Childfree adults represent a large and growing population across the United States, yet their geographic distribution varies significantly by state. According to a study published in PLOS One by researchers at Michigan State University, approximately one in five adults are childfree in California and Michigan, compared to only one in ten in Louisiana and the Dakotas.
While previous public health tracking established that a substantial portion of Americans choose not to have children, the spatial distribution of this population remained largely unmapped until now.
In Plain English: The Clinical Takeaway
- Childfree vs. Childless: Researchers rigorously distinguished adults who actively choose not to have children from those who want children in the future or are medically unable to conceive.
- State-Level Influence: While higher costs of living and reproductive rights protections correlate with larger childfree populations, state policies do not dictate individual choices.
- Demographic Determinants: Individual factors such as marital status and age remain far more powerful predictors of a person’s childfree status than regional economics.
Mapping the Spatial Distribution of Childfree Adults
The study utilized data from the Civic Health and Institutions Project, commonly known as CHIP. Researchers analyzed surveys from a nationally representative sample of over 20,000 adults covering all 50 U.S. states in 2024. This cross-sectional dataset allowed authors Zachary Neal and Jennifer Watling Neal, both professors of psychology at Michigan State University, to isolate childfree adults from peers facing biological infertility or deferring parenthood.
The findings reveal sharp geographic divides. In states like California and Michigan, roughly one in five surveyed adults identified as childfree. Conversely, states—such as Louisiana and the Dakotas—reported childfree figures closer to one in ten. According to PLOS One, this research marks the first time scientists have quantified the percentage of childfree individuals across every individual U.S. state.
Despite these clear geographic clusters, the data indicate that state-level macroeconomic factors do not override personal autonomy. “A state’s cost of living and protection of reproductive rights are related to how many of its residents are childfree,” Jennifer Watling Neal explained. However, she emphasized that “those state factors matter much less than individual characteristics like marital status and age.”
| Geographic Region / State Group | Estimated Childfree Prevalence | Primary Driving Factors |
|---|---|---|
| California, Michigan | One in five (1 in 5) | Individual age and marital demographics |
| Louisiana, Dakotas | One in ten (1 in 10) | Individual age and marital demographics |
| National Overview (CHIP Dataset) | Varies significantly across all 50 states | Individual characteristics (marital status, age) outweigh state policy environment |
Challenging Assumptions About Population Decline
Some U.S. states, including California and Michigan, have been experiencing population decline. The study cautions against assuming that legislative adjustments will alter family-planning decisions.
Zachary Neal addressed this directly, noting that “these findings suggest that reducing the cost of living, spending more on education, or changing restrictions on abortion are unlikely to lead childfree residents to have children.”
Furthermore, the researchers pointed out that childfree adults frequently navigate social friction. Jennifer Watling Neal observed that “although some states have large childfree populations, they remain a hidden group because their decision not to have children violates a strong norm.” To better understand these dynamics, the MSU research team is currently utilizing CHIP data to examine how the social networks of childfree adults differ from those of parents.
