For years, the decision not to have children was often treated as a private preference or an unusual life choice. New research from Michigan State University suggests that childfree adults are not distributed evenly across the United States, however. Their prevalence varies substantially from state to state, revealing a geographic pattern that challenges assumptions about declining birth rates, population loss and the social forces shaping family decisions. In California and Michigan, roughly one in five adults identify as childfree, while the share falls to about one in ten in Louisiana and the Dakotas. The findings offer the first nationwide state-by-state estimate of the childfree population and show that where people live matters, although not as much as who they are.
The study, published in PLOS One, analyzed survey responses from more than 20,000 adults collected in 2024 through the Civic Health and Institutions Project, known as CHIP. Because the survey covered all 50 states and used a nationally representative sample, the researchers were able to compare childfree adults across different political, economic and demographic environments. A central technical challenge was distinguishing people who are permanently or intentionally childfree from adults who do not yet have children but expect to become parents, as well as those who would like to have children but are unable to do so. That distinction is essential: counting all adults without children would blend together several groups with very different experiences, intentions and reproductive circumstances.
The researchers found that childfree adults form a large and growing segment of the American population, but the size of that group differs significantly across state boundaries. California and Michigan were among the states with the highest proportions, with approximately 20% of adults identified as childfree. Louisiana and the Dakotas were among those with the lowest proportions, at around 10%. These differences do not mean that residents of one state are inherently more opposed to parenthood than residents of another. Instead, they reflect the interaction of individual characteristics, social expectations and the broader context in which people make decisions about relationships, work, housing and reproduction.
At the state level, childfree adults were more common in places with higher costs of living. This association may appear counterintuitive because expensive housing, childcare and education can make raising children more difficult, potentially encouraging people to remain childfree. Yet the researchers caution against interpreting the relationship as proof that high prices cause people to reject parenthood. States with high living costs also tend to differ in education levels, urbanization, employment patterns, migration, age structure and cultural attitudes. Any of these factors, or a combination of them, could contribute to the observed geographic pattern. The analysis identifies statistical relationships, not a single economic mechanism that determines reproductive choices.
State policies concerning reproductive rights were also related to the prevalence of childfree adults. Areas with stronger protections for reproductive autonomy tended to show different childfree population levels from states with more restrictive policies. This result may reflect differences in access to contraception, abortion and reproductive healthcare, but it may also capture broader ideological and cultural differences between states. People who place a high value on personal autonomy may be more likely to move to states whose laws align with their views, creating a form of geographic sorting. The study does not establish whether reproductive policy directly changes people’s decisions about having children, whether childfree adults relocate in response to those policies, or whether another factor explains both patterns.
Individual characteristics were considerably more strongly associated with being childfree than state-level conditions. Marital status and age stood out as particularly important factors. Adults who were not married were more likely to identify as childfree than married adults, although relationship status alone cannot explain the decision. Age is also technically complicated because adults without children may include both people who have decided not to become parents and people who have not yet reached the stage of life when they expect to have children. By separating childfree adults from those planning future parenthood, the researchers reduced this problem, but the findings still represent a snapshot in time rather than a prediction of how every individual’s life will unfold.
The results carry important implications for states worried about population decline. California and Michigan, both of which have experienced periods of population loss, might appear to have an incentive to encourage residents without children to become parents. But the study provides no evidence that lowering living costs, increasing education spending or changing abortion restrictions would persuade childfree adults to have children. Those policies could have substantial effects on quality of life, economic opportunity and reproductive health, but they should not be presented as simple tools for reversing fertility trends. A decision not to have children is often rooted in identity, values, relationship circumstances and long-term expectations rather than in one policy variable that governments can easily change.
The research also highlights a measurement problem that has affected public conversations about American families. Childfree adults can remain statistically and socially invisible when surveys categorize everyone without children as either temporarily childless or waiting to become a parent. That assumption can distort estimates of fertility intentions and make it harder to understand changing household structures. It can also reinforce a powerful social norm: the expectation that adulthood naturally leads to parenthood. When people who do not want children are grouped with those who plan to have them, researchers lose the ability to study how childfree adults build relationships, organize their finances and experience pressure from family, workplaces and communities.
Michigan State psychologists Zachary Neal and Jennifer Watling Neal say the next stage of their work will examine the social networks of childfree adults and compare them with those of parents. Social-network analysis could reveal whether childfree people are more likely to form communities with others who share their reproductive choices, or whether they remain closely connected to family and friends who are parents. It may also show how attitudes move through networks, including whether exposure to childfree peers reduces stigma or whether social pressure encourages people to conceal their preferences. Such research could help explain why the childfree population is more visible in some communities than in others, even when the underlying numbers are similar.
The study’s central message is that the American childfree population is neither rare nor geographically uniform. Approximately one in five adults may be childfree in some states, compared with about one in ten in others, but these figures should not be used to label entire regions or predict the choices of individual residents. Economic conditions, reproductive policies and state culture appear to matter, yet personal characteristics remain more closely tied to whether someone identifies as childfree. As the United States confronts changing birth rates and population patterns, recognizing childfree adults as a distinct demographic group will be necessary for accurate science, effective policy and a more realistic understanding of modern American life.
Subject of Research: The geographic distribution of childfree adults in the United States and the relationship between state context, demographic characteristics and childfree status.
Article Title: The Spatial Distribution of the U.S. Childfree Population: Does State Context Matter?
News Publication Date: 12 August 2026
Web References: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0352872; https://www.chip50.org/; https://psychology.msu.edu/directory/neal-zachary.html; https://psychology.msu.edu/directory/watlingneal-jennifer.html
References: PLOS One study, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0352872
Keywords: childfree adults, fertility trends, population decline, reproductive choice, United States, state demographics, social psychology, demography, reproductive rights, cost of living, Michigan State University, PLOS One
