Factors Responsible for Cohabitation among Youth as Perceived by Students of the University of Ilorin, Nigeria

Cohabitation is an intimate sexual union between two unmarried partners who share the same living quarter for a sustained period of time. This study investigated factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by students of University of Ilorin. The research design that was adopted for the study is the descriptive survey method. The population for this study comprises all of the 44,566 undergraduates at the University of Ilorin, while the target population for the study comprises 24,935 students of the Faculties of Arts; a total of two hundred (200) students constitutes the sample of this study. The instrument used for collection of the relevant data for this study was a 20-item structured questionnaire entitled “Factors Responsible for Cohabitation among Youths”. The instrument was validated with a reliability coefficient of 0.85 after a test re-test using PPMC at 0.05 alpha level. The findings of this study revealed that: reducing the occurrence of loneliness, improving the academic performance of the cohabitants, it is morally acceptable, it encourages peer reading/study, and it goes against the spiritual principle of purity, among others, are the common factors responsible for cohabitation. Also, there is a significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students of the University of Ilorin on the basis of their faculty, gender, and level. There is no significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students of the University of Ilorin on the basis of their age bracket. Based on the findings of this study, it was recommended that there should be a regular campaign regarding the benefits and dangers associated with students’ cohabitation, the Government should support the university management in providing sufficient accommodations for students, students should switch to cohabitation when they don’t have any other option and they should not abuse it, and parents should make sure that they are monitoring the activities of their children to avoid the danger of cohabitation.


Introduction
Students need comfortable accommodations in the universities for them to study hard and pass their examinations. The original idea of hostel accommodation was to provide a more conducive academic atmosphere for students. As a result, the first-generation universities built beautiful hostels, befitting the image of undergraduate and postgraduate students. The students' population at that time was within control. In some of the hostels, two or a maximum of three students occupied a room (Guardian, 2004). Abubakar (2007) noted that students are supposed to be accommodated with one person per room. Conflict erupts where two or more students share a room.
Nigerian university students presently live under horrible conditions on campus. Their accommodation is believed to be so bad and insanitary, congested and over-crowded, that it impedes their ability to learn effectively. A room with two wardrobes, which used to be allocated to two students in the past, now accommodates six students. Yet in such an arrangement, not more than 40% of the students get official accommodation (Otobo, 2002).
Okebukola (2004) opined that in some rooms in Federal and State universities, fifteen students shared space meant for five. In some universities, 24 students stayed in one big room originally meant for 10 students. The number of occupants rose because students frequently squat their friends or relations who would reciprocate such actions in later years. Thus, rooms are often choked up with wears, buys and beguiles, resulting in less space for chairs and desks, making the rooms inadequate for personal study. Edukugho (2006) claimed that 80% of the university student population lives outside the campuses with many students becoming victims of shylock landlords and hostile communities, and persistently in bloody confrontations with host indigenes. Ten students or more living in a room is bad enough even in private hostels. Edukugho observed that students' welfare was still a far cry as many of them lived in filthy, congested hostels which denies students their comfort and privacy. Idachaba (2007) opined that the over-bloated admission of students into Nigerian universities results in acute shortages in student accommodations which makes them live in over-crowded rooms. Shalter (1970) asserted that when such a number of youth from different backgrounds all live in a room together, there is always conflict of irreconcilable interest, loyalties, values and opinions.
According to Bacharach and Okho (2000), cohabitation is an intimate sexual union between two unmarried partners, who share the same living quarters for a sustained period of time. Cohabitation, according to Bower and Christopherson (2017), is a union of persons of the opposite sex living together but not married. An increase in the acceptability of cohabitation can be viewed as evidence of the weakening of social norms related to marriage, known as the de-institutionalization of marriage (Bumpass & Lu, 2012). Cohabitation was obscure and even taboo throughout the nineteenth century and until the 1970's non-marital unions have become common because the meaning of the family has been altered by individualistic social values which have progressively matured since the late 1940's (Ogunsola, 2004).
Students' cohabitation has attracted a lot of policy analysis, academic research and debates in recent times. Students in higher educational institutions are experiencing a critical situation in terms of higher tuition fees and other associated college costs related to facilities and services provision, especially with regard to on-campus accommodation (Aluko, 2009).

Iyekolo
A number of challenges may exist within or outside the educational institutions that predisposes students to cohabitation (Oweh, 2013;Peretomode & Ugbomeh, 2013).
However, a crucial aspect of these problems in tertiary institutions as related to this study is insufficient accommodation for students within the campus premises. In Nigeria, about two decades ago, the number of university students increased eightfold from 55,000 in 1980 to more than 400,000 in 2002 and is projected to be above the million mark in 2010 (Agbola & Hanat, 2001;Bollag, 2002).
Therefore, the majority of students in second to penultimate years of studies are forced to live off-campus in communities adjoining their institutions (Onyike & Uche, 2010;Aluko, 2011;Arisukwu, 2013). Cohabitation is not limited to its prevalence but it is also extended to its widespread and increasing social acceptance and implications on individual wellbeing and academic performance (Popenoe & Whitehead, 2002).
The high cost of college fees has, in some cases, forced students to cohabit. According to Sassler (2004), many younger cohabiters enter into joint living arrangements as a result of financial need which may result in unstable partnerships. However, other studies have shown that financial distress is a salient predictor of positive aspects of relationship quality, for example, affection, love and satisfaction, (Lichter, 2006). There is evidence that educational attainment can promote positive interactions within cohabiting couples as noted by Sassler (2004).
Studies have shown that economic well-being is positively related to the odds that contribute to cohabiting. However, Onyike (2010) asserted that cohabiters are less likely to pool their income together. This may provide greater flexibility to engage in a wider range of economic arrangements, but this leaves cohabiters more exposed to fluctuations in income. Other studies have found a relationship between objective and subjective measures of financial strain and violent aggression toward female partners (Omonjo, 2014).
Therefore, adjusting to hostel life is easier when expectations are realistic. Many students come into the hostel believing that their roommates will be their friends for life, while the roommates, on the other hand, may see the room only as a place to sleep, since they already have a social network. This leads to hurt feelings, confusion, and tension (Adegboyega, 2018). This study, therefore examines the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by students at the University of Ilorin.

Research Question
This research question was raised and answered in the study: • What are the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin?

Research Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were formulated and tested in the study: 1. There is no significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of gender.

2.
There is no significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of age bracket.

3.
There is no significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of level.

4.
There is no significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of faculty.

5.
There is no significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of place of residence.

Research Design
The research design that was used for the study is the descriptive survey method. Survey method is used for descriptive, explanatory and purposes and is therefore most appropriate for this study since the nature of the study entails sourcing for data and analyzing the data to determine the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths.

Population, Sample and Sampling Procedure
The population for this study comprises all the 44,566 (Unilorin Bulletin 2019) undergraduates at the University of Ilorin, while the target population for the study comprises 24,935 students of the Faculties of Arts, Education, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences. Thus, using purposive sampling technique, forty (40) students were drawn from each of the five (5) faculties making a total of two hundred (200) students. This constitutes the sample of this study.

Instrumentation
The instrument used for collection of the relevant data for this study was a 20-item structured questionnaire entitled; factors responsible for cohabitation among youths. The instrument was developed by the researcher, and it is divided into two (2) sections: A and B.

Iyekolo
Section A elicits the personal data of the respondents while section B deals with factors responsible for cohabitation among youths. The instrument was validated with a reliability coefficient of 0.65 after a test retest using PPMC at 0.05 alpha level. The items in the instrument were structured in a way that they expressed support for cohabitation practices. The instrument was thus formatted on a four (4)

Method of Data Analysis
The data postulated were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The hypotheses generated in the course of the study were tested using t-test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) statistics. The t-test was used for testing hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 while hypotheses 4 and 5 were analysed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) at 0.05 level of significance.

Demographic Data of the Respondents
A total of 200 questionnaire forms were distributed in order to elicit data to answer the research questions generated in this study. Tables 1-4 focused on the demographic data of the respondents.  Table 1 reveals that out of the 200 respondents that participated in the study, 90 representing (45.0%) of the respondents were males, while 110 representing (55.0%) of the respondents were females. This revealed that there were more female respondents than male respondents in this study.  Table 2 reveals that out of the 200 respondents that participated in the study, 90 representing (45.0%) of the respondents were between the age of 16-20 years, while 110 representing (55.0%) of the respondents were between the age of 21-25 years. This revealed that majority of the respondents were between the age of 21-25 years.  Table 3 reveals that out of the 200 respondents that participated in the study, 60 representing (30.0%) of the respondents were 100 level students, 90 representing (45.0%) of the respondents were 200 level students, 20 representing (10.0%) of the respondents were 300 level students, while 30 representing (51.0%) of the respondents were 400 level students. This showed that majority of the respondents were 200 level students.  Table 4 reveals that out of the 200 respondents that participated in the study, 40 representing (20.0%) of the respondents were Faculty of Arts students, 90 representing (45.0%) of the respondents were Faculty of Education students, 30 representing (15.0%) of the respondents were Faculty of Life Sciences students, 10 representing (20.0%) of the respondents were Faculty of Physical Sciences students, while 20 representing (10.0%) of the respondents were Faculty of Social Sciences students. This showed that majority of the respondents were Faculty of Education Students. Source: (Author's field work, 2019) Table 5 reveals that out of the 200 respondents that participated in the study, 30 representing (45.0%) of the respondents were on-campus students, while 170 representing (55.0%) of the respondents were off-campus students. This revealed that majority of the respondents were off-campus students.

Answering the Research Questions
Research Question: What are the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin? Cohabitation is the best means to select marital partner 3.20 15 th Source: (Author's field work, 2019) Table 6 presents the mean and rank order of the respondents on the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin. The Table indicates that item 3 which states that "reducing occurrence of loneliness" ranked 1st with a mean score of 3.50. Items 15, 14, 13, 12, 6, 5 and 4 which state that "Improving the academic performance of the cohabitants, it is morally acceptable, it encourages peer reading/study, It goes against the spiritual principle of purity, It gives the youths a foretaste of sexual intercourse, It creates room for youths to spend more time together, It creates room for youths to spend more time together, and Youths see it as a natural step in the dating process" ranked 2nd with a mean score of 3.40. Ranked 9 th are items 11,8, 7, 16, 1 and 2 which states that "It is convenient for cohabitants to live together, preparing cohabitants to get married later in life, preparing youths for future marriage, Cohabitation is the best means for mate selection, saving cost of accommodation, helping youths to monitor their partners thereby securing their relationship" with a mean score of 3.30. On the other hand, items 20, 19, 18, Iyekolo 17, 10 and 16 which state that "It occurs when there is lack of parental attention and supervision, Peer influence encourages cohabitation, Lack of conducive hostel facilities tend to encourage cohabitation, the desire for intimacy and sexual intercourse is provided regularly in cohabitation, it is a good way to test relationship prior to marriage, Cohabitation is the best means to select marital partner" ranked 15th with a mean score of 3.20. Since all the twenty items in the questionnaire ranked above the mid-mean score of 2.50, then it can be suggested that all the items in the questionnaire are factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin.

Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis One: There is no significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of gender. As shown on Table 7, males had mean score of 3.44 with a standard deviation of .36, while females had mean score of 3.21 with a standard deviation of .24. The calculated t-value was 20.03 while its calculated significance value is.000 of df 2/198 at alpha level of 0.05. On this basis, the null hypothesis was therefore rejected. This means that there is a significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by students of University of Ilorin on the basis of their gender. The reason was that the calculated significance value (.000) is less than 0.05 alpha level (ρ> 0.05).
Hypothesis Two: There is no significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by students of University of Ilorin on the basis of their age.  Table 8 shows an F-value 1.92 with a calculated significant .17 at 0.05 alpha level. Since calculated significance .17 is greater than 0.05 alpha level, the hypothesis is thus not rejected. This implies that there is no significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of their age.

Iyekolo
Hypothesis Three: There is no significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the Basis of Level.  Table 9 shows an F-value 23.40 with calculated significant .000 at 0.05 alpha level. Since the calculated significance .000 is less than 0.05 alpha level, the hypothesis is thus rejected. This implies that there is a significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of their level. In order to determine the mean value(s) that caused the significant difference observed in the ANOVA results of Table 8, the Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT) was used as a post-hoc test. The results of the DMRT procedure are displayed in Table 9. Table 10 shows the Duncan Multiple Range Test indicating the significant difference noted in the ANOVA on Table 8. Group 1 (300 level) with a mean score of 3.10 slightly differed from Group 2 (400 level) with the mean score of 3.12 but significantly differed from Group 3 (200 level) with a mean score of 3.30, and also significantly differed from Group 4 (100 level) with a mean score of 3.54. All the groups differed from one another but the significant difference noted was as a result of Group 1 (300 level). Hence, the significant difference noted in the ANOVA on Table 8 was a result of respondents who are in 300 level. Thus, the hypothesis is rejected.

Table 10: Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT) Showing Difference in the Factors Responsible for Cohabitation among Youths as Perceived by the Students at the University of Ilorin on the Basis of their Level
Hypothesis Four: There is no significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students of University of Ilorin on the basis of their faculty.  Table 11 shows an F-value .85 with a calculated significant .000 at 0.05 alpha level. Since calculated significance .000 is less than 0.05 alpha level, the hypothesis is thus rejected. This implies that there is a significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of their faculty. In order to determine the mean value(s) that caused the significant difference observed in the ANOVA results of Table 8, the Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT) was used as a post-hoc test. The results of the DMRT procedure are displayed in Table 11.  Table 9 shows the Duncan Multiple Range Test indicating the significant difference noted in the ANOVA on Table 8. Group 1 (Life Sciences) with a mean score of 3.23 slightly differed from Group 2, 3 and 4 with the mean score of 3.25 but significantly differed from Group 5 with a mean score of 3.60. All the groups differed from one another but the significant difference noted was as a result of Group 1 (Life Sciences). Hence, the significant difference noted in the ANOVA on Table 8 was a result of respondents who are in Faculty of Life Sciences. Thus, the hypothesis is rejected.
Hypothesis Five: There is no significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of their place of residence. As shown on Table 13, the calculated t value of .96 with a p value of .34 is greater than 0.05 level of significance. This indicates that there was no significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of place of residence.

Discussion
The findings of this study indicated that reducing occurrence of loneliness, improving the academic performance of the cohabitants, it is morally acceptable, it encourages peer reading/study, it goes against the spiritual principle of purity, it gives the youths a foretaste of sexual intercourse, it creates room for youths to spend more time together, it creates room for youths to spend more time together, and youths see it as a natural step in the dating process, are the common factors responsible for cohabitation. The above finding is in line with Ogunbamila (2013) who posited that early young adults were mostly prone to premarital sexual behaviours. Cohabitation is common among undergraduates because many of them are being free for the first time; hence, they tend to enjoy their freedom and independence and are less monitored by either their parents or guardians. Also, Mustapha, Odebode and Adegboyega (2017) further noted that economic well-being is positively related to the odds that contribute to cohabiting. Those who choose to cohabit tend to be of slightly lower socioeconomic status, more liberal, less religious, and are more supportive of egalitarian gender roles and non-traditional family roles. College students who cohabit generally hold a positive attitude about the situation, reporting personal growth, a deeper understanding of one's partner, deeper love, disclosing more and better sex lives. Svodziwa and Kuerten (2017) also found that college students who cohabit have a higher level of general well-being and happiness. Cohabitation among individuals of the opposite sex is a predisposing factor to the initiation of sexual activities (Ogungbanila, 2013).
The findings of this study revealed that there is a significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of their gender. This finding is in agreement with that of Ola-Alani (2011) which revealed that cohabitation depends greatly on gender preference, and it has a lasting impact on student academic achievement.
In addition, it was found that there is no significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of their age. This finding is in agreement with that of Romano (2006) which revealed that age has nothing to do with the reason for cohabiting. The researcher further submitted that the majority of those engaging in cohabitation are higher institution students. Kezar and Moriarty's (2000) study revealed that young male adults developed cohabitation zeal from the moment they have knowledge of sexual intercourse.
Furthermore, findings revealed that there is a significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of their level. On the contrary, the study by Nnamani and Oyibe (2016) revealed that there was no significant different in the factors responsible for cohabitation among secondary school students based on their class.

Iyekolo
It was also discovered that there is a significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of their faculty. This finding is in agreement with Musibau and Johnson (2010) whose study revealed that the course of study has no significant influence on students' engagement in cohabitation.
Findings revealed that there is no significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of their place of residence. This corroborated the findings of Pat-Mbano et al. (2012) and Adegboyega (2019) who reported that tertiary students reside in off-campus apartments owned by private individuals, pay high rents, and struggle for accommodation with other home-seekers. In order to cut costs, cohabitation has been embraced as one of the alternative accommodation strategies (Umaru et al., 2012;Omonijo et al., 2015;Kasim et al., 2016). This has shaped the behaviour of many students positively and negatively (Svodziwa & Kurete, 2017). With a shortage of on campus accommodation, students resort to renting offcampus residential buildings. This is common with the public tertiary institution students in Nigeria.

Conclusion
This research examined the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin. The findings of this study indicated that reducing occurrence of loneliness, improving the academic performance of the cohabitants, it is morally acceptable, it encourages peer reading/study, it goes against the spiritual principle of purity, it gives the youths a foretaste of sexual intercourse, it creates room for youths to spend more time together, it creates room for youths to spend more time together, and youths see it as a natural step in the dating process, are the common factors responsible for cohabitation. It was also discovered that there is a significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of their faculty, gender, and level and that there is no significant difference in the factors responsible for cohabitation among youths as perceived by the students at the University of Ilorin on the basis of their age bracket.

Recommendations
These recommendations are based on the summary of findings and conclusion reached thereafter.
1. There should be a regular campaign regarding the benefits and dangers associated with students' cohabitation.
2. Government should support the university management in providing sufficient accommodation for students.

Iyekolo
3. Students should switch to cohabitation when they don't have any other option, and they should not abuse it.
4. Parents should make sure that they are monitoring the activities of their children to avoid the danger of cohabitation.