probability panel
PRRI
PRRI 2024 American Values Atlas (pooled Waves 1-4, LGBTQ module) · Mar 13, 2024 – Dec 2, 2024 · US national
Methodology
- Pollster
- PRRI independent
- Sponsor
- PRRI
- Fielded
- Mar 13, 2024 – Dec 2, 2024
- Population
- adults
- Sample size
- 22,260
- 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
- +/- 0.84 percentage points
- Weighting
- pre-stratification weights to the March CPS supplement; PPS sample selection; post-stratification raking (IPF) on gender by age, by race/ethnicity, Census division, metro area by race/ethnicity, education by race/ethnicity, income by race/ethnicity, language proficiency (ACS), party affiliation (Pew NPORS); separate state-level weights; opt-in cases calibrated to the KnowledgePanel weights; 2020 presidential vote choice used in the state-level weights for AZ, CO, FL, GA, MI, NC, NV, PA, TX and WI
- Geography
- US national
- Base notes
- Pooled annual AVA dataset: 20,642 Ipsos KnowledgePanel respondents plus 1,618 recruited by Ipsos from opt-in panels to reach a minimum of n=150 in smaller states. Aggregation of four monthly waves rather than a single fielding. Unweighted party n: Republican 6,821, independent 6,282, Democrat 7,307.
Sources
Verification note. All distributions from the 2024 AVA LGBTQ topline PDF; n, field dates, MOE, design effect and weighting from that topline's Survey Methodology section; party and Christian-nationalism nets from the PRRI 2024 AVA report. 2024 is the first year PRRI carried the gender-affirming-care and ID items across all four waves.
Figures below are transcribed from these documents. Where they disagree with the source, the source governs.
Questions asked (3)
LGBT nondiscrimination protections in jobs, public accommodations and housing (item explicitly names transgender people)
Q10. How much do you favor or oppose each of the following? [RANDOMIZE]:
Laws that would protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing.
Strongly favor
37%
Strongly oppose
7%
Skipped/Refused
4%
Favor 38%Oppose 14%Favor (net) 75%
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
Q10. How much do you favor or oppose each of the following? [RANDOMIZE]:
Laws that prevent parents from allowing their child to receive medical care for a gender transition.
Favor 21%Favor (net) 47%Oppose (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)
driver's licenses and government IDs required to display sex at birth rather than gender identity
Q10. How much do you favor or oppose each of the following? [RANDOMIZE]:
Laws that require driver's licenses or government ID to display the person's sex at birth rather than their gender identity.
Favor 29%Favor (net) 59%Oppose (net) 37%
Wording notes: uses 'sex at birth' against 'gender identity'
neutral — both poles named; no evaluative language attached to either option
Subgroup figures (7)