terms 

such as ‘‘greater than’’ and ‘‘less than’’ 

indicate that a statistically significant 

difference was found. Terms such as 

‘‘similar’’ or ‘‘no difference’’ indicate that 

the estimates being compared were not 

significantly different. In addition to the 

cross-sectional nature of the survey data 

precluding valid causal inferences, the 

data presented in this report are bivariate 

associations that may be explained by 

other factors not controlled for. 

Results

Selected demographic 

characteristics by marital or 

cohabiting status

Table 1 presents a profile of selected 

demographic characteristics by marital or 

cohabiting status for sexually experienced 

women and men aged 18–44. Educational 

attainment is shown based only on 

respondents aged 22–44, because large 

percentages of those aged 18–21 are still 

attending school. 

● Overall, 17.1% of women and 15.9% 

of men aged 18–44 are currently 

cohabiting. These percentages 

are significantly lower than the 

percentages of women and men who 

are currently married (44.9% and 

43.5%, respectively) and unmarried 

and not cohabiting (38.0% and 

40.6%, respectively). 
National Health Statistics Reports  Number 111  May 31, 2018 Page 3

● Nearly one-half (46.3%) of 

cohabiting women were aged 25–34, 

while 30.1% were aged 18–24 and 

23.6% were aged 35–44. In contrast, 

one-half of married women (51.9%) 

were in the oldest age category. 

Unmarried, noncohabiting women 

were more evenly spread across 

the age categories, with 37.3% 

aged 18–24, 33.2% aged 25–34, 

and 29.5% aged 35–44. One-half 

of cohabiting men (50.5%) were 

aged 25–34, 21.7% were aged 

18–24, and 27.8% were aged 35–44. 

A similar pattern of distributions 

exists for married and unmarried, 

noncohabiting men compared with 

women in these marital status 

groups.

● Among female cohabiters, 56.7% 

were non-Hispanic white. This was 

lower than the percentage of married 

women who were non-Hispanic 

white (63.9%) but higher than 

the percentage of unmarried, 

noncohabiting women who were 

non-Hispanic white (47.2%). Among 

male cohabiters, one-half (50.3%) 

were non-Hispanic white. This 

percentage was similar to unmarried, 

noncohabiting men but was lower 

than married men (61.1%). There 

were no differences between 

cohabiting men and women by 

Hispanic origin and race.

● Among cohabiting women aged 

22–44, one-quarter had a bachelor’s 

degree or higher. This was similar 

to unmarried, noncohabiting women 

but lower than married women, 

where more than 4 in 10 had a 

bachelor’s degree or higher. Among 

men aged 22–44, the percentage of 

cohabiters with a bachelor’s degree 

or higher (16.2%) was lower than 

both married men (36.5%) and 

unmarried, noncohabiting men 

(23.3%). For both women and men 

aged 22–44, a higher percentage 

of cohabiters had no high school 

diploma or GED (15.3% and 21.2%, 

respectively) compared with those 

who were married (8.3% and 12.5%) 

or unmarried and not cohabiting 

(10.7% and 10.6%). 

● Nearly one-half (47.9%) of 

cohabiting women had household 

incomes less than 150% of poverty 

level, and roughly one-quarter were 

distributed in both 150%–299% 

(26.9%) and 300% (25.2%) or more 

of poverty level. This pattern was 

similar to unmarried, noncohabiting 

women, but for married women, 

nearly one-half (48.1%) had 

household incomes at 300% or 

more of poverty level. Among 

cohabiting men, roughly one-third 

fell into each poverty-level income 

category—36.1% had household 

incomes less than 150% of poverty 

level, 31.5% were at 150%–299% 

of poverty level, and 32.4% were 

at 300% or more of poverty level. 

The 32.4% of cohabiting men at 

300% or more of poverty level was 

a smaller percentage compared with 

both married (52.4%) and unmarried, 

noncohabiting (40.0%) men.

Selected attitudes about 

fertility and family formation 

by marital or cohabiting 

status

Table 2 shows attitudes about sexual 

behavior, cohabitation, marriage, divorce, 

and childbearing by marital or cohabiting 

status among sexually experienced 

women and men aged 18–44. In this 

report, “agreed” means respondents either 

“strongly agreed” or “agreed” to each 

attitude statement.

● Roughly 70.0% of cohabiting 

women agreed with the statement, 

“It is all right for unmarried 18 year 

olds to have sexual intercourse if 

they have strong affection for each 

other.” This percentage was higher 

compared with both married and 

unmarried, noncohabiting women 

(49.1% and 63.8%, respectively). 

Among men, the percentage of those 

in agreement with the statement was 

higher for cohabiters (73.1%) than 

for married men (54.3%) but similar 

to unmarried, noncohabiting men 

(76.9%).

● For women and men, the percentage 

who agreed, “A young couple 

should not live together unless they 

are married,” was lower among 

cohabiters (12.2% for women and 

12.3% for men) than both married 

and unmarried, noncohabiting 

women (29.0% and 24.7%, 

respectively) and men (31.3% and 

18.3%).

● The percentage of those who 

agreed with the statement, “Living 

together before marriage may help 

prevent divorce” was higher among 

cohabiting women (81.3%) than 

among married women (58.3%) and 

unmarried, noncohabiting women 

(65.2%). The same pattern was seen 

for men.

● For both men and women, the 

percentage who agreed that “Divorce 

is usually the best solution when a 

couple can’t seem to work out their 

marriage problems” was higher 

among cohabiters than among 

other marital or cohabiting status 

groups. For example, one-half of 

male cohabiters agreed with this 

statement about divorce, while 3 in 

10 married men and more than 4 in 

10 unmarried, noncohabiting men 

agreed.

● A higher percentage of cohabiting 

women and men agreed with the 

statement, “It is okay to have and 

raise children when the parents are 

living together but not married.” 

(90.0% for women and 89.1% for 

men) compared with both married 

(72.7% for women and 72.5% for 

men) and unmarried, noncohabiting 

persons (81.3% for women and 

82.5% for men). 

● Among cohabiting women, 86.3% 

agreed, “It is okay for an unmarried 

female to have and raise a child.” 

This percentage was higher 

compared with married women 

(79.3%) but similar to unmarried, 

noncohabiting women (83.5%). 

Agreement with this statement did 

not differ by marital status for men.

● Male and female cohabiters were 

similar to each other in agreement 

with all selected attitudes except, 

“It is okay for an unmarried female 

to have and raise a child.” Among 

cohabiters, the percentage of those 

who agreed with this statement was 

higher for women (86.3%) than for 

men (76.4%).
Page 4 National Health Statistics Reports  Number 111  May 31, 2018

Selected fertility and 

family-formation behaviors 

by marital or cohabiting 

status

Table 3 shows the total number 

of cohabitations, age at first sexual 

intercourse, number of biological 

children, whether the respondent is 

currently living with any children under 

age 18, experience with unintended birth, 

future birth intentions, and contraceptive 

use at last sex in the past 3 months, 

by marital or cohabiting status among 

sexually experienced women and men 

aged 18–44. 

● A higher percentage of cohabiting 

women had their first sexual 

intercourse before age 18 (74.5%) 

than both married (53.1%) and 

unmarried, noncohabiting (67.2%) 

women. The same pattern was seen 

for men. Male and female cohabiters 

were not different from each other on 

this indicator.

● For both men and women, the 

percentage who have had one or 

more biological children among 

cohabiters was higher than among 

unmarried, noncohabiters but lower 

than married persons. For example, 

6 in 10 female cohabiters have 

had at least one biological child. 

This was the case for just under 

one-half of unmarried, noncohabiting 

women and 8 in 10 married women. 

Cohabiting women were not 

different from cohabiting men on this 

measure.

● For both women and men, the 

percentage of cohabiters living 

with children under age 18 was 

lower than that of married persons 

but higher than that of unmarried, 

noncohabiters. For example, 57.5% 

of cohabiting women were currently 

living with children under age 18 

compared with 77.1% of married 

women and 43.2% of unmarried, 

noncohabiting women. A higher 

percentage of female cohabiters 

(57.5%) were currently living with 

children under age 18 compared with 

male cohabiters (48.4%).

● For women who have had a live 

birth, the percentage of cohabiters 

who had one or more unintended 

births (43.5%) was higher compared 

with married women (23.9%) but 

lower compared with unmarried, 

noncohabiting women (55.2%). On 

the other hand, among men who 

have fathered at least one biological 

child, the percentage of cohabiters 

who ever had an unintended birth 

(63.0%) was higher than that of 

married men (40.6%) but similar to 

that of unmarried, noncohabiting 

men (65.4%). 

● Roughly one-half of cohabiting and 

unmarried, noncohabiting women 

intended to have children in the 

future (53.2% for both groups). This 

percentage was higher compared 

with married women (32.1%). 

The percentage of cohabiting men 

who intended to have children in 

the future (56.1%) was also higher 

than that of married men (34.5%) 

but lower than that of unmarried, 

noncohabiting men (72.4%). Female 

and male cohabiters did not differ in 

their intent for future children.

● For women and men, the percentage 

of those who had cohabited two 

or more times was higher among 

cohabiters than among married 

or unmarried, noncohabiting 

persons. For example, roughly 4 

in 10 currently cohabiting women 

had cohabited two or more times 

compared with 2 in 10 married and 

unmarried, noncohabiting women. 

Currently cohabiting men and 

women did not differ from each other 

on the total number of times they 

have cohabited.

● One-quarter of cohabiting women 

reported not using any contraception 

at last sexual intercourse in the 

past 3 months, and 2 in 10 reported 

using the least effective methods. 

This pattern was similar to married 

women. The percentage of those who 

reported use of the most effective 

methods among cohabiting men 

(19.7%) was lower than among 

married men (28.9%) but higher than 

among unmarried, noncohabiting 

men (9.2%).

Discussion and 

Conclusions

Using nationally representative data 

from the 2011–2015 NSFG, this report 

presents a profile of how cohabiting 

adults of reproductive age differ from 

those in other marital status groups on 

selected demographic characteristics, as 

well as attitudes and behaviors related to 

fertility and family formation. Previous 

research on demographic differences 

tends to focus on those who have ever 

cohabited (1,23), but this report examines 

those who are currently cohabiting. 

Among sexually experienced men and 

women aged 18–44, cohabiting adults 

in 2011–2015 were less likely than 

married persons to be non-Hispanic white 

and more likely than married persons 

to be Hispanic or non-Hispanic black. 

Current cohabiters were more likely than 

both currently married and unmarried, 

noncohabiting men and women to have 

not received a high school diploma or 

GED, which is similar to prior research 

finding that those with lower education 

were more likely to have ever cohabited 

(23) and to have cohabited for their first 

union (3). Cohabiters were more similar 

to unmarried, noncohabiting persons in 

having lower household incomes than 

married persons. Overall, the higher 

socioeconomic status and resources that 

may be gained by those in a marital union 

(24,25) were not seen for cohabiting 

unions in these data.

In terms of attitudes about sexual 

behavior and family life, cohabiting 

men and women were more likely than 

other marital status groups to agree 

with statements about the acceptability 

of premarital cohabitation and raising 

children in a cohabiting union, as well as 

whether cohabitation decreases the risk 

of divorce. It is not known whether these 

attitudes existed before the current living 

situation. Nevertheless, these findings are 

aligned with previous research showing 

that those who are currently living a less 

traditional family life (e.g., cohabiting) 

are more supportive of nontraditional 

family living arrangements (16). 

These descriptive analyses also 

demonstrated that cohabiting men and 

women differed from other groups in key 

fertility and family formation indicators. 

Cohabiting men and women were more 
National Health Statistics Reports  Number 111  May 31, 2018 Page 5

likely than other marital status groups 

to have had their first sexual intercourse 

before the age of 18. Similar to findings 

from previous research about higher 

rates of unintended pregnancy among 

cohabiting women and men (26–28), 

cohabiters were more likely than married 

persons to have had an unintended birth, 

although not necessarily within that same 

union. Cohabiting men and women were 

also more likely to have cohabited two 

or more times than other marital status 

groups. In terms of recent contraceptive 

use, cohabiting women were more 

like married women in their nonuse of 

contraception at last sexual intercourse 

within the past 3 months, and both 

cohabiting men and women were more 

like married people in their use of less 

effective contraceptive methods.

As previously described, these 

analyses are cross-sectional and therefore 

imply correlational and not causal 

relationships. In addition, it is possible 

that the bivariate associations described 

above may be explained by additional 

factors not controlled for in these 

analyses. Results demonstrate differences 

across marital or cohabiting status groups 

by demographic characteristics, such 

as age, race and ethnicity, education, 

and income. However, these differences 

in demographic characteristics could 

reflect selection effects, such that those 

individuals who choose to cohabit 

compared with those who enter into 

a marriage may be in some ways 

qualitatively different. Similarly, 

observed differences between marital or 

cohabiting status groups in both attitudes 

and family formation outcomes may 

reflect differences between the groups on 

characteristics such as age, education, 

and other demographic factors.

These analyses also do not control 

for other possible important confounders, 

such as whether respondents are 

currently pregnant, postpartum, or are 

open to or actively seeking pregnancy, 

which may be important for outcomes 

related to future birth intentions and 

contraceptive use in particular. Another 

limitation is that NSFG is subject to 

sources of nonsampling error, similar to 

all survey data. Sensitive information, 

such as attitudes, are susceptible to 

social desirability biases. Finally, it is 

important to recognize that while many 

of the differences between groups listed 

were statistically significant, they are not 

necessarily large or meaningful.

Previous research shows that being 

in a cohabiting union is becoming more 

prevalent among U.S. adults and is 

more commonly the context of births to 

unmarried women in this country (1–7). 

This report offers further insight into the 

currently cohabiting population and their 

demographic makeup, as well as their 

attitudes and behaviors with respect to 

fertility and family formation.

References

1. Manning WD, Stykes B. Twenty-five 

years of change in cohabitation in the 

U.S., 1987–2013. NCFMR Family 

Profiles, series FP–15–01. Bowling Green 

State University. 2015.

2. National Center for Health Statistics. 

Cohabitation with the opposite sex. 

2017. Available from: https://www.

cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/c.

htm#chabitation.

3. Copen CE, Daniels K, Mosher WD. First 

premarital cohabitation in the United 

States: 2006–2010 National Survey of 

Family Growth. National Health Statistics 

Reports; no 64. Hyattsville, MD: National 

Center for Health Statistics. 2013.

4. Chandra A, Martinez GM, Mosher WD, 

Abma JC, Jones J. Fertility, family 

planning, and reproductive health of U.S. 

women: Data from the 2002 National 

Survey of Family Growth. National 

Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health 

Stat 23(25). 2005. 

5. Martinez GM, Chandra A, Abma 

JC, Jones J, Mosher WD. Fertility, 

contraception, and fatherhood: Data on 

men and women from Cycle 6 (2002) of 

the National Survey of Family Growth.

National Center for Health Statistics. Vital 

Health Stat 23(26). 2006.

6. Cohen J, Manning W. The relationship 

context of premarital serial cohabitation.

Soc Sci Res 39(5):766–76. 2010.

7. Lichter DT, Turner RN, Sassler S. 

National estimates of the rise in serial 

cohabitation. Soc Sci Res 39(5):754–65. 

2010.

8. Guzzo KB. Trends in cohabitation 

outcomes: Compositional changes and 

engagement among never-married young 

adults. J Marriage Fam 76(4):826–42. 

2014.

9. Kennedy S, Bumpass L. Cohabitation 

and children’s living arrangements: New 

estimates from the United States. Demogr 

Res 19:1663–92. 2008.

10. Cherlin AJ. The marriage-go-round: 

The state of marriage and the family in 

America today. Vintage. 2010.

11. Curtin SC, Ventura SJ, Martinez GM. 

Recent declines in nonmarital childbearing 

in the United States. NCHS Data Brief, no 

162. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for 

Health Statistics. 2014.

12. Martinez GM, Daniels K, Chandra A. 

Fertility of men and women aged 15–44 

years in the United States: National 

Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010.

National Health Statistics Reports; no 

51. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for 

Health Statistics. 2012.

13. Lichter DT. Childbearing among 

cohabiting women: Race, pregnancy, and 

union transitions. In: Early adulthood in a 

family context. New York, NY: Springer 

209–19. 2012. 

14. Manlove J, Ryan S, Wildsmith E, 

Franzetta K. The relationship context 

of nonmarital childbearing in the U.S.

Demogr Res 23(22):615. 2010.

15. Manning WD, Brown SL, Lamidi E, 

Payne KK. Trends in births to single and 

cohabiting mothers, 1980–2009. National 

Center for Family & Marriage Research. 

2014.

16. Pew Research Center. The decline 

of marriage and rise of new families. 

Washington, DC. 2010. 

17. Groves RM, Mosher WD, Lepkowski J, 

Kirgis NG. Planning and development of 

the continuous National Survey of Family 

Growth. National Center for Health 

Statistics. Vital Health Stat 1(48). 2009.

18. Lepkowski JM, Mosher WD, Davis 

KE, Groves RM, Van Hoewyk J. The 

2006–2010 National Survey of Family 

Growth: Sample design and analysis of 

a continuous survey. National Center for 

Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2(150). 

2010.

19. Lepkowski JM, Mosher WD, Groves RM, 

West BT, Wagner J, Gu H. Responsive 

design, weighting, and variance estimation 

in the 2006–2010 National Survey of 

Family Growth. National Center for 

Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2(158). 

2013.

20. Abma JC, Martinez GM. Sexual activity 

and contraceptive use among teenagers in 

the United States, 2011–2015. National 

Health Statistics Reports; no 104. 

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for 

Health Statistics. 2017.
Page 6 National Health Statistics Reports  Number 111  May 31, 2018

21. Office of Management and Budget. 

Revisions to the standards for the 

classification of federal data on race and 

ethnicity. Fed Regis 62(210):58782–90. 

1997.

22. Parker JD, Talih M, Malec DJ, Beresovsky 

V, Carroll M, Gonzalez JF, et al. 

National Center for Health Statistics data 

presentation standards for proportions. 

National Center for Health Statistics. Vital 

Health Stat 2(175). 2017.

23. Lamidi E, Manning WD. Marriage and 

cohabitation expediences among young 

adults. National Center for Family & 

Marriage Research. 2016.

24. Fry R. Education and the economic 

benefits of marriage. Pew Research 

Center. Washington, DC. 2010.

25. Waite LJ, Lehrer EL. The benefits from 

marriage and religion in the United States: 

A comparative analysis. Popul Dev Rev 

29(2):255–75. 2003.

26. Finer LB, Zolna MR. Unintended 

pregnancy in the United States: Incidence 

and disparities, 2006. Contraception 

84(5):478–85. 2011.

27. Finer LB, Zolna MR. Shifts in intended 

and unintended pregnancies in the United 

States, 2001–2008. Am J Public Health 

104(Suppl 1):S43–S48. 2014.

28. Lindberg LD, Kost K. Exploring U.S. 

men’s birth intentions. Matern Child 

Health J 18(3):625–33. 2014.
National Health Statistics Reports  Number 111  May 31, 2018 Page 7

Table 1. Percent distribution, by selected demographic characteristics, according to marital or cohabiting status among women and men 

aged 18–44 who had ever had sexual intercourse: United States, 2011–2015

Women Men

Demographic characteristic

Currently 

cohabiting

Currently 

married

Unmarried, 

not cohabiting

Currently 

cohabiting

Currently 

married

Unmarried, 

not cohabiting

Total number in thousands (weighted). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,913 23,335 19,776 8,067 22,041 20,598

Sample size (unweighted) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,557 3,408 4,435 1,045 2,423 3,871

Total percent (standard error) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.1 (0.67) 44.9 (1.01) 38.0 (0.87) 15.9 (0.71) 43.5 (1.19) 40.6 (0.99)

Percent distribution (standard error)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Age group

18–24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.1 (1.82) 6.4 (0.62) 37.3 (1.14) 21.7 (1.82) 4.1 (0.67) 43.3 (1.31)

25–34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.3 (1.85) 41.7 (1.17) 33.2 (1.04) 50.5 (2.23) 39.2 (1.36) 35.2 (1.16)

35–44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.6 (1.56) 51.9 (1.27) 29.5 (1.13) 27.8 (2.13) 56.7 (1.56) 21.5 (0.90)

Hispanic origin and race

Hispanic or Latino. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.5 (2.08) 18.2 (1.26) 19.8 (1.47) 28.1 (2.50) 20.2 (1.73) 19.2 (1.45)

Non-Hispanic or Latino: 

White, single race. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.7 (2.39) 63.9 (1.60) 47.2 (1.78) 50.3 (2.86) 61.1 (1.94) 55.4 (1.74)

Black, single race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0 (1.09) 7.3 (0.62) 23.1 (1.50) 13.3 (1.64) 8.8 (0.92) 15.0 (1.31)

All other single race and multiple race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 (1.89) 10.6 (1.14) 9.9 (1.34) 8.4 (1.84) 9.9 (1.20) 10.4 (1.04)

Education1

No high school diploma or GED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 (1.44) 8.3 (0.76) 10.7 (0.75) 21.2 (1.92) 12.5 (1.09) 10.6 (0.82)

High school diploma or GED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.1 (1.85) 21.0 (1.16) 27.0 (1.35) 33.6 (1.73) 24.9 (1.37) 31.3 (1.46)

Some college, no bachelor’s degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3 (1.75) 27.7 (1.23) 34.7 (1.17) 29.1 (2.10) 26.1 (1.31) 34.9 (1.29)

Bachelor’s degree or higher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3 (1.90) 43.0 (1.85) 27.6 (1.46) 16.2 (1.68) 36.5 (2.04) 23.3 (1.32)

Poverty-level income

0%–149% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.9 (2.16) 25.6 (1.28) 47.7 (1.42) 36.1 (2.03) 21.2 (1.19) 31.9 (1.26)

150%–299% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.9 (1.73) 26.3 (1.10) 24.1 (1.00) 31.5 (1.95) 26.3 (1.34) 28.2 (1.16)

300% or more. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.2 (1.85) 48.1 (1.65) 28.2 (1.42) 32.4 (2.24) 52.4 (1.69) 40.0 (1.48)

1

Limited to respondents aged 22–44 at the time of interview. 

NOTE: All three marital or cohabiting status groups contain respondents who were formerly married (i.e., divorced, separated, or widowed). 

SOURCE: NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2011–2015.
Page 8 National Health Statistics Reports  Number 111  May 31, 2018

Table 2. Percentage who agreed or strongly agreed with attitude statements about sexual behavior, cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and 

childbearing among women and men aged 18–44 who had ever had sexual intercourse, by current marital or cohabiting status: 

United States, 2011–2015

Women Men

Attitude statement

Currently 

cohabiting

Currently 

married

Unmarried, 

not cohabiting

Currently 

cohabiting

Currently 

married

Unmarried, 

not cohabiting

Percent (standard error)

It is all right for unmarried 18 year olds to have sexual intercourse 

if they have strong affection for each other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.4 (1.86) 49.1 (1.54) 63.8 (1.17) 73.1 (1.81) 54.3 (1.85) 76.9 (1.21)

A young couple should not live together unless they are married . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 (1.14) 29.0 (1.50) 24.7 (1.08) 12.3 (1.67) 31.3 (1.62) 18.3 (0.98)

Living together before marriage may help prevent divorce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.3 (1.59) 58.3 (1.52) 65.2 (1.29) 82.9 (1.53) 65.1 (1.61) 73.9 (1.23)

Divorce is usually the best solution when a couple can’t seem to 

work out their marriage problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.4 (1.92) 29.7 (1.40) 42.2 (1.21) 50.8 (2.40) 30.5 (1.43) 43.7 (1.55)

It is okay to have and raise children when the parents are 

living together but not married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.0 (1.20) 72.7 (1.41) 81.3 (0.98) 89.1 (1.01) 72.5 (1.45) 82.5 (0.93)

It is okay for an unmarried female to have and raise a child. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.3 (1.16) 79.3 (1.09) 83.5 (0.86) 76.4 (2.00) 73.3 (1.34) 73.7 (1.12)

NOTE: All three marital or cohabiting status groups include respondents who were formerly married (i.e., divorced, separated, or widowed).

SOURCE: NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2011–2015.
National Health Statistics Reports  Number 111  May 31, 2018 Page 9

Table 3. Selected fertility and family formation indicators, by marital or cohabiting status among women and men aged 18–44 who had ever 

had sexual intercourse: United States, 2011–2015

Women Men

Fertility behavior

Currently 

cohabiting

Currently 

married

Unmarried, 

not cohabiting

Currently 

cohabiting

Currently 

married

Unmarried, 

not cohabiting

Percent (standard error)

Had first sexual intercourse before age 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.5 (1.63) 53.1 (1.48) 67.2 (1.25) 73.9 (2.05) 58.8 (1.53) 66.9 (1.17)

Has had one or more biological children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.1 (1.98) 80.4 (1.14) 47.5 (1.40) 54.6 (2.25) 80.0 (1.20) 22.2 (1.13)

Currently living with children under age 181

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.5 (2.03) 77.1 (1.13) 43.2 (1.37) 48.4 (2.33) 77.4 (1.23) 9.3 (0.61)

Ever had an unintended birth2,3

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.5 (2.10) 23.9 (1.24) 55.2 (1.68) 63.0 (2.73) 40.6 (1.52) 65.4 (2.15)

Intends to have a child in the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.2 (1.73) 32.1 (1.15) 53.2 (1.12) 56.1 (2.19) 34.5 (1.31) 72.4 (1.30)

Percent distribution (standard error)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Number of cohabitations

None. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – 34.0 (1.37) 48.6 (1.42) – 32.3 (1.47) 57.1 (1.21)

One. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.7 (1.91) 45.4 (1.52) 31.7 (1.17) 53.4 (2.30) 44.8 (1.47) 22.1 (0.91)

Two or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.3 (1.91) 20.7 (1.07) 19.7 (1.04) 46.6 (2.30) 23.0 (1.33) 20.8 (1.00)

Contraceptive method use at last sex in past 3 months4,5

No method6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.5 (1.82) 23.4 (0.99) 12.4 (0.93) 29.5 (2.08) 35.0 (1.37) 12.6 (1.17)

Least effective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.5 (1.69) 20.4 (0.98) 30.6 (1.15) 23.3 (1.79) 19.7 (1.31) 38.7 (1.61)

Moderately effective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.2 (1.71) 15.6 (0.96) 32.8 (1.44) 27.5 (1.95) 16.4 (1.22) 39.6 (1.80)

Most effective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.8 (1.75) 40.6 (1.09) 24.2 (1.28) 19.7 (1.79) 28.9 (1.60) 9.2 (0.90)

– Quantity zero. 

1

Includes biological, adopted, or step children; partner’s child; grandchild; niece or nephew; legal ward; or foster child if it is the child’s usual residence. 

2

Among those who have had a live birth. 

3

Due to differences in measurement of this variable, direct comparisons between men and women should be made with caution. 

4

Because men may not have knowledge of female partner’s use of contraception, this may represent an underestimate of actual use for men. 

5

Methods categorized by effectiveness: most effective (i.e., sterilization, contraceptive implant, and intrauterine device); moderately effective (i.e., oral contraceptive pill, injectable [e.g., Depo–Provera], 

contraceptive patch, contraceptive ring, and diaphragm); and least effective (i.e., condom, withdrawal, rhythm method or natural family planning, female condom, foam, jelly, suppository, emergency 

contraception, and other). 

6

May include those who are currently pregnant, seeking pregnancy, or otherwise not in need of contraception at the time of interview. 

NOTE: All three marital or cohabiting status groups contain respondents who were formerly married (i.e., divorced, separated, or widowed). 

SOURCE: NCHS, National Survey of Family Growth, 2011–2015.
Page 10 National Health Statistics Reports  Number 111  May 31, 2018

Technical Notes

Definition of terms

Age at first sexual intercourse—The 

recode variable VRY1STAG indicates the 

age at first vaginal intercourse for both 

male and female respondents.

Attitudes related to sexual behavior, 

cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and 

childbearing—This series of items asks 

respondents’ agreement or disagreement 

with various statements related to sexual 

behavior and family life. Response 

options for the items were “strongly 

agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly 

disagree.” The response option “neither 

agree nor disagree” was coded by 

interviewers only after initial probing 

for one of these response options and, in 

general, the percentages in this category 

were small, never exceeding 1.7%. This 

report treats “neither agree nor disagree” 

as missing information because it permits 

showing the percentage who agreed or 

strongly agreed with each statement 

as the binary opposite of those who 

disagreed or strongly disagreed. The six 

statements featured in this report (with 

variable name included) are: 

1. It is all right for unmarried 18 year olds to 

have sexual intercourse if they have strong 

affection for each other (SXOK18) 

2. A young couple should not live together 

unless they are married (OKCOHAB) 

3. Living together before marriage may help 

prevent divorce (PRVNTDIV) 

4. Divorce is usually the best solution when 

a couple can’t seem to work out their 

marriage problems (STAYTOG) 

5. It is okay to have and raise children when 

the parents are living together but not 

married (CHCOHAB)

6. It is okay for a young, unmarried woman 

to have and raise a child (CHSUPPOR) 

Birth intentions—The recode 

variable INTENT was used to create a 

dichotomous indicator showing whether 

respondents intend to have children or 

any additional children in the future. The 

few cases in the category “Does not know 

intent” were treated as missing.

Contraceptive use at last sexual 

intercourse within past 3 months—Use 

of contraception at last sexual intercourse 

within the past 3 months (among those 

who have had sexual intercourse in 

the past 3 months) is based on the 

recode series METH3M1–METH3M4, 

which indicates up to four method 

types used at last sex in the past 3 

months, as well as the recode variable 

MTHUSE3 for women, which indicates 

any use or nonuse of contraception 

at last sex in the past 3 months. This 

measure groups method types into the 

following categories: no method, least 

effective (i.e., condom, withdrawal, 

rhythm method or natural family 

planning, female condom, foam, jelly, 

suppository, emergency contraception, 

and “other”), moderately effective (i.e., 

oral contraceptive pill, injectable [e.g., 

Depo–Provera], contraceptive patch, 

contraceptive ring, and diaphragm), 

and most effective (i.e., sterilization, 

contraceptive implant, and intrauterine 

device). 

Ever had an unintended birth—For 

women, this measure is based on the 

recode series WANTRPnn indicating 

the intendedness of each reported 

pregnancy at the time of conception. 

For men, this measure is based on the 

recode series WANTBnn, classifying the 

intendedness of the pregnancy for each of 

his biological children aged 18 or under. 

A pregnancy that resulted in live birth 

is classified as unintended at conception 

if it was reported as either “too soon, 

mistimed” or “unwanted.” Respondents 

are classified as ever having had an 

unintended birth if any of their births 

(by time of interview) were unintended. 

These births may have occurred in prior 

relationships for those who are currently 

married or cohabiting.

Living with children under age 

18—The recode variable NUMKDHH 

was used to define a dichotomous 

indicator showing whether respondents 

are currently living with children under 

age 18 at the time of interview, including 

any biological, adopted, or step children; 

a partner’s child; grandchild; niece or 

nephew; legal ward; or foster child, if it is 

the child’s usual residence.

Marital or cohabiting status—The 

recode variable RMARITAL indicates 

the respondent’s marital or cohabiting 

status at the time of interview. Marital 

and cohabiting unions are classified only 

for opposite-sex relationships. All three 

marital or cohabiting status groups (i.e., 

currently cohabiting, currently married, 

and unmarried but not cohabiting) 

contain respondents who are formerly 

married (i.e., widowed, divorced, or 

separated for reasons of marital discord). 

Number of biological children—The 

recode variable PARITY for women 

indicates how many total live births 

they have had by the time of interview. 

The computed variable biokids for men 

indicates the total number of biological 

children they have fathered by the time of 

interview.

Total number of cohabitations—The 

recode variable TIMESCOH indicates 

the total number of cohabitations with 

an opposite sex partner at the time of 

interview. Current cohabitations are 

included in this total number.
National Health Statistics Reports  Number 111  May 31, 2018

For more NCHS NHSRs, visit: 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nhsr.htm.

For e-mail updates on NCHS publication releases, subscribe online at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/govdelivery.htm.

For questions or general information about NCHS: Tel: 1–800–CDC–INFO (1–800–232–4636) • TTY: 1–888–232–6348 

Internet: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs • Online request form: https://www.cdc.gov/info

DHHS Publication No. 2018–1250 • CS291153

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

CDC/NCHS 

PERMIT NO. G-284

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Center for Health Statistics 

3311 Toledo Road, Room 4551, MS P08

Hyattsville, MD 20782–2064

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

Suggested citation

Nugent CN, Daugherty J. A demographic, 

attitudinal, and behavioral profile of cohabiting 

adults in the United States, 2011–2015. National 

Health Statistics Reports; no 111. Hyattsville, 

MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2018.

Copyright information

All material appearing in this report is in 

the public domain and may be reproduced 

or copied without permission; citation as to 

source, however, is appreciated.

National Center for Health Statistics

Charles J. Rothwell, M.S., M.B.A., Director

Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D., Associate Director 

for Science

Division of Vital Statistics

Delton Atkinson, M.P.H., M.P.H., P.M.P., Director

Hanyu Ni, Ph.D., Associate Director for 

Science

Acknowledgments 

The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) is conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) with the support and assistance 

of a number of other organizations and individuals. Fieldwork and related tasks for the 2011–2015 NSFG data used in this report were carried 

out by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan under a contract with NCHS. The 2011–2015 NSFG was jointly planned and 

funded by the following U.S. Department of Health and Human Services programs and agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) 

and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): 

• National Center for Health Statistics (CDC) 

• Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and 

Human Development (NIH) 

• Office of Population Affairs (Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Health)

• Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (National Center for HIV/AIDS, 

Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention [NCHHSTP], CDC)

• Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention (NCHHSTP, CDC) 

• Division of Reproductive Health (National Center for Chronic 

Disease Prevention and Health Promotion [NCCDPHP], CDC) 

• Division of Cancer Prevention and Control (NCCDPHP, CDC) 

• National Center on Birth Defects & Developmental Disabilities 

(CDC) 

• Children’s Bureau (Administration for Children and Families [ACF])

• Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (ACF)

This report was prepared in the Division of Vital Statistics (DVS) under the general direction of Delton Atkinson, DVS Director; Paul Sutton, 

Acting Chief, Reproductive Statistics Branch (RSB); and Anjani Chandra, Team Lead, RSB NSFG team. The authors are also grateful for the 

valuable comments provided by Hanyu Ni, DVS Associate Director for Science and Jennifer Madans, NCHS Associate Director for Science.