AWARENESS AND CONSEQUENCES OF COHABITATION AMONG

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS OF AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY

ZARIA

BY

ZAKARI AHMED ILIYASU

U14LS1047

A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND

INFORMATION SCIENCE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR DEGREE IN
LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE (BLIS)

OCTOBER, 2018

i
 DECLARATION

I, ZAKARI Ahmed hereby declare that this project titled “Awareness and

Consequences of Cohabitation among Undergraduate Students of Ahmadu Bello

University” is my personal research work carried out under the supervision of Mal. Salihu

Ibrahim Yusuf. It was never presented anywhere, either wholly or partially, for the purpose of

the award of a higher degree. All the quotations and sources of information are, however, duly

acknowledged by means of references

_______________________ ______________________

ZAKARI AHMED ILIYASU DATE

U14LS1047

ii
 CERTIFICATION

This project titled: awareness and Consequences of Cohabitation among Undergraduate

Students of Ahmadu Bello University by ZAKARI, Ahmed Iliyasu meets the regulations

governing the award of the degree of Bachelor at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, and is

approved for its contribution to knowledge and literary presentation.

_______________________ _______________________
Mal. SALIHU Ibrahim Yusuf Date
(Project Supervisor)

_______________________ _______________________
Mal. Abba Hamza Date
(Project Coordinator)

_______________________ _______________________
Dr. Habibu Mohammed Date
(Head of Department)

iii
 DEDICATION

This study is dedicated to God Almighty, who saw me through the period of the program, my

late mother, Hajia Hajara and father Mal. Zakari Iliyasu, for their prayers and support in all my

life endeavors, and my siblings for their patience and understanding during the period of the

program.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Praise is to Almighty Allah for giving me the zeal and wisdom to compile this project work, that

is very challenging but which also turnabout to be an exciting experience. Once, again I thank

Allah immensely for seeing me through my program, which has culminated in this awesome

achievement. I also want to express my profound gratitude to my project supervisor Mal. Salihu

Ibrahim Yusuf. The lecturers and staff of the Department of Library and Information Science

Ahmadu Bello University Zaria are as well appreciated. The H.O.D Dr. Habibu Mohammed,

Prof. Zakari Mohammed, Dr. Maimuna Izah, the Departmental project Co-coordinator Mal.

Abba Hamza, my mentor Mal. Idris Dauda, Mal. Hayatu, Mal. Abdulrahman Jibrin, Mal. Yusuf

Ahmed and others whose names are not mentioned, may Allah bless you all. Amen.

I will also appreciate the effort of my parents and my siblings for their relentless efforts and

words of encouragement when I needed them the most. My sister Aisha Zakari Abdulkareem

(Mama Hafsat) and brother Ibrahim Zakari Imhodu (Baba Nura), I say thank you.

Not also forgetting the unalloyed support of Mohammed E. Idris (Blacky), Zainab Yusuf Agibah,

Umma S. Bakori, Aisha M. Bello, Aisha Abubakar (Momy), Hadiza M. Mubi, Maimuna

Mu’azu, Abdulmaleeq Nuhu D., Iyatawa Abdulazeez, Bashir Ahmed, Munira Abdulrazak, Yusuf

Ishaq, Safiya Ahmed, Jamila Babajo, Aisha Jalo and by large to my friends who in one way or

the other helped in seeing this report becomes a success. I said thanks and God bless.

Furthermore, I will also like to appreciate the efforts of Danjuma Zakari, Ishaq Yusuf (Sharis),

Abdullahi Mohammed (Boss), Engr. Dr. Hassan Mahmud, Mal. Hammidu Ibrahim Igweala,

Salamatu Z. Tahir (Mama Fatai), Fatima Zakari (Mama Nurudeen), Shuaibu Abdullahi, Aliyu

v
Muhammad Santa, Tahir Abdullahi (Dexto), Late. Abubakar Umar (ABUMAR), Inuhu Umoru,

Ayuba Etsenumhe and Zakari Ali (Calculus). I also wish to extend my gratitude to my boss in

Dantata, Engr. Labaran Bauchi, Isa’ah Noah Ejima, and others whose names are not mentioned.

vi
 ABSTRACT

This project was carried to out to investigate the awareness and consequences of cohabitation
among undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. Four research questions
were raised and these questions sought to examine the factors responsible for cohabitation
among undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello University, the opinions held by cohabiting
students of Ahmadu Bello University, the perceived challenges facing cohabitating students of
Ahmadu Bello University as well as the effect of cohabitation on their performance. The study
adopted case study (qualitative) research method. Purposive sampling technique was used to
select respondents for this study. Interview was used as an instrument as an instrument for data
collection from respondents who were all genuine undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello
University with the aid of a tape recorder. Furthermore, data collected from the interview was
transcribed, read, examine, reexamine and analysis using inductive approach. However, the
study discovered insufficient and uneasy access to hostel accommodation, financial constraints,
poverty, family and environmental influence as major factors that influence cohabitation;
religious obligation and fear of the wrath of God, ignorance and unethical moral feelings are
among reasons students see cohabitation as a taboo; poor results, withdrawal and expulsion,
health issues, crime, unwanted pregnancy, abortion, behavioral disorder and death are the
major consequences of cohabitation, and psychological trauma, suspicion, coping, isolation and
moral decadency are also the challenges faced by cohabiting students. The study concluded that
cohabitation among undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello University is becoming an issue
that should not be handled with kid-glove, because it has multiplier effects on other facets of the
students’ lives and the society in general. Similarly, it is recommended that the university
management should provide adequate, accessible and affordable hostel accommodation. The
family, religious bodies and the larger society should carry out campaign to enlighten students
on the ills of cohabitation. More so, newly admitted undergraduate students into the university
should be properly oriented on the effect of cohabitation on their academic performance.
Furthermore, it is recommended that students should be encouraged to meet social guardians
and councilors so as to overcome the challenges that emanate from cohabitation.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION.............................................................................................................................ii
CERTIFICATION..........................................................................................................................iii
DEDICATION................................................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...............................................................................................................v
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................vii
CHAPTER ONE..............................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background of the Study........................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of Research Problem.............................................................................................3
1.3 Research Questions................................................................................................................4
1.4 Research Objectives...............................................................................................................4
1.5 Significance of the Study.......................................................................................................5
1.6 Scope of the Study.................................................................................................................5
1.7 Limitations of the Study.........................................................................................................5
1.8 Operational Definition of Terms............................................................................................6
References....................................................................................................................................7
CHAPTER TWO.............................................................................................................................8
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.......................................................................................8
2.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................8
2.2 Concept of student cohabitation.............................................................................................8
2.3 Factors responsible for student cohabitation........................................................................10
2.4 Opinion of the students on Cohabitation..............................................................................14
2.5 Challenges of students cohabitation.....................................................................................16
2.6 Consequences of cohabitation..............................................................................................17
1.7 Summary of the Review..................................................................................................21
References..................................................................................................................................23
CHAPTER THREE.......................................................................................................................27
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................27
3.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................27
3.2 Research Methodology...................................................................................................27

viii
 3.2.1 Research Design..........................................................................................................28
3.3 Population of the Study...................................................................................................28
3.4 Sample and Sampling Techniques..................................................................................29
3.4.1 Eligibility criteria for participants...............................................................................30
3.5 Instrument for Data Collection.......................................................................................30
3.6 Procedures for Data Collection.......................................................................................31
3.7 Rigor in Qualitative Research.........................................................................................32
3.8 Procedures for Data Analysis..........................................................................................34
CHAPTER FOUR.........................................................................................................................38
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION.....................................................38
4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................38
4.2 Response Rate......................................................................................................................38
4.3 Data Presentation, analysis and discussion..........................................................................39
4.3.1 Factors Responsible for Cohabitation among Students....................................................39
4.3.2 Opinions of Students towards Cohabitation......................................................................44
4.3.3 Effects of Cohabitation on Students..................................................................................46
4.3.4 Challenges of Cohabiting Students...................................................................................51
CHAPTER FIVE...........................................................................................................................54
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................54
5.1 Summary..............................................................................................................................54
5.2 Summary of Findings...........................................................................................................54
5.3 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................55
5.4 Recommendation.................................................................................................................56
5.5 Suggestion for Further Studies.............................................................................................56
BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................................57
APENDIX I...................................................................................................................................62
APPENDIX II................................................................................................................................64

ix
x
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study

University is an institution of higher education, typically accepting students who are adult,

depending on the country, but in some cases able to take younger students in exceptional cases. It

is where subjects are studied and researched in depth and degrees offered. It is also an

established organization, especially one dedicated to education, it is the highest level of

education where you can study for a degree or do research (Oxford advanced learner’s

dictionary, 2010). Parents send their children to university for a lot of beneficial reasons which

include but not limited to; College graduates have longer life spans, better access to health care,

better dietary and health practices, greater economic stability and security, more prestigious

employment and greater job satisfaction, less dependency on government assistance, greater

knowledge of government, greater community service and leadership, more volunteer work,

more self-confidence, and less criminal activity and incarceration (Jennifer Ma, Matea Pender, &

Meredith Welch, 2016). Higher education, theoretically, will also enable individuals to expand

their knowledge and skills, express their thoughts clearly in speech and in writing, grasp abstract

concepts and theories, and increase their understanding of the world and their community

(Dennis Hoffman, Kent Hill, & Tom R. Rex, 2005).

The university is gender mix; where you find female and male students living under a room

called class. This mix is not limited to the class room only but it is also featured in social

gathering, centers, and even private or self-arranged accommodation, usually outside the

university premises. This mix gave rise to some female and male students cohabiting or living

1
together in an off-campus accommodation. Female and male students’ cohabitation has been

given all sorts of names but the popular one is called “campus marriage”.

Campus marriage (cohabitation) among undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello University

is on the rise and a trending issue. Non-residential accommodation tends to encourage this trend.

The school authority do provide accommodation for students, but it is inadequate, hence the

preference for off campus accommodation as an alternative by many students. Ideally, students

are supposed to be in school focusing on their academic activities and setting achievable goals

for academic excellence. In contrast, they put their academic endeavor in jeopardy by crossing

the borders of morality and cohabiting with their counterpart of the opposite gender. Cohabiting

and sexual behaviors are common with these youth (Ogungbamila, 2013). This makes them to

perform bellow expectation, since often times they are never in class for serious academic work.

Apart from the dangers of poor academic performance, there is the risk of contracting terminal

diseases, criminal, acts, drugs, competitive life style, prostitution etc. since many of them do not

necessarily get to the age or level of marriage and that predispose them to a lot of dangers.

The non-residential accommodation in many higher institutions tend to encourage this new

trend of students cohabiting, unlike what was in operation in the olden times. Initially all

students were accommodated within institution’s halls of residence. Those students

accommodated within institution’s hall had rules and regulation guiding their stay. Thus within a

short time, Nigerian tertiary institutions began to experience challenge of inadequate hostel

accommodation because the population of students continues to grow without corresponding

growth in the number of halls of residence and other physical facilities (Aluko, 2011).

Therefore, cohabitation became the order of the day among the students in higher

institutions of learning. Cohabitation has become common among undergraduate students in

2
Nigerian higher institutions (Martin & Martin, 2001). The increase in the number of

undergraduate students and the inability of the School authorities to provide adequate hostel

accommodation, has led to cohabitation among undergraduate students in Ahmadu Bello

University. Cohabitation among unmarried students has been on the rise and if deliberate and

pragmatic steps are not taken by all stakeholders including management of tertiary institutions,

parents and religious leaders, this anomaly will continue to rise unabated and the society will

ultimately suffer for it (Ajibefu, 2015). This is a serious call, hence something drastic must be

done to stop this menace which is threatening the survival of our youths in higher institutions.

1.2 Statement of Research Problem

Campus marriage (cohabitation) has become a prevalence issue in Ahmadu Bello University.

A lot of students lose focus on their goal of being in school and preoccupy their minds with

trivial or unimportant issues. The purpose why they are in school is forgotten to other

responsibilities not related to learning .This tend to make many students to form below

expectations, since often times these students are never in the school/class for any serious

academic work. Ideally, students are supposed to be in school focusing on their academic

activities and setting achievable goals of academic excellence for themselves. In contrast, they

put their academic endeavor in jeopardy by crossing the borders of morality and cohabiting with

their counterpart of the opposite sex.

Cohabiting and sexual behaviors are common with these youth. This makes them to perform

bellow expectation, since often times they are never in class for serious academic work. Apart

from the dangers of poor academic performance, there is the risk of contracting terminal diseases

since many of them do not necessarily get to the age or level of marriage and it predispose them

to a lot of dangers. Compellingly, there is the need as an information scientist, for information

3
dissemination to checkmate this unhealthy trend to save the future of the country, since every

student is a potential leader and every leader is a contributor to the society.

1.3 Research Questions

The following are the research questions to this study:

1. What are the factors responsible for cohabitation among students of Ahmadu Bello

University, Zaria?

2. What are the opinions of students towards cohabitation in Ahmadu Bello University,

Zaria?

3. What is the effect of cohabitation on students’ academic performance in Ahmadu

Bello University, Zaria?

4. What are the challenges facing cohabiting students of Ahmadu Bello University,

Zaria?

1.4 Research Objectives

The following will constitute the objectives of this study:

1. To examine the factors responsible for cohabitation among students of Ahmadu

Bello University, Zaria.

2. To investigate the opinion held by cohabiting students of Ahmadu Bello University,

Zaria.

3. To examine the perceived challenges facing cohabiting students of Ahmadu Bello

University, Zaria.

4
 4. To examine the effect of cohabitation on student’s academic performance of Ahmadu

Bello University, Zaria.

1.5 Significance of the Study

One vital justification for this study is that, it will suggest ways to stem this (campus

marriage) ugly trend and its negative effect on students’ academic performance. The study wills

explore ‘campus marriage’ (cohabitation) among undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello

University, in order to bring to the fore the various reasons given by the students for their

involvement as well as the various consequences from cohabitation and how the situation can be

managed. The consequences of cohabitation among the students would be made known to guide

the university’s (Ahmadu Bello University) policies as well as that of the government on

students’ accommodation in Nigeria. The findings of this research will of course contribute to

existing literature and also contribute in the filling of some gap in the literature on cohabitation

among undergraduate students. Understanding the complex series of interactions that go on in

cohabitation relationships and the various health and other problems that may result thereof.

1.6 Scope of the Study

This study will be delimited to the undergraduate students in ABU community.

Undergraduate students in the Faculty of Education, Ahmadu Bello University constitute the

study population. Diploma, post graduates and distance learning students are excluded from this

study.

1.7 Limitations of the Study

5
 One of the major constraints experienced in the conduct of this work is time factor,

because it’s not easy for one to be attending lectures and at the same time conducting his project

work. Secondly, there is issue of difficulty in getting literatures over the internet. Some

literatures require money for one to be able to access them, and due to financial constraints it

became a challenge. More so, it was difficult to convince participants, as some of them where

ashamed to give in their consent.

1.8 Operational Definition of Terms.

The following variables as used in the study are hereby defined as follows

Cohabiting: An emotional and physical intimate relationship which includes a common living

place and which exists without legal or religious sanction.

Gender: The sum of the biological characteristics by which male and female and other organism

are distinguished.

Information scientist: An individual, especially with a relevant subject degree or high level of

subject knowledge, proving focused information.

Off-campus: Done, taking place, or existing outside the area of a university, college, or other

campus.

Prevalence: The quality or condition of being prevent; superior strength, dominant force, or

influence. The act of being widespread.

Trend: An inclination or tendency in a particular dimension.

Undergraduate: A student of a university who has not yet received a degree.

6
University: University is an institution of higher education, typically accepting students who are

adult, depending on the country, but in some cases able to take younger students in exceptional

cases, where subjects are studied and researched in depth and degrees are offered. It is also an

established organization, especially one dedicated to education.

References

Ajibefu, I. (2015, Sept, 10). AAUA, VC Condemns cohabitation among students. The Nation.
Aluko, O.E. (2011). The assessment of housing situation among students in the University of
Lagos. Africa research Review- An international Multi-Disciplinary Journal 5 (3), 104-
118.
Jennifer Ma, Matea Pender, and Meredith Welch (2016). Education Pays 2013: The Benefits of
Higher Education for Individuals and Society. New York: The College Board.
Kent Hill, Dennis Hoffman, & Tom R. Rex (2005). The Value of Higher Education: Individual
and Societal Benefits. W. P. Carey School of Business Arizona State University; L.
William Seidman Research Institute.
Martin, P., Martin, D. & Martin, M. (2001). Young adult premarital sexual activity, cohabitation
and attitudes towards marriage. Adolescence 36, 601-609.
Ogungbamila, A. (2013). Demographic predictors of premarital sexual behaviours among
undergraduates. Nigerian Journal of Applied Behavioural Sciences 1, 68-74.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2010). 8th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

7
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Introduction

This chapter captioned the aspect of the research work that showcase the reviews of

literature considered related to the areas of the study. The review will be presented under the

following subheadings:

2.2 The concept of students’ cohabitation.

2.3 Factors responsible for students’ cohabitation.

2.4 Opinions of students’ on cohabitation.

2.5 Challenges of students’ cohabiting

2.6 Consequences of students’ cohabitation.

2.7 Summary of the review.

2.2 Concept of student cohabitation

Although Western societies today do embrace the idea of personal freedom, these same

societies continue, nonetheless, to socialize their members towards the notion, often enforced by

8
law that every adult should conform to one lifestyle, preferably a monogamous heterosexual

pair-bond as the permanent basis for living. However, when society places at the same time great

emphasis on self-actualization and individuation, different kinds of selves will emerge.

Cohabitation is indicative of this trend (Wiersma, 1983). Cohabitation, sometimes

called consensual union or de facto marriage, refers to unmarried heterosexual couples living

together in an intimate relationship without actually having gone through a ceremony of marriage.

The word cohabitation is very complex, but it is generally used to describe the relationship

between unmarried couples who live together as husband and wife (Parry 1981:1; cf. De Bruyn

1993). Invariably to youth, cohabitation is more a testing ground for marriage, or a step on the

way to marriage, much like dating and engagement. The term cohabitation is used in the latter

instance to include people of the same sex living together in a stable, exclusive relationship;

however, cohabitation should be distinguished from the nonsexual relationship of a brother and a

sister who are living together (Schwellnus 1994) and occasional sexual relationships between men

and women living together in a commune (De Bruyn 1993). The content of a cohabitational

relationship entails consensual premarital sex between the two and a sense of responsibility

towards each other (Schwellnus 1994). Some people use cohabitation as a stepping-stone to

marriage, whilst others prefer to cohabit for as long as they live (Manning et al. 2007). Whichever

way the western world try to paint the word, Cohabitation is used in this article to define a

consensual relationship between a man and a woman who decides to live together and who are

having regular sexual intercourse without having married.

The increase in cohabitation is one of the most significant shifts in family demographics

of the past century (Alo, 2008). Cohabitation has become common, among undergraduate

students in Nigeria higher institution. Yet, cohabitation prior to marriage has been consistently

9
associated with poorer marital communication quality, lower marital satisfaction and higher

levels of domestic violence (Clarkberg et al, 1995). Cohabitation was obscure and even taboo

throughout the nineteenth century and until the 1970s. Nonmarital unions have become common

because the meaning of the family has been altered by individualistic social value have

progressively matured since the late 1940s (Ogunsola, 2004). Sociologists treat cohabitation as a

distinct occurrence not just because it has displaced marriage, but also because it represents a

structural change in family relationships.

Although in the past cohabitation before marriage was not viewed as the right thing to do, it is

now sometimes seen as a “necessity.” Some people do it out of preparation for marriage, while

others do it out of convenience (Ogadinma, 2013). The incidence of cohabitation is increasing in

Nigeria and around the world on a daily basis just like indistinct dressing. It has become more

common and more socially acceptable in Nigeria for couples to live together without being

married. For the purpose of this article, we will look closely at the prevalence and dynamics of

cohabitation and premarital sex in Nigeria and also reflect on the whole issue from a legal point of

view and biblical point of view. In Nigeria, it is generally believed that there is an increasing trend

towards cohabitation, although there is little concrete demographic evidence to confirm this. It is

difficult to determine the prevalence of cohabitation in Nigeria, because statistics do not provide

conclusive evidence of this trend, given that information relating to the number of cohabiting

couples has been inferred from statistics relating to marriage, divorce, remarriage and illegitimate

births. The essence of this is captured in the following words: For demographics seeking to

document trends in marriage and partnering in Nigeria, there are surprisingly few sources of data.

In a country where marriage is far from universal, the lack of discrimination between marital

10
states and cohabitation arrangements in the most recent Nigeria censuses limits the interest of this

data.

2.3 Factors responsible for student cohabitation

The nonresidential accommodation in many higher institutions tend to encourage this new

trend of students cohabiting, unlike what was in operation in the olden times where students were

accommodated within institution’s halls of residence, with rules and regulation guiding their stay

(Ojewola & Akinduyo, 2017). However, within a short time, Nigerian tertiary institutions began

to experience challenge of inadequate hostel accommodation, because the population of students

continues to grow without corresponding growth in the number of halls of residence and other

physical facilities (Aluko, 2011). Therefore, cohabitation became the order of the day among the

students in higher institutions of learning. There are various factors contributing to the rising trend

of cohabitation that young people are facing in this age.

According to Mashau (2006), factors contributing to the crisis of cohabitation and premarital

sex amongst the Nigerian youth include, amongst others, the following:

 Publicity: The media focuses more and more upon the sensual. African youth are exposed

to sex and related matters through the medium of newspapers, television, pornographic

videos, the internet, radio and various magazines. Explicit sex videos and DVDs are the

most popular sellers on the market. They also receive mixed messages from the media. In

any given week, they are likely to hear contradictory messages such as ‘No sex until

you’re married’, ‘No sex until you are older’, ‘No sex unless you’re protected’ or ‘No sex

unless you’re in love’ (Anderson 2000).

 Peer pressure: The majority of young people who become involved in cohabitation and

premarital sex do so because of peer pressure. They look at their peers and give in to
11
 temptation, because ‘everyone does it’. They do it in order to avoid being laughed at and

to receive affirmation from their peers. In the end, cohabitation and premarital sex have

become kinds of passports to acceptance in a particular age group (Mwaba & Naidoo

2005).

 Experimenting with sex: We need to note that there is a growing trend amongst African

young people these days to think that it is old-fashioned if they do not experiment with sex

before marriage. They think that it is part and parcel of modernity to engage in sex before

marriage and want to familiarize themselves with matters concerning sex before they get

married. That is why the majority will opt to move in with their girlfriends or boyfriends.

Johnson et al., (2002) and Smock & Manning (2009) found that many young adults

believe cohabitation is a good way to test their relationship prior to marriage. Miller and

colleagues (2011) proposed in their research that individuals might enter cohabitation for

varying reasons, among which are, beliefs that marriage is an ultimate commitment and

preference to test living together before committing, that couples fear getting divorced in

the future, or that couples simply don’t believe they have found the partner for marriage

yet but still wish to cohabit for other reasons.

 The reality of sin in our lives: One of the factors contributing to our youth engaging in

cohabitation and premarital sex is the reality of sin in our lives. According to Ephesians

2:1–3, there are three other factors attached to the fall of humanity in Genesis 3 that

deserve to be mentioned. The first is the devil himself, who is said to be the great deceiver.

The second is the sexual desires within oneself; the temptation to give in to that kind of

internal drive is always strong. The third has to do with the influence from the outside,

12
 ‘the world in its sinful state’. Sin has so blinded us that we no longer want to conduct our

lives according to the dictates of the law of God.

 Drug and alcohol abuse: There is a high correlation between alcohol and sexual

experiences. A number of African youngsters, especially those coming from rural areas,

tend to become involved in drugs and alcohol abuse immediately after they enter tertiary

education institutions. It is very difficult for these youth to control their sexual drives

when they are under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

 The internet: Unguided and uncontrolled surfing on the Internet can expose youth to

pornography online. Young people are often hooked by sexual images that they are

exposed to as they surf the internet. The internet is also doing a great deal of damage when

it comes to the sexual lifestyle of Nigerian youth, because some of those who are

bombarded by pornography also like to put it into practice.

 Fashions in clothing: Another factor contributing to the pervasive emphasis on sex

amongst the youth in Nigeria is fashions in clothing. These days it is difficult to find

clothes for teenage girls that are not revealing or tight-fitting. This makes girls more

willing to flaunt their bodies and makes them vulnerable to sexual predators that are

willing to buy them expensive clothes in exchange for sexual favors.

 Desire for physical closeness: Two explanations proposed by (Rhoades, Stanley, &

Markman 2009) was that dating individuals who lived apart desired greater physical

closeness and saw cohabitation as convenient. However, Rhodes and her colleagues also

noted that by fulfilling their wish for physical proximity, cohabiting couples develop

higher levels of insecurity, depression, and anxiety while cohabiting.

13
  Parents educational background and occupation: Other significant factors that

influence students cohabitation behavior included fathers’ occupation, mothers’

occupation, parents’ residence, parents’/guardians’ income, peer pressure, year of study

and fathers’ level of education (Muriithi-Kabaria, 2006).

 Parental divorce, marital quality and stability: The intergenerational transmission of

divorce and children’s subsequent marital quality and stability has been studied as a

factor that for cohabitation. Results from a study done by Cunningham & Thorton (2007)

found that parental divorce during childhood increased children's tolerance for

cohabitation in adulthood, and also mothers' attitudes toward cohabitation continue to

influence adult children's attitudes toward cohabitation well into adulthood. Given the

accumulated evidence that premarital cohabitation is associated with marital dysfunction,

the question remains: why are so many people still cohabiting?

 Financial challenge: Also, with the steady digression of the economy, it is not foolish to

believe that students are cohabiting for the sole purpose of saving money. Another

possible reason for continued prevalence of cohabitation, as previously discussed before,

is the tendency to cohabit after becoming engaged (Oppenheimer, 2003). Despite these

suggestions, research has also found that the decision to cohabit is often not deliberate at

all (Manning & Smock, 2005).

2.4 Opinion of the students on Cohabitation

Although the definition of what constitutes a “cohabiting relationship” has been a debate

of both research scholars and everyday couples, no one can argue that the shift in acceptable

living arrangements has drastically changed the marriage ideal. Likewise, while the reasons for

cohabiting before marriage vary with each couple, one thing has stayed consistent; cohabitation

14
has been associated with poor marital outcomes again and again (Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman

2009). Stanley, Rhoades, & Markman (2006) have labeled this notion the "cohabitation effect".

Cohabitation has become common, cohabitation prior to marriage has been consistently

associated with poorer marital communication quality, lower marital satisfaction and higher

levels of domestic violence (Clarkberg et al, 1995).

Cohabitation was obscure and even taboo throughout the nineteenth century and until the 1970s

(Ogadinma, 2013). Nonmarital unions have become common because the meaning of the family

has been altered by individualistic social value which have progressively matured since the late

1940s (Ogunsola, 2004). Sociologists treat cohabitation as a distinct occurrence not just because

it has displaced marriage, but also because it represents a structural change in family

relationships. (Ogunsola, 2004). As Stanley et al., (2006) pointed out, the work of Manning and

Smock (2005) found that most couples slide from non-cohabitation to cohabitation before fully

realizing what is happening; often it is a non-deliberative and incremental process.

For some individuals, cohabitating is a form of partner and partnerhood trial or

assessment, and in some instances their partner’s suitability for parenthood and/or future

financial stability (Bumpass, Sweet et al. 1991; Oppenheimer 2000; Heuveline & Timberlake

2004; Brien, Lillard et al. 2006). Elizabeth and Baker (2013) argue that a growing proportion of

do not have an explicit goal of marriage, rather they live within ‘conditional partnerships’ which

are regularly assessed (by both parties) for levels of satisfaction. Some cohabitations are long-

term and remain so, while others will be eventually transformed into marriage (Baker and

Elizabeth 2013). Cohabitation can also be a short-term living arrangement that will transition

into legal marriage when the couple is financially secure (McGinnis 2003).

15
Few young people make deliberate plans to cohabit (Lindsay 2000; Manning and Smock 2005;

Rhoades, Stanley et al. 2009; Gold 2012). Some cohabitations therefore act as an alternative to

being single, and in this sense might be understood as an extension of dating, while others are

short-term casual sexual arrangements/co-residential dating in which individuals do not consider

marriage or long-term cohabitation (Rindfuss & VandenHeuvel 1990; Heuveline & Timberlake

2004). Elizabeth and Baker (2013) argue that cohabitation can also act as alternative to marriage

or residential dating. These casual, test bed, trial marriage, and conditional partnership

cohabitations have become extensions of dating and the partner winnowing process. In summary,

cohabitation takes at least three forms: a temporary arrangement, a partnership that leads to legal

marriage, and a long-term partnership that retains its cohabiting status. However, the purpose,

prevalence and duration of cohabitations, and their relationship to legal marriage, is related to the

cultural and legal context of different nation states (Heuveline and Timberlake 2004).This seems

to suggest that many cohabiting couples find themselves in the middle of relationship transitions

(i.e. from non-cohabiting to cohabiting or from cohabiting to marriage) without fully considering

the implications. This practice of cohabiting has serious health issue to the female students that

may indulge in the use of oral contraceptive unwanted pregnancy that may lead to truncated

educational aspirations. But when pregnancy does occur, sometimes, the female student is more

like to seek abortion as a way out. This practice of seeking for abortion may lead to another

problem of exposing the female students to quack doctors who are not licensed practitioners and

this may result in a whole of health complications with serious negative spillover effects in the

long run (Ofoegbu, 2002). However, some students may frown at abortion and or not even have

the money to execute it. This may lead to giving birth to unwanted babies that were not planned

16
for and all the consequences that come with it including a threatened academic pursuit. The study

broadly aimed at investigating the consequences of cohabitation.

2.5 Challenges of students cohabitation

Domestic conflict and financial challenges can affect the study plans and patterns of the

cohabiting students and result in poor academic performances in examination. This is because,

students have no legal or cultural commitment to each other as seen among married couples

(Ogadimma, 2013). Cohabitation is a deviant habitation pattern frowned at by both culture and

religion. Students lack the experience and training to cope with challenges of living together as

man and wife. These challenges if not solved in time could degenerate to violence and abuse by

one of the cohabiting partners. Cohabiting pose challenges as students academic performances is

affected negatively. Cohabiting students live their individual life while others combine to run the

home. It is the nature of the relationship that exists among them that will affect how they run the

home. However, one cannot rule out the effect of gender in the roles the students perform

Conflict equally results where they have some habits and lifestyles such as smoking, drinking out

with friends and following fashion trends and life style. These life styles and habits if not

properly managed could be a source of quarrel among the students.

2.6 Consequences of cohabitation

The majority of students engage in sex before marriage are not fully informed about the

consequences involved in such actions and those who are aware of the consequences tend to

ignore them. Nigeria youth and their peers all over the world should be made aware of the serious

consequences of cohabitation and sex outside marriage. Sex before and outside marriage is

destructive and might even cause death in some instances. Some of the dangers and miseries

brought about by cohabitation and sex outside marriage include the following:

17
 Unwanted and unexpected pregnancy: There are many girls who fall pregnant

unexpectedly because they engage in premarital sex (Chitamun & Finchilescu 2003).

These unplanned and unwanted pregnancies force many of these children to seek

abortions. This practice of seeking for abortion may lead to another problem of exposing

the female students to quack doctors who are not licensed practitioners and this may result

in a whole of health complications with serious negative spillover effects in the long run

(Ofoegbu, 2002). Cohabiting students will most likely engage in unprotected sex which

could result in sexually transmitted infections and the much dreaded HIV/AIDS disease

(Ogunsola, 2004).

 Shotgun weddings: Shotgun weddings might occur as a result of cohabitation and

premarital sex as they are forced to take place because of premarital pregnancies. The so-

called shotgun wedding tries to make a marriage where none exists (Olthuis 1976). The

couple is forced to legalize their relationship because of the expected baby or out of

sympathy and not real love. The growing idea of relationship inertia has become

particularly relevant to cohabiting relationships that turn to marriages. The central theme

of relationship inertia is that some couples who otherwise would not have married end up

married partly because they cohabit (Stanley et al., 2006).

 Emotional breakdown: Separation of a couple might come about as a result of the

premarital sexual encounter. Premarital sex and sex outside marriage destroy relationships.

Those involved become miserable and disillusioned with life. Girls are the most frequent

victims in this case. In most cases, young people do not know how to cope in such

situations. Their hopes and dreams are shattered.

18
 Suicide: Loss of mutual trust and communication is harmful to a relationship. Fear and

guilt (Ps 32) in the life of the one who is doing wrong brings about psychological trauma,

anxiety, stigmatization, depression and can also lead to suicide.

 Sexually transmitted infections: The majority of young people involved in sex outside

marriage are exposed to all sorts of sexually transmitted infections, such as syphilis,

gonorrhoea, herpes, AIDS, Ebola, etcetera. The prevalence of HIV and AIDS amongst

cohabiting couples is on the increase. It should be noted that anyone who leads an unclean

sex life runs the risk of catching these dreadful diseases. Indeed, graveyards have graves

waiting to swallow the many young people dying from these terrible diseases (Smith

2004).

 Marriage breakdown: Sexual experiences from the past might even cause a breakdown

in marriage when they haunt one of the partners. Sarah and John’s case serves as an

example in this regard. When Sarah was sleeping with her husband John, she burst into

tears because she remembered her first sexual experiences with Edwin before she was

married. She never enjoyed the sexual intimacy with her husband, because she was

haunted by her past experiences of engaging in sexual activities with Edwin in her teens.

Edwin had been so consumed by his pursuit of self-gratification that he had never cared

how Sarah felt and responded when they engaged in their sexual encounters. Now,

whenever she engages in a sexual encounter with her husband, those bad memories flash

back. Consequently, her marriage is on the brink of collapsing.

 Wrath of God: Above all, those who engage in sex outside marriage need to note that

what they are doing is against the will of God (Gn 39:9) and thereby they are inviting his

wrath into their lives (Heb 12:5–6). It is a terrible thing to play in the hands of God:

19
 ‘Therefore, since we are receiving a Kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful,

and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire’

(Heb 12:28–29).

 Poor marital outcome: Cohabitation has been associated with poor marital outcomes

again and again, labeled the "cohabitation effect" (Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman 2009).

While the “cohabitation effect” may be the label given to marriages preceded by

cohabitation that end in divorce or permanent separation, the reason these marriages are

ending is because marital quality diminished or never existed in the first place. Research

shows that individuals who are satisfied with their intimate relationships live longer, are

physically healthier (Kiecold-Glaser & Newton, 2001), and are better parents (Grych &

Fincham, 1990). Researchers have suggested that marriages preceded by a cohabiting

union have a higher risk of martial instability and lower marital quality (Kamp Dush,

Cohan, & Amato, 2003), less supportive behavior, less time spent together in shared

activities, and a greater perceived likelihood of future martial dissolution (Cohan &

Kleinbaum, 2002; Kamp Dush et al., 2003). Brown (2004) extended this idea by

considering the issue of timing with regards to couples cohabiting. Her results showed

that married couples who cohabited before their engagement reported more negative

communication, lower satisfaction, and more physical aggression than those who

cohabited only after engagement or marriage. More recently, Rhoades, Stanley, and

Markman (2009) found that cohabiting before an engagement, even only with one’s

future spouse, is associated with lower marital quality and higher divorce potential.

Compared with couples that enter directly into marriage, couples who cohabit first have a

higher risk of marital dissolution (Heaton, 2002). Thus, marital dissolution by large has

20
 negative effect on students from such homes. The presence of divorce appears to

influence children’s marriage, both with an increase of marital difficulties and a

subsequent increase in the likelihood to divorce because of a learned pattern for divorce

(Kunz, 2000). Furthermore, students whose parents separate or divorce are, on average,

more likely to exhibit problematic behavior, have poorer mental health and academic

performance, and have more social difficulties and lower self-concepts than students

whose parents remain married (Amato, 1994). However, the rise in marital disruption has

been beneficial to some students while being detrimental to others (Burns & Dunlop,

2002). This phenomenon could be attributed to social learning theory. This widely

accepted theory posits that children can learn by observing the behaviors of others and

the outcomes of those behaviors. Social learning theory suggests that many behaviors can

be learned, at least partly, through modeling. As Bandura (1971; 1977) reported,

students’ attitudes may become similar to parents’ attitudes as a result of their

observation and imitation, or students’ attitudes may be similar to the attitudes of parents

because parents have engaged in active forms of socialization such as support or control

(Gecas & Seff, 1990).

 Retarded academic success: Cohabiting students’ experience poor academic success,

educational expectations, achievement, and attainment (Kelly, 2005). They also have

lower educational expectations, poorer school attendance, and lower grades (Amato 2001).

 Moral decadence: Cohabitation among university students has led to moral decadence in

the society. According to Adekunle Ajasin University (AAUA) Vice Chancellor as cited

by Ajibefu (2015), living together and having sexual relationship without being married

is a trend that has structures (Dempsey & Devaus, 2004; Laplante, 2006; LeBourdais &

21
 Lapierre, 2004). Religious inclination notwithstanding, contemporary adolescents tend to

do what they desire without any serious consideration for their religious beliefs.

1.7 Summary of the Review

The reviews of related literatures have helped this study to anchor its basis to what have

been established to be fact about the subject of discussion i.e. cohabitation among undergraduate

students of Ahmadu Bello University, although the literatures are sparse. It highlighted and

created an overview and understanding of the incidence of cohabitation increasing in Nigeria and

around the world on a daily basis. It also engineered the understanding of the opinion as well as

factors that encourage cohabitation among undergraduate students which include among others

the challenge of inadequate hostel accommodation, internet, drug and alcohol abuse, pressure

group, desire for physical closeness, parents’ educational background and occupation and

financial challenges.

Furthermore, sexually transmitted infections, unwanted pregnancy, Poor marital

outcome, retarded academic success, moral decadence, abortion, death, emotional breakdown etc.

the studies reviewed, highlighted as the consequences of cohabitation among undergraduates and

also to the society at large. Moreso, religious inclination notwithstanding, contemporary

adolescents tend to do what they desire without any serious consideration for their religious

beliefs.

However, of the literatures reviewed, little or none has been explored on the prevalence,

causes and consequences of cohabitation among undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello

University, Zaria. Therefore, this study will among other reasons serve as a clarion call to abate

this anomaly, so that the school and society at large will not continue to suffer.

22
References

Ajibefu, I (2015, Sept, 10). AAUA, VC Condemns cohabitation among students. The Nation.
Alo, O.A. (2008). Socioeconomic determinants of unintended pregnancies among Yoruba
Women of Southwest Nigeria. International Journal of Sustainable Development. Vol.1
(4), 145-154.
Aluko, O.E. (2011). The assessment of housing situation among students in the University of
Lagos. Africa research Review- An international Multi-Disciplinary Journal5 (3), 104-
118.
Amato, P. (1994). Life-span adjustment of children to their parents’ divorce. The Future of
Children: Children and Divorce, 4, 143-164

23
Amato, P.R. & DeBoer, D.D. (2001). The transmission of marital instability across generations:
Relationship skills or commitment to marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(4),
1038-1051.
Anderson (2000). “The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage,” Journal of Marriage and
Family 66 (Nov 2004):849.
Bandura, A. (1971). Psychological modeling: Conflicting theories. Chicago: Aldine Atherton.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brien, M., L. Lillard and S. Stern (2006). "Cohabitation, marriage, and divorce in a model of
match quality." International Economic Review 47(2): pp 451494.
Brown, S.L. (2004). Moving from cohabitation to marriage: Effects on relationship quality. Social
Science Research, 33(1), 1-20.
Bumpass, L. L., Martin, T. C., & Sweet, J. A. (1991). The impact of family background and
1964-1980 marital factors on marital disruption. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 22-42.
Burns, A. & Dunlop, R. (2002). Parental marital quality and family conflict: Longitudinal effects
on adolescents from divorcing and non-divorcing families. Journal of Divorce and
Remarriage, 37(1/2), 57-74.
CE. Wiersma (1983). Cohabitation: An alternative to marriage. A cross-national study.
Wageningen: Marti nus nijhoff publishers.
Clarkberg, M, Ross, M. Stolzenberg and Linda J. W. (1995). Attitudes, Values, and Entrance into
Cohabitional versus Marital Unions. Social Forces. 74: 609-634
Cohan, C. L., & Kleinbaum, S. (2002). Toward a greater understanding of the cohabitation
effect: Premarital cohabitation and marital communication. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 64, 180-192.
Cunningham, M., & Thornton, A. (2007). Direct and indirect influences of parents’ marital
instability on children’s attitudes toward cohabitation in young adulthood. Journal of
Divorce and Remarriage, 46(3/4), 125-143.
De Bruyn (1993). The Pre-Engagement Cohabitation Effect: A Replication and Extension of
Previous Findings. Journal of Family Psychology 2009; 23:107-111.
Dempsey, K. and Devaus, D. (2004). "Who Cohabits in 2001? The Significance of age, gender,
religion and ethnicity." Journal of Sociology 40(2): pp. 157-178.
Elizabeth, V. and M. Baker (2013). Conditional Partnerships or Trial Marriage? Cohabitation in
the 21st Century. Annual TASA Conference, Monash University, Melbourne.
Gecas,V. & Seff, M.A. (1990). Families and adolescents: A review of the 1980’s. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 52, 941-958.
Gold, J. (2012). "Typologies of Cohabitation: Implications for Clinical Practice and Research."
The Family Journal 20: pp. 315-321.
Heaton, T. B. (2002). Factors contributing to increasing marital stability in the US. Journal of
Family Issues, 23, 392-409.

24
Heuveline, P. and J. Timberlake (2004). "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The
United States in Comparative Perspective." Journal of Marriage and Family 66(6): pp.
1214-1230.
Jennifer M. Hunt (2009). A “Cohabitation Effect”? Cohabitation, Parental Divorce, & Marital
Success. The Ohio State University.
Johnson, C.A., Stanley, S.M., Glenn, N.D., Amato, P.A., Nock, S.L., Markman, H.J., & Dion,
M.R. (2002). Marriage in Oklahoma: 2001 baseline statewide survey on marriage and
divorce (S02096 OKDHS). Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
Kamp Dush, C.M., Cohan, C.L., & Amato, P.R. (2003). The relationship between cohabitation
and martial quality and stability: Change across cohorts? Journal of Marriage and Family,
65(3), 539-549
Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K., & Newton, T.L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological
Bulletin, 127,472-503.
Kunz, J. (2000). The intergenerational transmission of divorce: A nine generation study. Journal
of Divorce and Remarriage, 34 (1/2), 169-175.
Laplante, B. (2006). The rise of cohabitation in Quebec: Power of religion and power over
religion. Canadian Journal of Sociology 31: 1-24.
LeBourdais, C. & Lapierre- Adamcy K, E. (2004). Change in conjugal life in Canada: is
cohabitation progressively replacing marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family. 66: 929-
942.
Lindsay, J. (2000). "An ambiguous commitment: Moving into a cohabiting relationship." Journal
of Family Studies 6(1): pp. 120-134.
Manning, W. and P. Smock (2005). "Measuring and modeling cohabitation: New perspectives
from qualitative data." Journal of Marriage and Family 67(4): pp. 989-1002.
Mashau (2006). “Attitudes, Values and Entrance in to Cohabitational Versus Marital Unions,”
Social Forces 4 (1995):609-32.
Miller, A., Sassler, S., & Kusi-Appouh, D. (2011). The specter of divorce: Views from working-
and middle-class cohabitors. [References]. Journal of Applied Family Studies, 60(5), 602–
616. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00671.x
Muriithi-Kabaria, Joan Nduta (2006). Factors that contribute to the prevalence and practice of
cohabitation among kenyatta university students, Nairobi, Kenya.
Mwaba & Naidoo (2005). Cohabitation, marriage, and murder: Woman-killing by male
romantic partners. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 284-291 accessed on March 8, 2012 at
http://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/Shackelford-AB-2001.pdf,
Natalia Mosailova (2014). The Rise of Non-Marital Cohabitation: Review and Analysis of
Existing  Research. Portland State University.
Ofoegbu, C.I. (2002). Human Development, Family Behaviour, Parenting, Marriage and
Counselling Skills. Enugu: Snaap Press Ltd
Ogunsola, (2004). “The Relationship between Cohabitation and Marital Quality and Stability:
Change across Cohorts? Journal of Marriage and Family 65: 539-549.
25
Ojewola F.O., Akinduyo T.E. (2017). Prevalence and Factors Responsible for Cohabitation
among Undergraduates of Adekunle Ajasin University, Ondo State, Nigeria. American
Journal of Educational Research, 2017, Vol. 5, No. 6, 650-654
Oppenheimer V.K. (2003). Cohabiting and marriage during young men’s career development
process. Demography, 40, 127-149.
Oppenheimer, Valerie Kincaid. (2000). The Continuing Importance of Men‘s Economic Position
in Marriage Formation‖ in The Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and
Cohabitation. Ed. Linda Waite. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Parry (1981). Marriage and Cohabitation in the United States: A Statistical Portrait Based on
Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth. National Center for Health
Statistics. Vital and Health Statics 2010; 23(8). Accessed at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_028.pdf on Feb 16, 2012.
Raley Kelly, Michelle L. Frisco, & Elizabeth Wildsmith (2005). Maternal Cohabitation and
Educational Success. Sociology of Education 2005, Vol. 78 (April): pp. 144–164
Rhoades, G., S. Stanley and H. Markman (2009). "Couples’ Reasons for Cohabitation
Associations with Individual Well-Being and Relationship Quality." Journal of Family
Issues 30(2): pp. 233-258.
Rindfuss, R. and A. VandenHeuvel (1990). "Cohabitation: A precursor to marriage or an
alternative to being single?" Population and Development Review 16: pp. 703-726.
Schwellnus N. Glenn, E. Marquardt (1994). Hookingup, hangingout, and hoping for Mr. Right.
College Women on Mating and Dating Today. NewYork: Institute of American Value;
2001. Retrieved at http://www.americanvaluorg/Hooking_Up.pdf.AccessedAugust 11,
2010.
Smith (2004). Marriage and Cohabitation in the United States: A Statistical Portrait Based on
Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth. National Center for Health
Statistics. Vital and Health Statics 2010; 23(8).Tables 16 and
17.https://medium.com/@anacom_okey/article-on-cohabitation-among-youths-
22f5f1a77380 . Accessed may 16, 2018.
Stanley, S., G. Rhoades and H. Markman (2006). "Sliding Versus Deciding: Inertia and the
Premarital Cohabitation Effect." Family Relations 55: pp. 499509.

26
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the methodology adopted in carrying out the study. In line with

this, the chapter is organized under the following subheadings; the research method adopted,

research design, population of the study, sample and sampling techniques, instrument for data

27
collection, procedures for data collection, rigor in qualitative research and procedure for data

analysis.

3.2 Research Methodology

Research methodology refers to the manner of collecting research data (Braun, 2006).

However, Qualitative research method was adopted in this study; this is because, qualitative

research focuses on reports of experience and uses people’s account as data (Hancock,

Windridge, & Ocklefford, 2007). The qualitative methodology shares its philosophical

foundation with the interpretative paradigm which supports the view that there are many truths

and multiple realities. Also, qualitative research are most appropriate when the researcher wants

to be familiar with the phenomenon of interest, to achieve a deep understanding of how people

think about a topic and to describe in detail the perspective of the research participants.

Qualitative research allows direct interaction with the people being studied in form of

interviewing the participants’ concepts and their characteristics as well as description of things

(Berg, 2007; Cresswell, 2009). This enables the researcher to be more detailed about the

individual or place and be highly involved in the actual experiences of the participants (Creswell

2003).

3.2.1 Research Design

Research design is a detailed outline on how an investigation will take place. It indicates

how the study is to be conducted and serves to plan, structure and execute. For this reason, a case

study research design was adopted. Case study design is an in-depth study of particular situations

28
that focuses on gaining an in-depth understanding of a particular entity, group, individual or

event at a specific time and also enables the researcher to have an in-depth examination of the

research participants and particularly useful in explanatory studies (Aina, 2004). Similarly, case

study approaches make use of multiple methods of data collection such as interviews, document

review and archival records (Yin, 2003).

Qualitative case study present data that is usually gathered through a variety of means

including but not limited to interviews, observations, audio, video data and document collection.

The goal of collecting data through a variety of means is both to enhance the theory generating

capabilities of the case, and to provide additional validity to assertions made by either the

researcher or the participants in the case itself. Also, Case studies tend to be bounded in some

discrete way by examining a specific or a set of individuals, organizations, schools, departments

or events (Stake, 2005). However, a case study research design is found appropriate to explore

prevalence of cohabitation among undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.

This is pertinent because case study uses conventions of narrative to explore insightfully issues

with which the researcher has intellectually grappled with in order to challenge and help readers

to understand a problematic case in a new light (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

3.3 Population of the Study

Population of a research is referred to as the universe or the entire group whose

characteristics are to be estimated. Esan and Okafor (1995) describe it as the aggregate of all

units in a target universe. Population refers to the entire unit of analysis to be studied by the

researcher in order to arrive at a conclusion Hence, population is the group of interest to the

researcher in which the results or outcome of the study become generalizable. Undergraduate

29
students of Faculty of Education, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria constitutes the study

population.

It is impossible for a researcher to use as subject, all elements of the population for

reasons of inadequate financial resources, time, efforts and scope (Bryman, 2013). Due to the

inability to use the entire population, the researcher resorted to taking sample from the

population. For this research, the population of this study comprise of 9,775 undergraduate

students of Faculty of Education, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (MIS 2017/2018).

3.4 Sample and Sampling Techniques

A sample is a subset drawn to represent the relevant attributes of the whole set. This may

not necessarily be an individual; it may be an object, events etc. Esan and Okafor (1995)

describe a sample as a subset of a population selected to meet specific objectives. It is a

proportion of an entity or a subset. The essential requirement of any sample is that it should be as

representative as possible of the entire population. However, for this study, a purposive sampling

technique was adapted. This involves selecting participants who are best able to help the

researcher understand the problem and answer the research question (Creswell, 2003).

The participants were purposively selected on the basis of the researcher’s knowledge of

the population, its element, and the nature of the research aims (Babbie, 1990). In purposive

sampling, the researcher decides what information is needed and seeks informants that are most

likely to provide information that can answer the questions of the study. Three (3) undergraduate

students participated in the study. Equally, purposive sampling is appropriate for this study

because it offers a frame for identifying sources that will uncover the consequences of

cohabitation among undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.

30
3.4.1 Eligibility criteria for participants

The participants for this study were required to meet the following criteria for

participation: they must be undergraduate students admitted into Ahmadu Bello University,

Zaria, and must have spent at least a semester studying in the University. Three (3) participants

who met the above criteria were selected as participants of the study.

3.5 Instrument for Data Collection

The instrument adopted to collect data for this study is a semi-structured interview and

the use of digital recorder to record the interview process. In semi-structured interviews, the

order in which the various topics are dealt with and the wording of the questions are left to the

interviewer’s discretion. The semi-structured interview involved the researcher personally

interviewing the responded based on the structured set of questions that has been prepared before

the interview. This will enable the researcher to explain or elaborate on any question that was not

well understood by the respondents.

In addition, the researcher can explain or rephrase the questions if respondents are

unclear about the questions. Interviews are particularly useful for getting the story behind a

participant’s experiences and the interviewer can pursue in-depth information around the topic

(McNamara, 1999). Interview is an effective means to gather descriptive data in the exact words

of the participants (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). Interviewing can be carried out in a couple of

ways, including; face-to-face, and telephone interviews. The researcher used the face-to-face

interview because it has been recognized as a standard among data collection methodologies and

has demonstrated advantages with respect to obtaining high response rates (De Leeuw1992;

Holbrook, Green, and Kronsnick 2003).

31
3.6 Procedures for Data Collection

Data was collected using interview from the respondents. The researcher endeavored to

have audience with the participant undergraduate students where the detail of the research work

was explained to them in order to attract them and identify those who may be interested.

However, it was necessary for the researcher to let the participants know the purpose for

undertaking the research and make it clear that any information obtained in the course of study

will be treated with confidentiality. The researcher also explained to the participants that the

interviews would be captured on tape to ascertain that their views are correctly recorded, and the

tape would be handled properly by the researcher and his supervisors. Also, the researcher jotted

down the interview to serve as reminder on points to follow up on so as not to disturb the flow of

conversation.

Participants were also allowed to either participate on their own free will or decline. Each

respondent was interviewed for 25-30 minutes in a convenient manner and it was done base on

the structured questions that has been prepared for the interview. However, while making the

interview the researcher used a smart phone in recording the responses of the respondents.

Finally, the researcher after the interview thanked the respondents for given him their fruitful

time in answering his question. Furthermore, the researcher created a relaxed atmosphere for

participants to freely express themselves, and also made it known to them that for the purpose of

analyzing data collected, the interviewed would be transcribed and analyzed.

3.7 Rigor in Qualitative Research

32
 Rigor refers to the correct use of research method and is an important aspect of the

quality of research processes and outcomes. The trustworthiness or validity of the research

findings is an important concern in any research study (Creswell, 1998). In determining the

trustworthiness of qualitative studies, researchers must consider the data collection, analysis, and

interpretation methods used. Questions asked involve the extent to which the study accurately

captures the perceptions of the participants; whether other researchers would reach similar

conclusions based on the data; whether the analysis process is flexible enough to account for

variations in experiences; and the degree that study elements were sufficiently described to allow

for comparison to other populations and study findings. This study therefore adopted the

proposed criteria outlined by Guba and Lincoln (1982): credibility, transferability, dependability

and conformability.

Credibility

Credibility indicates that findings are trustworthy and believable, that they accurately represent

the data and describe the phenomenon studied. It is also defined as confidence in truth of the

findings (Guba & Lincoln, 1982). Credibility establishes whether or not the research findings

represent plausible information drawn from the participants’ original data and is a correct

interpretation of the participants’ original views (Guba & Lincoln, 1985). A qualitative

researcher establishes rigor of the inquiry by adopting the following credibility strategies:

prolonged and varied field experience, time sampling, reflexivity, (field journal), triangulation,

member checking, peer examination, interview technique, establishing authority of researcher

and structural coherence.

Transferability

33
Transferability is the applicability of the findings in other contexts or at some other time or with

other participants (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Lincoln and Guba (1985) contended that advancing

hypotheses together with a thick description of the time and context in which they were found to

hold allows others to make decisions regarding transferability. Thus, it is the responsibility of the

investigator to provide the database that makes transferability judgments possible for other

investigators (Lincoln &Guba, 1985). Bitsch (2005), opined that the “researcher facilitates the

transferability judgment by a potential user through ‘thick description’ and purposeful

sampling”. To facilitate transferability, the researcher gave comprehensive account of the

enquiry and the participants that were selected purposively.

Dependability

Dependability refers to consistency and repeatability of findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Explaining in detail how conceptualizations were arrived at enables others to follow the analyst’s

path of logic and that it is a plausible explanation for what is going on. Dependability is

established using: an audit trail, a code-recode strategy, stepwise replication, triangulation and

peer examination. Furthermore, participants’ are able to evaluate the findings, interpretation and

recommendations of the study. This is to ensure that they are supported by the data received

originally from the participants.

Conformability

Conformability refers to a degree of neutrality or the extent to which the findings of a study are

shaped by the respondents and not researcher bias, motivation, or interest (Lincoln & Guba,

1985). Conformability of qualitative inquiry is achieved through conformability audit, an audit

trial, reflexive journal and triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

34
3.8 Procedures for Data Analysis

Data collected from the interview, was analyzed using inductive approach. The analysis

of qualitative research notes begins in the field, at the time of observation, interviewing, or both,

as the researcher identifies problems and concepts that appear likely to help in understanding the

situation. Reading the transcript or notes is an important step in the analytic process. The process

of analysis entails that the researcher makes sense out of the recorded data in text, image, audio

and or video formats. The researcher would adopt the inductive approach for data analysis as

described by Thomas (2006) in this study:

Preparation of raw data files (data cleaning)

The raw data which is in form of voice recorded interviews was transcribed word for word

manually on paper. In order to make clear the chain of the interview, the interviewer is

represented by ‘R’ while the participant is represented by ‘P’.

Close reading of text

The researcher read in hard copy the text numerous times to be familiar with its content and gain

understanding of the themes covered in the text. The researcher also highlighted narrations that

are related.

Creation of categories

The researcher identified and defined categories or themes. Relevant narratives were read

multiple times to identify relationships and differences. From each narrative, open code(s) was

drawn using the exact words of each participant. The open codes were scrutinized and related

open codes identified and grouped together to form subcategories.

Overlapping coding and uncoded text

35
A common rule in qualitative coding is that, they are different from the rules typically used in

quantitative coding: (a) one segment of text may be coded into more than one category, and (b) a

considerable amount of text (e.g., 50% or more) may not be assigned to any category if the

researcher views that the text are irrelevant to the objectives of the research.

Continuing revision and refinement of category system

Refining the category system involves the researcher searching for the topics, including

contradictory points of view new insights within each category. Furthermore, the researcher

selected appropriate quotations that conveyed the core theme or essence of a category. The

categories may be combined or linked together when the meanings are similar.

References

Aina L.O. (2004). Library and Information Science Text for Africa. Ibadan: Third world
information services.

36
Babbie, Earl. (1990). Survey Research Methods. 2nd ed. Belmont, California: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
Berg B.L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. In Guest G., Bunce A., &
Johnson L. Eds. How interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and
variability, Field Methods, (18), 2006, 59-84. Boston MA: Pearson education Inc.
Bitsch V. (2005). Qualitative research: A Grounded Theory Example and Evaluation Criteria.
Journal of Agribusiness, 23(1), 75-91.
Braun c. (2006). How to use thematic analysis. Retrieve 11th February 2018 from
https://sites.google.com/site/howtousethematicanalysis/
Cresswell J.W. (2003). Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.
Cresswell J.W. (2009). Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications Inc.
De Leeuw E. (1992). Data quality in mail, telephone, and face-to-face surveys. Amsterdam:TT
Publications.
Denzin N.K. and Lincoln Y.S. (2011). Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative
research. 4th Ed. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds). The SAGE Handbook of
Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Esan, E.O., and Okafor R.O., (1995). Basic Statistics Methods. Lagos: Sunshine International
Publication Nigeria Limited.
Guba E.G. and Lincoln Y.S. (1982). Establishing dependability and conformability in naturalistic
inquiry through an audit. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the America
Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Hancock B., Windridge K.,and Ockleford E. (2007). An Introduction to Qualitative Research.
The NIHR RDS EM/YH.
Holbrook A.L., M.C. Green, and J.A. Krosnick. (2003). Telephone vs. Face-to-Face Interviewing
of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires: Comparisons of Respondent
Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67:79-125.
Lincoln Y.S. and Guba E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
McNamara and Carter PhD (1999). General Guidelines for Conducting Interviews. Minnesota:
Southern Cross University and the Southern Cross Institute of Action Research.
Stake, R. E. (2005). “Qualitative case studies.” In Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S.
Eds. The sage handbook of qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Pgs.443-466.
Thomas D. (2006). A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data.
America Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.
Yin R. (2003). Applications of Case Study Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

38
 This chapter analyzed the findings derived from the data gotten from the interview

conducted on people in Ahmadu Bello University community regarding the awareness of

cohabitation among undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello University. Data in the form of

phrases and sentences about awareness of cohabitation among undergraduate students of

Ahmadu Bello University, were collected from three (3) respondents who are all genuine people

of the community and who have the experience about the question asked during the interview.

Furthermore, the responses gathered from in-depth interview of the respondents were transcribed

precisely verbatim (word by word). The data collected were presented in a Microsoft word table

template. The responses provided multiple views and insights into the subject of study

(cohabitation). Hence, the table produced forty (40) codes, thirty-two (32) subcategories and

eighteen (18) major categories. It is upon these categories and codes that the findings and

analysis of this study was designed.

4.2 Response Rate

Six (6) people were proposed to participate in the study. However, three (3) people pulled

out of the interview citing personal reasons for their withdrawal, and the remaining three (3)

respondents agreed to be interviewed. The respondents include one 200 level female student

from Social studies education and two males in 200 level and 400 level from Business education

and Library science respectively.

4.3 Data Presentation, analysis and discussion.

Each of the three (3) interviews were transcribed, read, examined and re-examined.

Therefore, while reading the transcribed interviews, the researcher underlined sentences,

39
phrases, and words that best described the respondents’ actions, thoughts and understanding of

the awareness of cohabitation among undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello University.

Meanwhile, an iterative method was used to employ a series of steps for coding the highlighted

narratives (Krathwohl, 1998). Following these steps, the researcher read through the narratives

looking for variances and similarities in the narratives.

Forty (40) codes reoccurring topics were hence identified as sub-categories for students’

cohabitation Ahmadu Bello University community. The thirty-two sub-categories were then

further collapsed into eighteen (18) emergent categories. The presentation is done according to

the research questions.

4.3.1 Factors Responsible for Cohabitation among Students

It was gathered from available data that the factors responsible for cohabitation emerged in four

(4) categories.

Insufficient and Uneasy Access to Hostel Accommodation: Hostel accommodation within

the school is inadequate for students. The number of students have outgrown the hostel

facilities available. The hostels are insufficient and not enough to accommodate students. This

was supported by one of the respondents. Here is the response:

The hostels are not enough to accommodate

all the students that is why most students

of different gender do go off-campus to have

a lodge that can accommodate them.

This statement was further corroborated by another respondent who asserted that:

40
 “One of the major factor is lack of accommodation”

In addition to inadequate hostel accommodation, there is the problem of access to hostels due to

late release of accommodation to students as a result of managerial lapses. The issue of

difficulty in accessing hostel accommodation can be attributed to the school management or

authority. This statement was further supported by a student who asserted as follows:

Just like what happened this year 2017, where portal

was being closed by the Vice Chancellor. Accommodation

was given very lately and it lead to many

students sleeping outside. Accommodation was given January 2018

instead of November 2017.

When the hostels are inadequate, there is the implication of students going out to seek for

succor and such succor the form of somebody offering them the opportunity of staying together,

and that could kick-start the process of cohabitation for such students. More so, inaccessibility

of hostel accommodation due management lapses also has the implication of triggering

cohabitation when critically examined. Students who come from far places are more affected

since they might be coming to Zaria for the first time, without having relatives to accommodate

them. Their only hope for accommodation is the school hostel. When the release of hostels are

delayed, such students may appreciate any available option out of desperation, and cohabitation

may be one.

Financial Constraints: Financial instability contributes immensely as a factor responsible for

students’ cohabitation. Lack of financial buoyancy is supported as a factor by the following

excerpts:

41
 I am not financially buoyant, maybe I don’t have

enough money to carter or get accommodation. So

I will invite my girlfriend maybe her boyfriend

or father can afford her accommodation, then

she will call me to squat with her.

Despite the shortage of hostel accommodation, financial constraints also contribute to students’

cohabitation. Hostels could be limited but when the financial capacity is not there, the students

cannot afford it. As a result of financial constraint, a student has this to say:

It can be either the lady or the male

do not have anything to bring to school, he

now find a lady or she now find a man who

is somehow wealthy with enough food foodstuff.

So for the profit of getting money, she can

decide to be cohabiting with him.

By implication, financial handicap to an extent plays a role as a factor responsible for

cohabitation. The hostels could be available and accessible, both students might not have the

financial ability to secure such accommodation, thus, they are predisposed to cohabit.

Poverty: Poverty is one of the major causes of cohabitation. Poverty does not deal with finance

alone. However, poverty as a factor responsible for cohabitation could come in different forms.

From the responses of the interviewed different forms of poverty were established, which

42
include among others poverty of the heart (mindset), financial poverty, poverty of power,

intellectual poverty and physical poverty.

Poverty of the heart causes immorality.

Like wisely, some have money but they

are poor. They have poverty of the heart,

as a result they will still cohabit.

The above is an excerpts of one the respondents. Another response to buttress poverty is as

follows:

Students cohabit because they are scared of the society. Maybe a

student from Lagos now come into Kaduna, because of the fear of

the society she may tend to cohabit with her boyfriend for protection.

A lady maybe physically challenged she may need a man to help her.

Furthermore, students that are intellectually poor may cohabit as one of the respondents stated

bellow:

Some students are poor academically, they will tend

to cohabit with a man who will be teaching them in the room.

Poverty plays a role as a catalyst towards students’ cohabitation in Ahmadu Bello University.

When students are suffering from one form of poverty or the other, they are predisposed to

cohabit.

Family and Environmental Influence: In whatever social settings, family plays a role as a

catalyst for social adjustment either positively or negatively. Family is also a cause of students’

43
cohabitation being a primary agent of socialization. In this study, family was held as a factor of

students’ cohabitation in Ahmadu Bello University. This was supported by this excerpts:

Some students don’t have sound parental background

as a result they tend to do anyhow when they reach school.

Some student that cohabit don’t have good moral upbringing and sound parental background.

This make them make them not to develop good norms and values, thus, lacking personal

consciousness for what is right and what is wrong. Again, some students cohabit in school

because it is a family trait or they are product of cohabitation, coupled with the fact that their

parents are not legally married. One of the respondents has this to say:

Their parents are cohabiting, they gave birth to them

through cohabitation so they tend to cohabit.

They think that it is normal.

Environmental influence also contributes to students’ cohabitation. The society and the

environment to an extent influences students’ behavior. Another respondent revealed that:

Because someone is doing it, you think since

I am not staying with my parents, I can also do it.

4.3.2 Opinions of Students towards Cohabitation

The opinion of students towards cohabitation is merged into three (3) subheadings.

44
Religion: Religion obligation was among the reason some students see cohabitation as a taboo.

Some students out of the fear of the wrath of God sees cohabitation as a taboo and something

that should not be practiced. This was supported by the response of a 200 level student, who

stated that:

I am a Muslim. To cohabit Islamically is not good because

staying together or squatting between two opposite gender

either for a while or long period can lead to something bad.

Religion also plays a vital role or has impact on opinions of students towards cohabitation.

However, it cannot be established if the faith other student who engage in cohabitation belongs

to i.e. Christianity supports cohabitation as it is an issue of personal consciousness and fear of

God.

Unethical: It is unethical to cohabit with an individual of the opposite gender, the society and

ethics of the school prohibits it. A respondent stated that:

The school management frowns at it

In another response he has this to say:

Ok my own opinion though, some students may tell that

there is advantage in cohabiting because they gain some

profit staying with a boyfriend.

Actually, by implication, the society frowns at cohabitation and sees it as a taboo. However,

students still indulge in it, thinking that they have found a partner who would ease their burden

of responsibilities and that they stand to benefit both economically and otherwise. Also, an

individual that cohabits may be seen as lacking societal norms and moral values or being

unethical.

45
Ignorance: Ignorance as an element, is a variable that makes students that are cohabiting not

see anything wrong in it. They are not aware of the enormity in cohabiting as well as its

implication. Due to ignorance, a respondent made the following assertions:

My own opinion in cohabiting is that, most of

these girls do not think that they are indulging

in illegal activity.

Although, for a 200 level female student of Social studies education, she sees it as a taboo and

something that should be spelt out. Here are excerpts from her:

Off course I see it as a taboo too. It is not right, it is something that we are
supposed to spell out. Let’s call a spade a spade; it’s not right for you as a
student. It is something that you are not free to do in your own house. Then you
come to school because no one is watching you, you feel it is right. It is not
right, that is just the truth. I cannot do it, it’s not part of my home training. It is
a taboo.

Ignorance is pivotal in students’ cohabitation. Some students out of ignorance may feel that it’s

normal to cohabit. Another respondent has this to say:

Meanwhile, some students will out of ignorance think that

they will gain profit, while others will also out of ignorance

think that they are enjoying whereas it is not so.

They following statement also supports students’ opinion on cohabitation as enjoyment:

But though, some students tends to tell you that they enjoy it.

46
 But to me, it is not an enjoyment activity.

4.3.3 Effects of Cohabitation on Students

Cohabitation to a great extent has effects on students and their academic performance. The

effects emerged in seven (7) subheadings.

Poor Results: The effects of cohabitation on students’ academic performance is vividly

conspicuous. To buttress this statement here is an excerpts of a respondent, a 400 level student of

Library and Information Science:

It leads to poor performance in exams because the student that

practice cohabitation often do not have enough time to read.

Students who cohabit hardly have time to read thus, leading to poor result. Absenteeism due to

lateness to class, missing classes due to lack of time or indulgence in other trivial issues not

related to academic often results to poor examination outcome and by large leads to poor results.

Another respondent, a female 200 level student of Social studies education has this to say:

You miss the class because you are late, definitely some lecturers won’t allow you
to come into the class. And another thing is, em… sometimes you wake up tired
due to some amoral activities that must have happened during the night hours,
you just feel that I cannot make it to the class. Definitely, it will affect your
performance attendance wise, test, exams wise and will lead to failure.

Poor result by implication as a byproduct of cohabitation, can be influenced through different

ways, which includes lateness to class, absenteeism, lack of reading time, lack of concentration

etc.

47
Withdrawal and Expulsion: withdrawal and expulsion are also effects of students’

cohabitation. When a student’s Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) fails bellow the

expected level, he/she would be withdrawn. For instance, a student that doesn’t perform well

(probation/below 1.00) for four (4) consecutive semesters would be withdrawn from school. To

corroborate this stance, here are excerpts from one of the respondents:

It leads to withdrawal from school because a student

Who does not perform well for four (4) semesters

consecutively would be withdrawn.

In another instance, a respondent stated that:

Now if CGPA falls below 1.00, it can also

lead to withdrawal. That is that.

Expulsion is eminent to students who are involve in cohabiting, as the tendency to cohabit with
people of deviant character is very high. This can lead to imitation or influence from the opposite
party to indulge in activities which the university’s rules and regulation does not condole. In such
instances the student can be withdrawn from the university. This stance was also supported by a
student who stated that:

And at the same time it leads to withdrawal,

in the sense that they get involve in antisocial

activities such as cultism, forming groups illegally,

drug abuse, drug addiction etc.

48
Health Issues: Health complications is one of the biggest threat associated with students

cohabitation. Students who engage in cohabitation are predisposed to contract diseases as well as

terminal illness. They are exposed to contracting sexually transmitted diseases i.e. HIV/AIDS. A

respondent stated that:

They have sex anytime they wish, STD can be contracted as a result.

By implication, cohabitation exposes students to a lot of health issues which can destroy them or

mar them for life. The students might not necessary know the health statues of the individual that

they are cohabiting with which can make them to fall prey to unprotected sexual intimacy. Apart

from STDs, they can get infected with other diseases i.e. hepatitis because already they share

things in common.

Crime: Crime can result as a consequence of students’ cohabitation. Students who cohabit can

easily be lured into crime by their cohabiting partners who are also criminals.

It even leads to thuggery, it leads to

drugs, to be drug addict, to be taking drugs.

When the opposite gender is taking drugs,

is on drugs then you too, you must take it.

These were the words of a 200 level Business Education student. Another respondent

corroborated the earlier statement with the following:

It leads to drug abuse and one of the contemporary drug addiction case

is codeine. Just in Kano alone, in a documentary (sweet-sweet codeine),

a room was discovered where four (4) males and four (4) females were

cohabiting. They are cohabiting. The males give the females codeine and

49
 once they take it, they become vulnerable, and they have sex with them always.

By large, it can go a long way to affect the reputation of the school because such students will

always be identified with the school they attend.

Unwanted Pregnancy and Abortion: Cohabitation can lead to unwanted pregnancy and

abortion. Students who cohabit are liable to get pregnant since they are predisposed to have

unprotected sexual intimacy with their partners of opposite gender. To further buttress this point,

a female student has the following to say:

You just met someone in school who offers you accommodation

and you decide to live and stay with the person. It leads to so many

things, as in male and female living together in the room.

Now it can lead to premarital sex, unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

When cohabiting students get pregnant, they would not want to keep the pregnancy because of

shame and distraction to academics attached with it. In that instance they opt for abortion.

Therefore, abortion is one of the effects of cohabitation.

Behavioral Disorder: When students cohabit, there is every possibility and tendency that their

behavior would be affected. Behavioral disorder can be viewed from the point that, cohabiting

students do not behave according to expected normal standard of people of the same age. Most at

times they are deviants. A 400 level student of Library and Information Science stated in his

response that:

Most students involve in cohabiting don’t respect their lecturers …they get

involve in different antisocial activities such as cultism, forming group illegally,

50
 and it leads to homosexuality and lesbianism too.

Since there is the tendency for influence or imitation among students who cohabit, their behavior

can easily be influenced by the mates who they cohabit with, and once this happens they become

deviants. Deviance is any behavior that deviates from the standard norms and values of a given

society. Thus, cohabitation is a deviant behavior.

Death: like every other illegal or bad practice that endangers human life, death is also imminent

as a consequence to students who practice cohabitation. Students who cohabits are vulnerable to

all kinds off dangers that can subsequently leads to death. In order to corroborate the above

assertion, here are excerpts from a respondent:

Now it can lead to premarital sex, pregnancy, em…leads

to all hese STDs diseasses and even death.

Death can occur from all social vices such as drug abuse, drug addiction, abortion and sexually

transmitted diseases. Drug abuse and addiction can lead to failure in the organs of human body

i.e. lungs, kidney, liver etc. which results in death. Furthermore, sexually transmitted diseases

can sometimes even when properly managed slowly lead to death. More so, if abortion is done

by a quack medical personnel or not properly done can result to loss of womb (bareness) and

also death.

4.3.4 Challenges of Cohabiting Students

From available data, the challenges faced by cohabiting students emerged in four (4)

subheadings.
51
Psychological Trauma and Suspicion: Students who are engaged in cohabitation do have

psychological trauma.

When you are doing something that is illegal,

you would not have rest of mind doing it.

These were the words of a 200 level student of student of Business Education in response to the

challenges faced by cohabiting students. Another respondent has this to say:

Anything you do, you will just be thinking that

Someone is seeing you as a bad person.

Cohabiting students hardly have a free mindset because they feel suspicious, and that pose a

challenge to them. A respondent has this to say:

They hardly concentrate because they think that people will see

them as always being bad even when they do good.

Another excerpts from a respondent:

Then someone is even thinking that you are doing bad, rather maybe you are just
cohabiting with her and nothing more.

Cohabiting students will also be disturbed and feel uneasy and distressful about their health

status. This becomes apparent because they might not be aware of the health status of the

opposite gender that they are cohabiting with. Therefore, they will lack confidence in their health

status. In another narration, a respondent stated that:

52
 People will not believe that they are healthy. They will say they are cohabiting,
maybe the opposite gender or either of them is having STD. this is enough for the
students not to have rest of mind from the time they started cohabiting.

Suspicion cans also lead to jealousy because once a cohabiting sees his/her fellow discussing

with another person, he/she will feel so bad to the extent of being jealous. This is so because they

already see themselves as husband and wife because they are cohabiting. Support this statement,

here is an excerpt from one of the respondents:

Immediately you see her talking to someone else or a student

or her colleague or her friend or her … even relative, you feel

as if she is your wife. It can even lead to you just beating her.

Jealousy! That is what I mean.

Coping: There is a general challenge of coping among students that are involve in cohabitation.

How would they cope with their studies and life generally is another challenge. To corroborate

this, here is an excerpt from a respondent:

How would they cope? Someone who doesn’t have time to read,

so how they would have to cope with their academic performance

and other issues is one big challenge.

As a result of inadequate time to read, which lead to poor result that can culminate into probation

or withdrawal, cohabiting students always face the challenge of coping.

53
Isolation: Isolation is usually common among cohabitation students. They feel traumatized and

suspicious, and thereby isolate themselves. They hardly associate freely with other students

around the school environment thereby facing the challenge of mingling, which results in

isolation. The following excerpts will sufficiently buttress this assertion.

When they see people they don’t feel comfortable sometimes.

When they are coming people will say Haa! These one, they

have slept together, they are in the same house. So issues

like that, and it goes back to that behavioral disorder.

Moral Decadency: Cohabiting students have the challenge of battling to keep their morals.

There is the issue of moral decadency. Their morals are polluted by the people that they cohabit

with, and in trying to appear morally upright in the school, they face challenges. A respondent

replys that:

That is that. Em…morals should be kept, cohabitation affects morals.

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

54
 The objective of this research was to uncover the awareness and consequences of

cohabitation among undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello University. However, an

interpretative research paradigm was adopted using qualitative research methodology. The

researcher interviewed three (3) respondents who are all genuine people living in Ahmadu Bello

university community. Furthermore, the chapters elaborates on the awareness, causes,

consequences and challenges students that cohabit in Ahmadu Bello University encounter.

Similarly, it answers the research questions that followed. In the same vein, it discusses

implication of findings of the research. Consequently, the section concludes by identifying

recommendations for future study regarding the consequences of cohabitation and information

programs or activities to ameliorate or curb the increasing trend of cohabitation among

undergraduate students, and also to increase awareness on their implications of cohabitation in a

wider society.

5.2 Summary of Findings

Cohabitation is a taboo and frowned at by the society. It was discovered to be a

phenomenon that was hitherto uncommon in Ahmadu Bello University Community. However,

with time and dynamics of change accomplished with socioeconomic factors, it gradually crept

its way into the community, and undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello University are the

major culprits. Therefore, from the data collected and analyzed, the following findings were

made:

1. The study revealed that insufficient and uneasy access to hostel accommodation, financial

constraints, poverty, family and environmental influence are major factors that influence or

contribute to cohabitation among undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello University.

55
2. Religion obligation and the fear of the wrath of God, ignorance and unethical moral feelings

are among the reason some students see cohabitation as a taboo and something that should not be

practiced.

3. The study also discovered that poor results, withdrawal and expulsion, health issues, crime,

unwanted pregnancy and abortion, behavioral disorder as well as death are the major

consequences of cohabitation among undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello University.

4. The study revealed that psychological trauma and suspicion, coping, isolation and moral

decadency are also challenges faced by students who are indulge in cohabitation.

5.3 Conclusion

The trend of cohabitation among undergraduates of Ahmadu Bello University is

becoming a serious issue that must not be handled with kid-glove because this tends to have a

multiplier effect on other facets of their lives. Cohabitation leads to poor performance of some

students while some drop out of school completely. A student who mistakenly becomes pregnant

may want to commit abortion, this can lead to barrenness or untimely death. Some may contact

sexually transmitted diseases or infections. The issue of HIV &AIDS and other sexually

transmitted diseases is not farfetched too. Students who cohabit also encounter challenges of

psychological trauma, coping, isolation and moral decadency among other consequences.

Therefore all hands must be on deck, the parents, University authorities, religious bodies must be

able to curb this new phenomenon of cohabitation among undergraduate students of Ahmadu

Bello University.

5.4 Recommendation

56
 In the course of discussing the findings of the study the researcher advances possible

implications for the findings and made the following recommendations:

1. The university management should provide adequate, accessible and affordable hostel

accommodation for the students, and the family being the first agent of socialization has a great

role to play in building moral instinct on students.

2. Religious bodies and the society at large should carry out campaign to enlighten students on

the dangers of cohabitation. It should be echoed to them that it is a taboo which the society

frowns at, and sees to practicing it as indulging in immoral activity.

3. Students newly admitted into the university should be adequately oriented about the dangers

of cohabitation on their academic performance, health, social and life endeavors in general.

4. It is pertinent to encourage students to meet social guardians and councilors so as to overcome

challenges that emanate as a result of cohabitation.

5.5 Suggestion for Further Studies

1. A study should be carried out to determine if the gender of students influence their

predisposition to cohabit.

2. An investigation should also be carried out to ascertain if religion affiliation of students

influence their tendency to cohabit.

3. A study should also be carried out to investigate the link between cohabitation, morality and

deviance.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

57
Aina L.O. (2004). Library and Information Science Text for Africa . Ibadan: Third world
information services.
Ajibefu, I (2015, Sept, 10). AAUA, VC Condemns cohabitation among students. The Nation.
Ajibefu, I. (2015, Sept, 10). AAUA, VC Condemns cohabitation among students. The Nation.
Alo, O.A. (2008). Socioeconomic determinants of unintended pregnancies among Yoruba
Women of Southwest Nigeria. International Journal of Sustainable Development. Vol.1
(4), 145-154.
Aluko, O.E. (2011). The assessment of housing situation among students in the University of
Lagos. Africa research Review- An international Multi-Disciplinary Journal 5 (3), 104-
118.
Aluko, O.E. (2011). The assessment of housing situation among students in the University of
Lagos. Africa research Review- An international Multi-Disciplinary Journal5 (3), 104-
118.
Amato, P. (1994). Life-span adjustment of children to their parents’ divorce. The Future of
Children: Children and Divorce, 4, 143-164
Amato, P.R. & DeBoer, D.D. (2001). The transmission of marital instability across generations:
Relationship skills or commitment to marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(4),
1038-1051.
Anderson (2000). “The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage,” Journal of Marriage and
Family 66 (Nov 2004):849.
Babbie, Earl. (1990). Survey Research Methods. 2nd ed. Belmont, California: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
Bandura, A. (1971). Psychological modeling: Conflicting theories. Chicago: Aldine Atherton.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Berg B.L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. In Guest G., Bunce A., &
Johnson L. Eds. How interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and
variability, Field Methods, (18), 2006, 59-84. Boston MA: Pearson education Inc.
Bitsch V. (2005). Qualitative research: A Grounded Theory Example and Evaluation Criteria.
Journal of Agribusiness, 23(1), 75-91.
Braun c. (2006). How to use thematic analysis. Retrieve 11 th February 2018 from
https://sites.google.com/site/howtousethematicanalysis/
Brien, M., L. Lillard and S. Stern (2006). "Cohabitation, marriage, and divorce in a model of
match quality." International Economic Review 47(2): pp 451494.
Brown, S.L. (2004). Moving from cohabitation to marriage: Effects on relationship quality. Social
Science Research, 33(1), 1-20.
Bumpass, L. L., Martin, T. C., & Sweet, J. A. (1991). The impact of family background and
1964-1980 marital factors on marital disruption. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 22-42.
Burns, A. & Dunlop, R. (2002). Parental marital quality and family conflict: Longitudinal effects
on adolescents from divorcing and non-divorcing families. Journal of Divorce and

58
 Remarriage, 37(1/2), 57-74.
CE. Wiersma (1983). Cohabitation: An alternative to marriage. A cross-national study.
Wageningen: Marti nus nijhoff publishers.
Clarkberg, M, Ross, M. Stolzenberg and Linda J. W. (1995). Attitudes, Values, and Entrance into
Cohabitional versus Marital Unions. Social Forces. 74: 609-634
Cohan, C. L., & Kleinbaum, S. (2002). Toward a greater understanding of the cohabitation
effect: Premarital cohabitation and marital communication. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 64, 180-192.
Cresswell J.W. (2003). Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.
Cresswell J.W. (2009). Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications Inc.
Cunningham, M., & Thornton, A. (2007). Direct and indirect influences of parents’ marital
instability on children’s attitudes toward cohabitation in young adulthood. Journal of
Divorce and Remarriage, 46(3/4), 125-143.
De Bruyn (1993). The Pre-Engagement Cohabitation Effect: A Replication and Extension of
Previous Findings. Journal of Family Psychology 2009; 23:107-111.
De Leeuw E. (1992). Data quality in mail, telephone, and face-to-face surveys. Amsterdam:TT
Publications.
Dempsey, K. and Devaus, D. (2004). "Who Cohabits in 2001? The Significance of age, gender,
religion and ethnicity." Journal of Sociology 40(2): pp. 157-178.
Denzin N.K. and Lincoln Y.S. (2011). Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative
research. 4th Ed. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds). The SAGE Handbook of
Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Elizabeth, V. and M. Baker (2013). Conditional Partnerships or Trial Marriage? Cohabitation in
the 21st Century. Annual TASA Conference, Monash University, Melbourne.
Esan, E.O., and Okafor R.O., (1995). Basic Statistics Methods. Lagos: Sunshine International
Publication Nigeria Limited.
Gecas,V. & Seff, M.A. (1990). Families and adolescents: A review of the 1980’s. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 52, 941-958.
Gold, J. (2012). "Typologies of Cohabitation: Implications for Clinical Practice and Research."
The Family Journal 20: pp. 315-321.
Guba E.G. and Lincoln Y.S. (1982). Establishing dependability and conformability in naturalistic
inquiry through an audit. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the America
Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Hancock B., Windridge K.,and Ockleford E. (2007). An Introduction to Qualitative Research.
The NIHR RDS EM/YH.
Heaton, T. B. (2002). Factors contributing to increasing marital stability in the US. Journal of
Family Issues, 23, 392-409.

59
Heuveline, P. and J. Timberlake (2004). "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The
United States in Comparative Perspective." Journal of Marriage and Family 66(6): pp.
1214-1230.
Holbrook A.L., M.C. Green, and J.A. Krosnick. (2003). Telephone vs. Face-to-Face Interviewing
of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires: Comparisons of Respondent
Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67:79-125.
Jennifer M. Hunt (2009). A “Cohabitation Effect”? Cohabitation, Parental Divorce, & Marital
Success. The Ohio State University.
Jennifer Ma, Matea Pender, and Meredith Welch (2016). Education Pays 2013: The Benefits of
Higher Education for Individuals and Society. New York: The College Board.
Johnson, C.A., Stanley, S.M., Glenn, N.D., Amato, P.A., Nock, S.L., Markman, H.J., & Dion,
M.R. (2002). Marriage in Oklahoma: 2001 baseline statewide survey on marriage and
divorce (S02096 OKDHS). Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
Kamp Dush, C.M., Cohan, C.L., & Amato, P.R. (2003). The relationship between cohabitation
and martial quality and stability: Change across cohorts? Journal of Marriage and Family,
65(3), 539-549
Kent Hill, Dennis Hoffman, & Tom R. Rex (2005). The Value of Higher Education: Individual
and Societal Benefits. W. P. Carey School of Business Arizona State University; L.
William Seidman Research Institute.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K., & Newton, T.L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological
Bulletin, 127,472-503.
Kunz, J. (2000). The intergenerational transmission of divorce: A nine generation study. Journal
of Divorce and Remarriage, 34 (1/2), 169-175.
Laplante, B. (2006). The rise of cohabitation in Quebec: Power of religion and power over
religion. Canadian Journal of Sociology 31: 1-24.
LeBourdais, C. & Lapierre- Adamcy K, E. (2004). Change in conjugal life in Canada: is
cohabitation progressively replacing marriage? Journal of Marriage and Family. 66: 929-
942.
Lincoln Y.S. and Guba E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Lindsay, J. (2000). "An ambiguous commitment: Moving into a cohabiting relationship." Journal
of Family Studies 6(1): pp. 120-134.
Manning, W. and P. Smock (2005). "Measuring and modeling cohabitation: New perspectives
from qualitative data." Journal of Marriage and Family 67(4): pp. 989-1002.
Martin, P., Martin, D. & Martin, M. (2001). Young adult premarital sexual activity, cohabitation
and attitudes towards marriage. Adolescence 36, 601-609.
Mashau (2006). “Attitudes, Values and Entrance in to Cohabitational Versus Marital Unions,”
Social Forces 4 (1995):609-32.
McNamara and Carter PhD (1999). General Guidelines for Conducting Interviews. Minnesota:
Southern Cross University and the Southern Cross Institute of Action Research.

60
Miller, A., Sassler, S., & Kusi-Appouh, D. (2011). The specter of divorce: Views from working-
and middle-class cohabitors. [References]. Journal of Applied Family Studies, 60(5), 602–
616. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00671.x
Muriithi-Kabaria, Joan Nduta (2006). Factors that contribute to the prevalence and practice of
cohabitation among kenyatta university students, Nairobi, Kenya.
Mwaba & Naidoo (2005). Cohabitation, marriage, and murder: Woman-killing by male
romantic partners. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 284-291 accessed on March 8, 2012 at
http://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/Shackelford-AB-2001.pdf,
Natalia Mosailova (2014). The Rise of Non-Marital Cohabitation: Review and Analysis of
Existing  Research. Portland State University.
Ofoegbu, C.I. (2002). Human Development, Family Behaviour, Parenting, Marriage and
Counselling Skills. Enugu: Snaap Press Ltd
Ogungbamila, A. (2013). Demographic predictors of premarital sexual behaviours among
undergraduates. Nigerian Journal of Applied Behavioural Sciences 1, 68-74.
Ogunsola, (2004). “The Relationship between Cohabitation and Marital Quality and Stability:
Change across Cohorts? Journal of Marriage and Family 65: 539-549.
Ojewola F.O., Akinduyo T.E. (2017). Prevalence and Factors Responsible for Cohabitation
among Undergraduates of Adekunle Ajasin University, Ondo State, Nigeria. American
Journal of Educational Research, 2017, Vol. 5, No. 6, 650-654
Oppenheimer V.K. (2003). Cohabiting and marriage during young men’s career development
process. Demography, 40, 127-149.
Oppenheimer, Valerie Kincaid. (2000). The Continuing Importance of Men‘s Economic Position
in Marriage Formation‖ in The Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and
Cohabitation. Ed. Linda Waite. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2010). 8th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Parry (1981). Marriage and Cohabitation in the United States: A Statistical Portrait Based on
Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth. National Center for Health
Statistics. Vital and Health Statics 2010; 23(8). Accessed at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_028.pdf on Feb 16, 2012.
Raley Kelly, Michelle L. Frisco, & Elizabeth Wildsmith (2005). Maternal Cohabitation and
Educational Success. Sociology of Education 2005, Vol. 78 (April): pp. 144–164
Rhoades, G., S. Stanley and H. Markman (2009). "Couples’ Reasons for Cohabitation
Associations with Individual Well-Being and Relationship Quality." Journal of Family
Issues 30(2): pp. 233-258.
Rindfuss, R. and A. VandenHeuvel (1990). "Cohabitation: A precursor to marriage or an
alternative to being single?" Population and Development Review 16: pp. 703-726.
Schwellnus N. Glenn, E. Marquardt (1994). Hookingup, hangingout, and hoping for Mr. Right.
College Women on Mating and Dating Today. NewYork: Institute of American Value;
2001. Retrieved at http://www.americanvaluorg/Hooking_Up.pdf.AccessedAugust 11,
2010.

61
Smith (2004). Marriage and Cohabitation in the United States: A Statistical Portrait Based on
Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth. National Center for Health
Statistics. Vital and Health Statics 2010; 23(8).Tables 16 and
17.https://medium.com/@anacom_okey/article-on-cohabitation-among-youths-
22f5f1a77380 . Accessed may 16, 2018.
Stake, R. E. (2005). “Qualitative case studies.” In Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S.
Eds. The sage handbook of qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Pgs.443-466.
Stanley, S., G. Rhoades and H. Markman (2006). "Sliding Versus Deciding: Inertia and the
Premarital Cohabitation Effect." Family Relations 55: pp. 499509.
Thomas D. (2006). A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data.
America Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.
Yin R. (2003). Applications of Case Study Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

APENDIX I

62
 DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA

Interview guide
Topic: Awareness and consequences of Cohabitation among Undergraduate Students of
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
A. Rapport
Good day. I am an undergraduate student in the department of library and information science,
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. I am undergoing a research work and interested in having a
better understanding of students opinion on cohabitation, its effect and consequences on their
academic performance. I would ask you questions that borders on your opinion and experience
on students cohabitation, like wisely, there is no right or wrong answer in this discussion. I will
ensure that your identity is kept anonymous. I am interested in knowing what you think, so
please feel free, relax, open and share your views, as it is important I hear all your opinions. The
interview take about 25-30 minutes. Do you have any question(s) you would want to ask?

B. What department are you_____________________________________?

C. What level are you__________________________________________?

Research Question 1. What are the factors responsible for cohabitation among
undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello University?
i. What do you think are factors responsible for cohabitation among students?

Research Question 2. What are the opinions of students towards cohabitation in Ahmadu
Bello University?
i. Cohabitation is frown at as a taboo by the society, what is you view?
ii. Share with me your opinion about students of opposite gender cohabiting.

Research Question 3. What are the effects of cohabitation on students’ academic

performance in Ahmadu Bello University?
i. In your opinion, what are the effects or consequences of cohabitation on students’
academic performance?

Research Question 4. What are the challenges facing cohabiting students of in Ahmadu
Bello University?

63
i. Cohabiting students face challenges, please describe in your view these challenges.

Do you have anything that you would like to add about your experience and opinion about the
causes and effects of cohabitation among undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello University?

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

APPENDIX II

64
Table 1: Classification of major categories on the awareness and consequences of

cohabitation among undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello University.

1. Insufficient and Uneasy Access to Hostel Accommodation

2. Financial Constraints

3. Poverty

4. Family and Environmental Influence

5. Religion

6. Unethical

7. Ignorance

8. Poor Results

9. Withdrawal and Expulsion

10. Health Issues

11. Crime

12. Unwanted Pregnancy and Abortion

13. Behavioral Disorder

14. Death

15. Psychological Trauma and Suspicion

16. Coping

17. Isolation

65
 18. Moral Decadency

Table 1: Research Question: What are the factors responsible for cohabitation among
undergraduate students of Ahmadu Bello University?

1 Insufficient and Uneasy Access to Hostel Accommodation

2 Financial Constraints

3 Poverty

4 Family and Environmental Influence

Table 2: Research Question: What are the opinions of students towards cohabitation in
Ahmadu Bello University?

1 Religion

2 Unethical

3 Ignorance

Table 3: Research Question 3: What are the effects of cohabitation on students’ academic
performance in Ahmadu Bello University?

66
 1 Poor Results

2 Withdrawal and Expulsion

3 Health Issues

4 Crime

5 Unwanted Pregnancy and Abortion

6 Behavioral Disorder

7 Death

Table 4: Research Question 4: What are the challenges facing cohabiting students of in
Ahmadu Bello University?

1 Psychological Trauma and Suspicion

2 Coping

3 Isolation

4 Moral Decadency

Figure 1: data analysis steps

67
40 codes 18 categories
3 interviews 32 sub-categories
68