probability panel
PRRI
PRRI 2023 American Values Survey ('Threats to American Democracy Ahead of an Unprecedented Presidential Election'; 14th annual AVS, with the Brookings Institution) · Aug 25–30, 2023 · US national
Methodology
- Pollster
- PRRI independent
- Sponsor
- PRRI
- Fielded
- Aug 25–30, 2023
- Population
- adults
- Sample size
- 2,525
- Sample frame
- probability panel
- Panel
- Ipsos KnowledgePanel
- Mode
- online, self-administered - Ipsos KnowledgePanel (probability, address-based sampling from the USPS Delivery Sequence File), supplemented with Ipsos opt-in panel respondents calibrated to the KnowledgePanel weights to reach minimum sample sizes in smaller states
- Margin of error
- +/- 2.19 percentage points
- Weighting
- pre-stratification to the CPS March Supplement, PPS selection, post-stratification raking (IPF) on gender by age, race and ethnicity, Census region by education, income and other benchmarks
- Geography
- US national
- Base notes
- Ipsos KnowledgePanel only - no opt-in supplement. Q41a was asked of Form 1 (N=1,268) and Q41b of Form 2 (N=1,257). PRRI labels this fielding 'Sept. 2023' in its trend tables even though it was in the field August 25-30, 2023; the 'Sept. 2023' rows in the AVA LGBTQ toplines are this survey, distinct from the separate 'Aug. 2023' AVA wave.
Sources
Verification note. SECOND-HAND. The 54% favor / 40% oppose figures, field dates, N and MoE come from the compiled polling table in the Wikipedia 'Bathroom bill' article, whose citation for this row is to a print/book source with no URL. No PRRI release for this wave was located. Treat as a lead requiring primary verification. || Every distribution copied from the AVS 2023 topline PDF; party nets from the accompanying PRRI/Brookings report. Fielded in partnership with the Brookings Institution as the 14th annual American Values Survey. || CORRECTION - trend_series reassignment, not a value change. Cells 29/25/23/17/5 (54 favor / 40 oppose) read directly off the 'Sept. 2023' trend row of the PRRI 2025 AVA LGBTQ topline; they match the existing DB record exactly. The DB files this fielding under 'prri_ava_bathroom_sex_at_birth'. Note PRRI labels this wave 'Sept. 2023' while the DB carries Aug 25-30 field dates.
Figures below are transcribed from these documents. Where they disagree with the source, the source governs.
Questions asked (8)
laws requiring bathroom use matching sex at birth
Laws that require transgender individuals to use bathrooms that correspond to their sex at birth rather than their current gender identity
Wording reconstructed from: Not retrieved for this wave; wording carried from the confirmed 2019 AVA battery text
Favor (net) 54%
Wording notes: favor = restriction
neutral — restriction described in its own terms
Subgroup figures (3)
LGBT nondiscrimination protections in jobs, public accommodations and housing (item explicitly names transgender people)
Q40. How much do you favor or oppose each of the following? [RANDOMIZE] [FLIP SCALE 1-4; 4-1]
Laws that would protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing.
Strongly favor
34%
Strongly oppose
9%
Skipped/Refused
5%
Favor 37%Oppose 15%
Wording notes: bundles transgender people with gay, lesbian and bisexual people in one item | three policy domains combined in one question (jobs, public accommodations, housing)
neutral — symmetric favor/oppose scale, no loaded terms; the design limitation is that it is double-barreled across three policy domains and four identity groups, so transgender-specific support cannot be isolated
laws preventing parents from allowing a minor to receive gender-transition medical care
Q40. How much do you favor or oppose each of the following? [RANDOMIZE] [FLIP SCALE 1-4; 4-1]
Laws that prevent parents from allowing their child to receive medical care for a gender transition.
Favor (net) 49%
Wording notes: frames the ban as constraining parents rather than minors or providers | does not name specific interventions (puberty blockers, hormones, surgery) | 'medical care for a gender transition' rather than 'gender-affirming care'
tilts_affirming — the parental-authority frame ('prevent parents from allowing') suppresses support for restriction relative to wordings that foreground the minor or the specific medical procedure; PRRI's readings run notably less restrictive than pollsters who ask about 'gender transition medical treatment for minors' directly
Subgroup figures (3)
how much LGBTQ rights would drive a vote for major political office (LGBTQ-general item, not transgender-specific)
Q12. Thinking about how the following issues might affect your vote for major political offices, would you:
LGBTQ rights
Not see this as a major issue
36%
Consider a candidate's position on this issue as just one of many important factors
35%
Only vote for a candidate who shares your views on this issue
28%
Skipped/Refused
2%
Wording notes: names 'LGBTQ rights' as a bloc rather than any transgender-specific policy | does not distinguish salience for supporters from salience for opponents
unclear — the item measures intensity without direction, so a high 'only vote for a candidate who shares your views' share can be driven by either pro- or anti-LGBTQ respondents; PRRI does not publish a directional split on the face of the topline
whether transgender-rights advocates have gone too far
Q41. How much do you agree with the following statements?
People advocating for the rights of transgender people have gone too far in recent years.
Wording notes: 'gone too far' is a restriction-side frame with no matching 'not far enough' option | asked of Form 1 only; Form 2 got the mirror-image discrimination framing
tilts_restrictive — an agree/disagree statement written from the restriction side; acquiescence pushes toward 'agree' and there is no symmetric 'have not gone far enough' alternative. PRRI's split-sample design is what makes this legible: 54% agreed advocates have gone too far while 58% of the other half agreed that restricting transgender rights is discrimination, so a majority endorsed both frames
Subgroup figures (2)
whether restricting transgender rights is a form of discrimination
Q41. How much do you agree with the following statements?
Restricting the rights of transgender people is just another form of discrimination.
Wording notes: 'just another form of discrimination' is an affirming frame with no matching counter-frame | asked of Form 2 only; Form 1 got the 'gone too far' framing
tilts_affirming — an agree/disagree statement written from the affirming side, with the same acquiescence exposure as its Form 1 twin; the pair is one of the cleanest demonstrations in this database that a majority will endorse whichever frame it is handed
Subgroup figures (2)
banning discussion of sexual orientation and/or gender identity in public schools
Q44. [education policy battery, four-point favor/oppose]
Banning the discussion of sexual orientation and/or gender identity in public schools
Favor (net) 43%
Wording notes: 'banning the discussion' is a blunter framing than the statutory language it stands in for | bundles sexual orientation and gender identity
tilts_affirming — 'banning the discussion' foregrounds censorship in a way the underlying statutes' own language ('classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity') does not, which tends to depress measured support for the policy
optimism that Americans of different gender identities can come together to solve the country's problems
Q32. These days, do you feel optimistic or pessimistic that the following groups of Americans can still come together and solve the country's problems?
People who hold a different gender identity
Optimistic
50%
Pessimistic
46%
Skipped/Refused
4%
Wording notes: measures social cohesion rather than policy attitudes | 'a different gender identity' is relative to the respondent, so the referent varies
neutral — symmetric optimistic/pessimistic pair; no evaluative language