probability panel
PRRI
PRRI 2025 American Values Atlas (pooled Waves 1-4, LGBTQ module) · Feb 28, 2025 – Dec 8, 2025 · US national
Methodology
- Pollster
- PRRI independent
- Sponsor
- PRRI
- Fielded
- Feb 28, 2025 – Dec 8, 2025
- Population
- adults
- Sample size
- 22,111
- 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
- +/- 0.87 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; 2024 vote choice benchmark from the AP tabulation of certified results; separate state weights for AZ, FL, GA, MI, MN, NC, NV, PA, TX and WI
- Geography
- US national
- Base notes
- Pooled annual AVA dataset: 20,771 Ipsos KnowledgePanel respondents plus 1,340 recruited by Ipsos from opt-in panels to reach a minimum of n=150 in smaller states. Aggregation of the 2025 monthly waves rather than a single fielding. The Q12d bathroom and Q11d equal-rights rows pool only the March and September 2025 waves. Unweighted party n: Republican 6,886, independent 6,334, Democrat 7,050. State sample sizes (unweighted): AL 267, AK 161, AZ 483, AR 167, CA 2,098, CO 330, CT 280, DE 167, DC 160, FL 1,385, GA 573, HI 156, ID 174, IL 704, IN 443, IA 231, KS 188, KY 315, LA 238, ME 170, MD 388, MA 383, MI 696, MN 555, MS 186, MO 351, MT 173, NE 171, NV 189, NH 165, NJ 528, NM 158, NY 1,071, NC 655, ND 158, OH 877, OK 211, OR 564, PA 1,037, RI 152, SC 320, SD 160, TN 402, TX 1,626, UT 213, VT 160, VA 581, WA 504, WV 174, WI 456, WY 157.
Sources
Verification note. All distributions from the 2025 AVA LGBTQ topline PDF; n, field dates, MOE, design effect, weighting and the full state sample table from that topline's Survey Methodology section and Appendix; party, religion and Christian-nationalism nets from the PRRI 2025 AVA report and the June 2026 PRRI spotlight on transgender athletes.
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)
Q12. Do you favor or oppose each of the following?
Laws that would protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing.
Strongly favor
35%
Strongly oppose
9%
Skipped/Refused
4%
Favor 37%Oppose 16%Favor (net) 72%
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
Subgroup figures (3)
laws requiring restroom use matching sex assigned at birth ('bathroom bills')
Q12. Do you favor or oppose each of the following?
Laws that require transgender individuals to use bathrooms that correspond to their sex at birth rather than their current gender identity
Favor (net) 56%
Wording notes: uses 'sex at birth' against 'current gender identity' | policy stated as a restriction the respondent favors or opposes
neutral — both poles of the policy are named; 'current gender identity' can imply impermanence but the alternative is stated symmetrically
Subgroup figures (17)
agreement that transgender people deserve equal rights and protections
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Transgender people deserve the same rights and protections as other Americans.
Wording notes: abstract equality principle with no policy content | agree/disagree format is exposed to acquiescence bias
tilts_affirming — an affirmatively phrased agree/disagree principle statement invites acquiescence and measures abstract endorsement of equality, which runs far above support for specific transgender-affirming policies in the same instrument
Subgroup figures (6)