People around the world feel China’s economic influence where they live, according to a new Pew Research Center survey of 35 countries.

Large majorities in nearly all the nations we polled – spanning six continents and ranging in income level – say China has a great deal or a fair amount of influence on their country’s economic conditions.

And China’s economic influence is now felt more widely than it was when we last asked this question in 2019. In 10 of the 13 countries where trend data is available, a larger share say China has a great deal of impact on their country’s economy than said so five years ago.

But whether people see this influence as positive or negative varies widely. In most of the middle-income countries included in the survey, people tend to view China’s economic influence as a good thing. But in the high-income countries, people tend to see it as a bad thing.

• In the 17 middle-income countries surveyed, a median of 47% of adults say China has a positive influence on their country’s economy, while 29% say it has a negative impact.
• In the 18 high-income countries surveyed, a median of 57% of adults say China’s economic influence is negative, while 28% say it’s positive.

Americans are the most likely to have negative views of China’s economic impact. About three-quarters say China’s influence on the U.S. economy is negative. (Read more about Americans’ views of China in our May report.)

Where views on China’s economic influence have changed, they have generally become more negative. In Argentina, Brazil, Israel, Japan, South Korea and Tunisia, more say China has a negative economic influence on their country than said so in 2019. (Read more about perceptions of China’s economic impact in Chapter 2.)

Overall favorability of China follows a similar pattern to views of its economic influence:

• Across the high-income countries surveyed, a median of 70% view China unfavorably. 
• Across the middle-income countries surveyed, a median of 56% view China favorably. (Read more about favorability in Chapter 1.)

These are among the key findings of a new survey of 44,166 people in 35 countries conducted from Jan. 5 to May 21, 2024.

The report also includes some questions only asked in the Asia-Pacific region or in specific middle-income countries.

Views of Chinese firms are mixed

China launched its Belt and Road Initiative in 2013. Today, more than 10 years into the initiative, the country’s global outward foreign direct investment is close to $3 trillion. And according to a Bloomberg analysis of data from China’s Ministry of Commerce, its investments overseas are at their highest point in the last eight years.

At the same time, controversies have arisen about the environmental impact of Chinese firms operating abroad, how their workers are treated, and even whether Chinese investments benefit local economies or act as harmful competition.

Still, people in a number of middle-income nations have a positive impression of Chinese companies operating there. Across the nine nations where we asked about this, a 72% median say Chinese companies are good for their country’s economy. Views are most positive in Thailand (81%), Kenya (80%) and Bangladesh (79%), though a majority or plurality hold this view in each of the nine surveyed countries.

When it comes to whether Chinese companies work to protect the environment in these countries, opinion is a bit cooler. A median of 63% say Chinese companies do work to protect the environment. But in Ghana and South Africa, large shares say they do not.

Opinion is even more mixed on whether Chinese companies in each country treat local workers fairly. In Ghana, Nigeria, the Philippines and South Africa, around four-in-ten or more do not think Chinese companies operating in their country treat local workers fairly. (Read more about views of Chinese firms in Chapter 2.)

China’s territorial disputes concern many in Asia-Pacific countries

China is party to multiple territorial disputes in the Asia-Pacific region, whether related to the South China Sea, the East China Sea or even specific borders such as those between China and India. Of the 10 Asia-Pacific countries we surveyed, majorities or pluralities in all but Thailand are at least somewhat concerned about these territorial disputes.

In the Philippines, for example, where border tensions with China largely center on the Second Thomas Shoal of the Spratly Islands, 91% say they are concerned about territorial disputes between China and its neighbors, including 65% who are very concerned. (Since fielding, the conflict has flared up over a collision in the area between Chinese and Philippine ships.)

Around three-quarters or more in Australia, Japan, Malaysia and South Korea also express concern. (Read more about views of China’s territorial disputes in Chapter 3.)

In the Asia-Pacific, views differ on whether China contributes to global peace and stability

Across the Asia-Pacific region, we also asked people whether China contributes to peace and stability around the world. Opinion is divided: In Malaysia and Thailand, around two-thirds or more see it playing this role. About three-in-ten or fewer say the same in Australia, India, Japan and South Korea.

When we asked this question in 24 countries in 2023, Australians, Japanese and South Koreans were some of the least likely to say China contributes to global peace and stability. They remain some of the most critical, but to a lesser extent than last year. Still, these three publics are generally less likely to say China plays this stabilizing role than to say the same about other regional powers we asked about (Australia, India and Japan).

(Read more about views of China’s role on the world stage in Chapter 3.)

Across the 35 countries we surveyed, more have unfavorable views of China than favorable ones. The same is true when it comes to Chinese President Xi Jinping: People mostly lack confidence in him to do the right thing regarding world affairs.

But opinions vary widely across regions and across levels of economic development. For example, in the high-income European countries included in the survey, views of China and Xi tend to be broadly negative, while in middle-income nations in sub-Saharan Africa, views are significantly more positive.

Views tend to be among the most and least positive in the Asia-Pacific region – more positive in middle-income countries like Malaysia and Thailand, and more negative in high-income ones like Australia, Japan and South Korea.

Overall favorability of China

A 35-country median of 35% have a favorable view of China, compared with a median of 52% who have a negative view. Opinions vary widely, from 11% favorable in Sweden to 80% favorable in Thailand.

In the 18 high-income countries we polled, views of China are, on balance, negative. There are three notable exceptions where opinion of China is either divided or net positive: Chile, Greece and Singapore. Among Singaporeans, those who are ethnically Chinese are particularly favorable (71%). A majority of Singaporeans who are not ethnically Chinese also see China favorably (59%).

In the 17 middle-income countries we polled, views of China are much rosier. Though three countries stand out for having more negative than positive views: India, the Philippines and Turkey.

Views of China over time

Views of China have turned slightly more positive since last year in Argentina, Canada and Greece (+7 percentage points each).

Over the same period, favorable views have decreased significantly in Israel (-15) and Hungary (-7).

The sharp decrease in favorability among Israelis follows a number of Chinese policy positions related to the Israel-Hamas war. China was an early proponent of a cease-fire in Gaza, and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi accused Israel of going “beyond the scope of self-defense” in the first days of the war. (The survey predated Xi’s calls for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in his May meetings with Arab leaders.)

Jewish Israelis (25%) have much less favorable views of China than Arab Israelis do (61%). Among Jewish Israelis, this reflects an 18-point decrease in favorability since last year; among Arab Israelis, the decrease was 7 points.

In Hungary, the survey followed China’s offer for a security pact between the two countries but occurred before Xi’s May visit to Budapest.

We also see significant shifts in opinion in some of the countries not surveyed since before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic:

• In the Philippines and Turkey, favorable views have fallen 8 and 11 percentage points, respectively, since 2019.
• In Chile, they’ve fallen 8 points since 2017.
• In Colombia, they’ve increased 12 points since 2017.

In Ghana, the share who are unsure or decline to answer the question has dropped significantly since 2017, and in turn, both positive (+11) and negative (+7) views of China have increased. The same has also happened in Tunisia since 2019: Positive views have increased 5 points (from 63% to 68%) and negative views have increased 9 points (from 16% to 25%) while the share who decline to answer decreased significantly.

Views by age

Younger people tend to have more favorable opinions of China than older people do. This has long been the case in the United States, and is also true in over half of the other countries surveyed.

Gaps are particularly large in Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru and the United Kingdom, where those ages 18 to 34 are around 25 points more likely than those 50 and older to view China positively.

Only in Hungary and South Korea is the pattern reversed, with younger people feeling less favorably toward China.

Views by ideology

In most countries, views of China are not an ideological issue. But, in the U.S. and Israel, those who place themselves on the left of the ideological spectrum (“liberals” in the U.S.) have more favorable views than those on the right (“conservatives” in the U.S.).

In Bangladesh, Hungary, the Netherlands and Spain, those on the right tend to have more positive views on China than those on the left.

Confidence in Xi

Few internationally have confidence in Chinese President Xi Jinping. A 35-country median of 24% express at least a fair amount of confidence in the leader, while 62% have little to no confidence. However, opinion varies widely across high- and middle-income countries (49% and 12% confidence at the median, respectively), as well as across regions.

Views are least positive in North America and Europe: Clear majorities in each country surveyed there have little or no confidence in Xi.

In the Asia-Pacific region, Xi gets some of his highest and lowest ratings. Positive ratings tend to be more common in middle-income countries than high-income countries. For example, roughly half or more in Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Thailand have at least a fair amount of confidence in Xi. Conversely, in Australia, Japan and South Korea, at least eight-in-ten lack confidence in him. Middle-income India, where more lack confidence in Xi, and high-income Singapore, where most have confidence in Xi, are two notable exceptions to this pattern.

Views of Xi are more positive than negative in sub-Saharan Africa, especially in Kenya (64% vs. 33%) and Nigeria (59% vs. 30%). Notably, large shares in South Africa (33%) and Ghana (21%) refuse to answer or are unsure.

In the Middle East-North Africa region, views of Xi lean positive in Tunisia, but much smaller shares have confidence in him in Israel and Turkey. In Latin America, only around three-in-ten or fewer have confidence in Xi in every country surveyed.

Views of Xi over time

Among countries last surveyed in 2023, opinions of the Chinese leader have become slightly less positive in South Africa (-9) and Israel (-6) and slightly more positive in Argentina (+6) and Hungary (+7).

Confidence has also fallen slightly in two countries last surveyed in 2022: Malaysia (-7) and Singapore (-6).

And, in the Philippines, last surveyed in 2019, confidence has fallen 13 points, from 58% to 45%.

CORRECTION (May 1, 2025): This report previously misstated the change in favorability of China in the Philippines from 2019 to 2024. This has been updated and does not affect other substantive findings in the report.

While most adults in the 35 countries we surveyed feel China’s influence on domestic economic conditions, people are divided on whether that influence is positive or negative. Those in high-income countries tend to see China’s economic influence negatively, while those in middle-income countries have a more positive outlook.

We also asked specifically about the influence of Chinese companies operating abroad in nine middle-income countries in Africa and Asia. In these nine nations, people largely see Chinese companies as beneficial to their economy. Views are slightly more mixed when it comes to whether these companies take measures to protect the environment and treat local workers well.

How much influence do people think China has on their country’s economy?

Two-thirds or more in all 35 countries surveyed see China influencing domestic economic conditions. This includes shares ranging from 13% to 62% who say China has a great deal of influence on economic conditions in their country.

Nearly all adults in the U.S. and Canada agree China has some amount of influence on their country’s economic conditions. About three-in-ten in each country see a great deal of influence. (For more on U.S. views of China’s economic impact, read our May report.)

In Europe, nine-in-ten or more in most countries surveyed say China influences economic conditions there. Those in France, Germany and Italy are particularly likely to say China has a great deal of influence.

China’s effect on economic conditions is felt less evenly in the 10 Asian-Pacific countries surveyed. It is most keenly felt in Japan, Malaysia and South Korea, where roughly half say China has a great deal of influence.

About eight-in-ten or more in Israel and Turkey say China influences their country’s economic conditions. Tunisians stand out from the other two Middle East-North African publics surveyed: They are the most likely to say China has no influence at all on economic conditions (22%) but also the most likely to say it has a great deal of influence (41%).

Of those surveyed in sub-Saharan Africa, Kenyans see the greatest influence from China. About nine-in-ten Kenyans say China influences their domestic economy, including 50% who say it has a great deal of influence. A similar share of Nigerians say China influences their country’s economic conditions, but a smaller share says there is a great deal of influence (41%).

Eight-in-ten or more in each of the six Latin American countries surveyed say China has some amount of influence on their country’s economic conditions. Chileans see the most substantial impact, with 60% reporting a great deal of influence.

Views by ideology

In Australia, Italy, Spain and the U.S., those who place themselves on the ideological right see more influence from China than those on the left do. For example, in Australia, 47% of those on the right say China influences the Australian economy a great deal, while 25% on the left agree. In Spain, those on the right are also more likely to answer the question.

The opposite is true in Japan and South Korea, where those on the left are more likely to say China is having a great deal of influence on their country’s economic conditions.

Views by age

In Australia, Canada, Germany and the U.S., those ages 50 and older are more likely than adults under 35 to say China has a great deal of influence on their country’s economic conditions. Older people are also more likely to answer the question in Australia.

In Israel, conversely, it’s younger adults who are more likely to say that China has a great deal of influence. The same is true in India, South Africa and Sri Lanka, though older adults are also more likely to answer the question in these countries.

Views over time

We’ve asked about China’s influence on domestic economic conditions before in 15 of the 35 countries surveyed this year. The sense that China has a great deal of economic influence has increased significantly in 11 of these trended countries.

Some countries were last asked the question in 2019. Of this group, Brazil has seen the greatest change. The share of Brazilian adults who think China has a great deal of influence on their economy has almost doubled, from 26% in 2019 to 51% in 2024. Double-digit increases are also seen in Argentina, India, Kenya, Mexico, Tunisia and Turkey since 2019.

Of the two countries where the question was last asked in 2013, a significant change occurred in Chile. Eleven years ago, 29% of Chileans said China exerts a great deal of economic influence in their country, compared with 60% today.

Do people think China’s economic influence is positive or negative?

Those who said China is having some amount of influence on economic conditions were also asked to evaluate whether that influence is positive or negative – with mixed results.

Americans are the most likely to have negative views of China’s economic impact in their country. Roughly three-quarters say China’s impact on the U.S. economy is negative. 

About two-thirds in seven other countries say China has a negative effect on their economy.

Positive views of China’s impact on economic conditions dominate in 14 countries. Two-thirds hold this view in Malaysia and Singapore, including 40% in Malaysia and 30% in Singapore who say China has a great deal of positive influence on their country’s economic conditions.

At least six-in-ten in Mexico, Nigeria, Peru and Thailand also say China’s impact on their economy has been positive.

In five countries, there is no consensus on whether China’s economic impact is good or bad. People in Argentina, Ghana, Greece, Hungary and Israel are about as likely to say China has a positive influence as they are to say it has a negative influence.

Views by age

Younger adults see China’s economic influence more positively in 10 countries. Japan, where people have a generally negative view of China’s influence, sees the greatest difference. Among Japanese adults ages 18 to 34, 38% say China has a positive impact on economic conditions in their country, compared with 13% of those 50 and older.

Even countries where positive views dominate have age differences. For example, in Singapore, where two-thirds see China’s economic impact positively, younger adults are still 11 percentage points more likely than older adults to say this.

Views by ideology

In six countries, ideology is related to how negatively people see China’s economic impact. For Israelis, who are generally divided on whether China’s influence is positive or negative, a larger share of those on the right than those on the left or in the center see it negatively (42% vs. 23% each). Likewise, in Australia, France and the U.S., where most see China’s impact as negative, those on the right are more likely to say this than those on the left.

The opposite is true in Greece and Hungary. In both countries, evaluations of China’s impact are mixed overall, but those on the left are more likely to see China’s economic impact as negative. The difference is especially pronounced in Hungary, where left-leaners are roughly twice as likely as right-leaners to hold this view.

Views over time

Views of China’s economic impact have become more negative in eight of the 15 countries where trend data is available. The greatest change is in Japan, where people are 25 points more likely than they were in 2019 to see China’s economic influence as negative.

Views of China’s influence on economic conditions have become more positive in one country: Mexico, where the share with a positive opinion of China’s economic impact increased by 7 points, from 53% to 60%.

Views of Chinese firms operating abroad

In nine middle-income countries in the Asia-Pacific region and sub-Saharan Africa, we asked people to think more specifically about Chinese companies operating in their country. They were asked to evaluate Chinese companies along three dimensions: their effects on the domestic economy, treatment of local workers and efforts to protect the environment.

Feedback on Chinese companies is relatively positive on all three factors, especially in the Asia-Pacific countries. Still, more see Chinese firms as good for their economy than think they treat workers fairly or protect the environment.

Chinese companies and the economy

A median of 72% across the nine countries say Chinese companies operating there benefit the domestic economy.

Across the Asia-Pacific countries surveyed, those in Bangladesh and Thailand are most praiseful of Chinese companies’ economic impact. About eight-in-ten in each country say the statement “They are good for the economy” describes Chinese companies somewhat or very well.

Indians are the least likely to see economic benefits from Chinese firms or to offer an opinion (20% don’t know or decline to answer).

Majorities in all four African countries surveyed say Chinese companies are good for their economy. In Kenya and Nigeria, around seven-in-ten or more hold this view.

Chinese companies and the environment

A nine-country median of 63% say Chinese companies work to protect the environment.

People are most likely to say this in the Asia-Pacific countries surveyed. Of these five countries, people in Bangladesh offer Chinese companies the most credit on environmental protection. About two-thirds in Sri Lanka and Thailand also say these companies work to protect the environment.

Indians again are the least likely in the region to give Chinese companies positive marks, with 43% saying they work to protect the environment. Around two-in-ten Indians offer no opinion.

Views are more divided across the African countries surveyed. The share saying the statement “They work to protect the environment” describes Chinese companies operating in their country somewhat or very well ranges from 75% in Kenya to 23% in Ghana.

Chinese companies and local workers

A 57% median across the nine countries say the statement “They treat local workers fairly” describes Chinese companies operating there somewhat or very well. Still, substantial shares of the public in several nations express concern about the way local workers are treated.

Overall, those in the Asia-Pacific countries surveyed tend to say Chinese companies operating there treat local workers fairly. In Bangladesh and Thailand, about three-quarters hold this view.

In India, about half think Chinese companies treat local workers fairly, while about a quarter disagree. Another 24% do not offer an opinion.

Views are somewhat more critical in the African countries surveyed. While 68% of Kenyans say Chinese companies operating in their country treat local workers fairly, no more than about half in Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa agree. In fact, Ghanaians are more likely to think that Chinese companies do not treat local workers fairly (53% vs. 34%).

Views by perceptions of the economy

In most of the countries where we asked this question, positive evaluations of how the domestic economy is doing are tied to more positive views of Chinese companies. In South Africa, for example, those who think the current economic situation in the country is good are 18 points more likely than those who think it’s bad to say Chinese companies work to protect the environment. They are also 16 points more likely to think Chinese companies treat local workers well and 12 points more likely to think these companies are good for their economy.

As the largest economy and military in the Asia-Pacific region, and the second-largest population in the world, China is an important regional and global player. To learn more about views of its impact in the region and more broadly, we asked adults in 10 Asia-Pacific countries the following questions:

• “How concerned are you, if at all, about territorial disputes between China and neighboring countries?”
• “In general, to what extent do you think China contributes to peace and stability around the world?”

A 10-country median of 72% are concerned about territorial disputes, while 61% say China generally contributes to global peace and stability. However, opinions both across and within countries are mixed.

Concerns about China’s territorial disputes with its neighbors

There are concerns across the Asia-Pacific region about China’s territorial disputes with neighboring countries.

In the Philippines, 91% are concerned – the highest share of the 10 countries where we asked about this – including 65% who say they are very concerned. The survey was conducted during early 2024, which saw developments in the country’s dispute with China over territory in the Spratly Islands, a conflict that dates back to the 1970s. (Since fielding, the conflict has flared up over a collision in the area between Chinese and Philippine ships.)

More than eight-in-ten in Australia, Japan and South Korea share concerns about China’s territorial disputes with its neighbors.

In India – where there is a long-standing border dispute with China over parts of the Himalayan region ­– 69% of adults are concerned, including 44% who are very concerned.

Thai adults stand out for their lack of concern: 61% are not worried about territorial disputes between China and neighboring countries.

Americans, for their part, are also concerned about China’s disputes in the region. About six-in-ten U.S. adults say they are very or somewhat concerned, an opinion especially common among older adults and conservative Republicans.

Views over time

In India, Japan, the Philippines and South Korea, we fielded this question in 2015 as well. In each country, majorities were concerned then and remain so now. Concern is up 9 percentage points in South Korea and 7 points in India. In Japan and the Philippines, there was no significant change in the overall shares who express concern between 2015 and 2024, though in the Philippines, the share who are very concerned increased 9 points over this period.

Evaluations of China’s contributions to global peace and stability

A median of 61% across the 10 Asia-Pacific countries surveyed say China contributes to global peace and stability a great deal or a fair amount. A 33% median say China does not make such contributions much or at all.

Evaluations on this measure are most positive in Thailand, where 80% see China as contributing to peace and stability. Majorities throughout the Southeast Asian countries surveyed agree.

In Australia, India, Japan and South Korea – the region’s four largest economies behind China –much smaller shares say China contributes to peace and stability. Fewer than three-in-ten hold this view in each of the four countries. And in Australia and India, about four-in-ten say China does not contribute to global peace and stability at all.

Views over time

When we asked this question in 24 countries in 2023, adults in Australia, Japan and South Korea were some of the least likely to believe China contributes to global peace and stability. Though still largely critical, ratings on this measure are up significantly from last year in those three countries.

Take Japan as an example. Following a somewhat rare meeting between the Japanese prime minister and Chinese president in November, the survey finds that 29% of Japanese adults think China contributes at least a fair amount to peace and stability around the world, up from 13% in 2023.

Views by age

In about half the Asia-Pacific countries surveyed, adults ages 18 to 34 have a better impression of China’s international behavior than those ages 50 and older. The difference is largest in the Philippines, where 63% of younger adults think China contributes to global peace and stability a great deal or a fair amount, compared with 46% of Filipinos 50 and older.

Views by perceptions of China’s economic influence

Respondents’ evaluations of China’s influence on their own country’s economy (as analyzed in Chapter 2) also impact their assessments of China’s contributions to global peace and stability. Those who say China has a sizable positive influence on their economy generally give more favorable ratings of its contributions to global peace and stability than those who see a sizable negative influence.

In Bangladesh, for example, 85% of those who see a great deal or fair amount of positive influence on their economy say China contributes to peace and stability around the world. Meanwhile, 62% of those who see a similarly sized negative influence on Bangladesh’s economy agree.

How do China’s contributions to peace and stability compare with other regional powers?

In addition to asking how much China contributes to peace and stability around the world, we also asked how much Australia, India and Japan do the same.

In six of the 10 Asia-Pacific countries surveyed, majorities say China contributes to global peace and stability at least a fair amount. But in four – Australia, India, Japan and South Korea – no more than about three-in-ten hold this view. In these countries, ratings of China as a contributor to global peace and stability are the lowest of any regional power we asked about.

Japan gets the highest median rating on its contributions. Majorities in eight countries think Japan contributes to peace and stability at least a fair amount.

A median of 62% say Australia contributes to global peace and stability, similar to the medians for Japan (65%) and China (61%). Australia’s highest ratings come from adults in Japan, the Philippines and Thailand, where roughly seven-in-ten hold this view.

India gets the lowest median rating on this measure (50%). Still, among Indians themselves, 89% believe their country contributes to global peace and stability. And about three-quarters in neighboring Sri Lanka agree.

This report is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals.

Laura Silver, Associate Director, Global Attitudes Research
Christine Huang, Research Associate
Laura Clancy, Research Analyst
Andrew Prozorovsky, Research Assistant

Dorene Asare-Marfo, Panel Manager
Sarah Austin, Research Assistant
Peter Bell, Associate Director, Design and Production
Janakee Chavda, Assistant Digital Producer
Manolo Corichi, Research Analyst
Jonathan Evans, Senior Researcher
Moira Fagan, Research Associate
Janell Fetterolf, Senior Researcher
Shannon Greenwood, Digital Production Manager
Sneha Gubbala, Research Assistant
Anna Jackson, Editorial Assistant
Hannah Klein, Senior Communications Manager
Gar Meng Leong, Communications Manager
Kirsten Lesage, Research Associate
Jordan Lippert, Research Assistant
Carolyn Lau, International Research Methodologist
John Carlo Mandapat, Information Graphics Designer
William Miner, Research Assistant
Patrick Moynihan, Associate Director, International Research Methods
Georgina Pizzolitto, Research Methodologist
Jacob Poushter, Associate Director, Global Attitudes Research
Dana Popky, Associate Panel Manager
Sofia Hernandez Ramones, Research Assistant
Sofi Sinozich, International Research Methodologist
Maria Smerkovich, Research Associate
Kelsey Jo Starr, Research Analyst
Brianna Vetter, Administrative Associate
Richard Wike, Director, Global Attitudes Research

We appreciate the following individuals for advising us on strategic outreach: Eugenia Mitchelstein, Associate Professor of Communication at Universidad de San Andrés (Argentina); Naziru Mikail Abubakar, Executive Director and Editor-in-Chief at the Daily Trust (Nigeria); Sebastián Lacunza, Columnist at elDiarioAR.com (Argentina); Anton Harber, Executive Director at the Campaign for Free Expression and Founder of the Mail & Guardian (South Africa); and Admire Mare, Associate Professor and Head of Department of Communication and Media Studies, University of Johannesburg (South Africa); and Monicah Waceke Ndungu, Chief Operating Officer, Nation Media Group (Kenya).

About Pew Research Center’s Spring 2024 Global Attitudes Survey

Results for the survey are based on telephone, face-to-face and online interviews conducted under the direction of Gallup, Langer Research Associates, Social Research Centre and Verian. The results are based on national samples, unless otherwise noted. Here are more details about our international survey methodology and country-specific sample designs.

The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Overview

The American Trends Panel (ATP), created by Pew Research Center, is a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. Panelists participate via self-administered web surveys. Panelists who do not have internet access at home are provided with a tablet and wireless internet connection. Interviews are conducted in both English and Spanish. The panel is being managed by Ipsos.

Data in this report is drawn from ATP Wave 145, conducted from April 1-7, 2024, among a sample of ATP members who had previously completed both of ATP Waves 132 and 143. It includes an oversample of non-Hispanic Asian adults, non-Hispanic Black men and Hispanic men in order to provide more precise estimates of the opinions and experiences of these smaller demographic subgroups. These oversampled groups are weighted back to reflect their correct proportions in the population. A total of 3,600 panelists responded out of 3,776 who were sampled, for a response rate of 95%. The cumulative response rate accounting for nonresponse to the recruitment surveys and attrition is 3%. The break-off rate among panelists who logged on to the survey and completed at least one item is 1%. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 3,600 respondents is plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

Panel recruitment

The ATP was created in 2014, with the first cohort of panelists invited to join the panel at the end of a large, national, landline and cellphone random-digit dial survey that was conducted in both English and Spanish. Two additional recruitments were conducted using the same method in 2015 and 2017, respectively. Across these three surveys, a total of 19,718 adults were invited to join the ATP, of whom 9,942 (50%) agreed to participate.

In August 2018, the ATP switched from telephone to address-based sampling (ABS) recruitment. A study cover letter and a pre-incentive are mailed to a stratified, random sample of households selected from the U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File. This Postal Service file has been estimated to cover as much as 98% of the population, although some studies suggest that the coverage could be in the low 90% range.¹ Within each sampled household, the adult with the next birthday is asked to participate. Other details of the ABS recruitment protocol have changed over time but are available upon request.²

We have recruited a national sample of U.S. adults to the ATP approximately once per year since 2014. In some years, the recruitment has included additional efforts (known as an “oversample”) to boost sample size with underrepresented groups. For example, Hispanic adults, Black adults and Asian adults were oversampled in 2019, 2022 and 2023, respectively.

Across the six address-based recruitments, a total of 23,862 adults were invited to join the ATP, of whom 20,917 agreed to join the panel and completed an initial profile survey. Of the 30,859 individuals who have ever joined the ATP, 11,906 remained active panelists and continued to receive survey invitations at the time this survey was conducted.

The American Trends Panel never uses breakout routers or chains that direct respondents to additional surveys.

Sample design

The overall target population for this survey was noninstitutionalized persons ages 18 and older living in the U.S., including Alaska and Hawaii. It featured a stratified random sample of active ATP members who completed both ATP Wave 132 and Wave 143. Among the panelists who met these criteria, Hispanic men, non-Hispanic Black men and non-Hispanic Asian adults were selected with certainty. The remaining panelists were sampled at rates designed to ensure that the share of respondents in each stratum is proportional to its share of the U.S. adult population to the greatest extent possible. Respondent weights are adjusted to account for differential probabilities of selection as described in the Weighting section below.

Questionnaire development and testing

The questionnaire was developed by Pew Research Center in consultation with Ipsos. The web program was rigorously tested on both PC and mobile devices by the Ipsos project management team and Pew Research Center researchers. The Ipsos project management team also populated test data that was analyzed in SPSS to ensure the logic and randomizations were working as intended before launching the survey.

Incentives

All respondents were offered a post-paid incentive for their participation. Respondents could choose to receive the post-paid incentive in the form of a check or a gift code to Amazon.com or could choose to decline the incentive. Incentive amounts ranged from $5 to $20 depending on whether the respondent belongs to a part of the population that is harder or easier to reach. Differential incentive amounts were designed to increase panel survey participation among groups that traditionally have low survey response propensities.

Data collection protocol

The data collection field period for this survey was April 1-7, 2024. Postcard notifications were mailed to a subset of ATP panelists with a known residential address on April 1.³

Invitations were sent out in two separate launches: soft launch and full launch. Sixty panelists were included in the soft launch, which began with an initial invitation sent on April 1. The ATP panelists chosen for the initial soft launch were known responders who had completed previous ATP surveys within one day of receiving their invitation. All remaining English- and Spanish-speaking sampled panelists were included in the full launch and were sent an invitation on April 2.

All panelists with an email address received an email invitation and up to two email reminders if they did not respond to the survey. All ATP panelists who consented to SMS messages received an SMS invitation and up to two SMS reminders.

Data quality checks

To ensure high-quality data, the Center’s researchers performed data quality checks to identify any respondents showing clear patterns of satisficing. This includes checking for whether respondents left questions blank at very high rates or always selected the first or last answer presented. As a result of this checking, one ATP respondent was removed from the survey dataset prior to weighting and analysis.

Weighting

The ATP data is weighted in a multistep process that accounts for multiple stages of sampling and nonresponse that occur at different points in the survey process. First, each panelist begins with a base weight that reflects their probability of selection for their initial recruitment survey. These weights are then rescaled and adjusted to account for changes in the design of ATP recruitment surveys from year to year. Finally, the weights are calibrated to align with the population benchmarks in the accompanying table to correct for nonresponse to recruitment surveys and panel attrition. If only a subsample of panelists was invited to participate in the wave, this weight is adjusted to account for any differential probabilities of selection.

Among the panelists who completed the survey, this weight is then calibrated again to align with the population benchmarks identified in the accompanying table and trimmed at the 2nd and 98th percentiles to reduce the loss in precision stemming from variance in the weights. This trimming is performed separately among non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, Hispanic and all other respondents. Sampling errors and tests of statistical significance take into account the effect of weighting.

The following table shows the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey.

Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request. In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

Dispositions and response rates

© Pew Research Center 2024