President Obama’s expression of support for same-sex marriage proved to be the public’s top news story last week.

About a quarter of Americans (26%) say they followed news about Obama’s statements on the divisive topic more closely than any other news, according to the latest weekly News Interest Index survey, conducted May 10-13 among 1,003 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.  Still, in the same survey, about half (52%) say Obama’s expression of support for same-sex marriage did not affect their opinion of the president. A quarter (25%) say Obama’s comments made them think less favorably of him, while 19% say the comments made them think more favorably of the president. (See: “Half Say View of Obama Not Affected by Gay Marriage Decision”.)

Obama’s comments – and their possible impact on the presidential race – also were among the week’s most covered stories, according to a separate analysis by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ). News specifically about Obama and his expression of support for gay marriage accounted for 14% of coverage. More general news about the 2012 election accounted for 15%, separating out news that focused primarily on Obama’s gay marriage comments. Altogether, campaign news accounted for 24% of coverage, according to PEJ.

Looking at the week’s other top stories, 20% of the public says they followed news about the economy most closely while 11% say they followed news about the 2012 campaign this closely. News about the economy accounted for 8% of coverage.

Differences in Interest in Obama’s Comments on Gay Marriage

More than a third of the public (37%) says they followed news about Obama’s expression of support for gay marriage very closely. About half of Democrats say this (49%), compared with 39% of Republicans and 29% of independents.

About four-in-ten women (42%) say they followed this news very closely, compared with 33% of men. Nearly half of those with at least a college degree (46%) say they followed news about Obama’s comment very closely, compared with 32% of those with some college and 36% of those with a high school diploma or less education.

As is typically the case, older people are more likely to say they followed this news very closely; 45% of those 50 and older say this, compared with 31% of those 18-49.

Obama’s comments are clearly the top story of the week for Democrats (36%). News about the economy ranks second (19% most closely). About a quarter of Republicans, 24% say they followed news about Obama’s gay marriage statements most closely, while about as many (22%) say they followed news about the economy this closely. Independents are also divided: 20% say they followed news about Obama’s statements most closely and 23% say their top story was news about the economy.

Women are more likely than men to say this was their top story (31% vs. 20%).

The Week’s News

Americans continue to keep a close watch on news about the economy at home. Four-in-ten (40%) say they followed news about the condition of the U.S. economy very closely, while 20% say this was the news they followed most closely.

Relatively few are closely following news about the economic problems unfolding in several European countries. Just 17% say they followed this news very closely; 3% say this was their top story. News about European economic woes accounted for 5% of coverage, according to PEJ.

About a third (34%) say they very closely followed news about the candidates for president in 2012, while 11% say this was the news they followed most closely. With the contest now a head-to-head race between Obama and Mitt Romney, Republicans and Democrats are about equally likely to say they are following this news very closely (39% of Republicans, 40% of Democrats). Fewer independents say this (27%).

About a quarter of the public (24%) say they followed news about the undercover agent in Yemen who foiled a plot to blow up a U.S.-bound airplane; 7% say this was the news they followed most closely. News about the failed plot accounted for 7% of coverage.

And news about negotiations between U.S. and Chinese officials over the fate of a Chinese human rights activist continued to attract modest attention; 15% say they followed this news very closely, the same level of interest as one week earlier. Meanwhile, 3% say this was the news they followed most closely. Last week, news about Chen Guangcheng’s situation accounted for 1% of coverage. The week before that, the story had ranked near the top of PEJ’s list, accounting for 12% of coverage.

These findings are based on the most recent installment of the weekly News Interest Index, an ongoing project of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The index, building on the Center’s longstanding research into public attentiveness to major news stories, examines news interest as it relates to the news media’s coverage. The weekly survey is conducted in conjunction with The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s News Coverage Index, which monitors the news reported by major newspaper, television, radio and online news outlets on an ongoing basis. In the most recent week, data relating to news coverage were collected May 7-13, 2012, and survey data measuring public interest in the top news stories of the week were collected May 10-13, 2012, from a nationally representative sample of 1,003 adults.

The research design for the study was informed by the advice of an expert panel that included Jonathan Best, Mike Brick, Diane Colasanto, Larry Hugick, Courtney Kennedy, Jon Krosnick, Linda Piekarski, Mark Schulman, Evans Witt, and Cliff Zukin. Larry Hugick, Evans Witt, Jonathan Best, Julie Gasior and Stacy DiAngelo of Princeton Survey Research Associates, and the interviewers and staff at Princeton Data Source were responsible for data collection and management. The contribution of Survey Sampling International, which donated the telephone sample and demographic data for the project, is also gratefully acknowledged.

Survey Methodology

The analysis in this report is based on two telephone surveys conducted by landline and cell phone among national samples of adults living in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. One survey, conducted January 4-8, 2012 among 1,507 adults utilized Pew Research’s standard survey methodology (902 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone and 605 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 297 who had no landline telephone). The other survey, conducted January 5-March 15, 2012 among 2,226 adults utilized additional methods to increase participation (1,263 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone and 963 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 464 who had no landline telephone). For more on the additional methods used in the high-effort survey, see interviewing section. The surveys were conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Interviews for both surveys were conducted in English and Spanish.

Sample Design

Both the standard survey and the high-effort survey utilized the following sample design. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples were used; samples for both surveys were provided by Survey Sampling International. Landline and cell phone numbers were sampled to yield a ratio of approximately two completed landline interviews to each cell phone interview.

The design of the landline sample ensures representation of both listed and unlisted numbers (including those not yet listed) by using random digit dialing. This method uses random generation of the last two digits of telephone numbers selected on the basis of the area code, telephone exchange, and bank number. A bank is defined as 100 contiguous telephone numbers, for example 800-555-1200 to 800-555-1299. The telephone exchanges are selected to be proportionally stratified by county and by telephone exchange within the county. That is, the number of telephone numbers randomly sampled from within a given county is proportional to that county’s share of telephone numbers in the U.S. Only banks of telephone numbers containing three or more listed residential numbers are selected.

The cell phone sample is drawn through systematic sampling from dedicated wireless banks of 100 contiguous numbers and shared service banks with no directory-listed landline numbers (to ensure that the cell phone sample does not include banks that are also included in the landline sample). The sample is designed to be representative both geographically and by large and small wireless carriers.

Both the landline and cell samples are released for interviewing in replicates, which are small random samples of each larger sample. Using replicates to control the release of telephone numbers ensures that the complete call procedures are followed for all numbers dialed. The use of replicates also improves the overall representativeness of the survey by helping to ensure that the regional distribution of numbers called is appropriate.

Respondent Selection

Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest male or female, 18 years of age or older who is now at home (for half of the households interviewers ask to speak with the youngest male first and for the other half the youngest female). If there is no eligible person of the requested gender at home, interviewers ask to speak with the youngest adult of the opposite gender, who is now at home. This method of selecting respondents within each household improves participation among young people who are often more difficult to interview than older people because of their lifestyles, but this method is not a random sampling of members of the household.

Unlike a landline phone, a cell phone is assumed in Pew Research polls to be a personal device. Interviewers ask if the person who answers the cell phone is 18 years of age or older to determine if the person is eligible to complete the survey. This means that, for those in the cell sample, no effort is made to give other household members a chance to be interviewed. Although some people share cell phones, it is still uncertain whether the benefits of sampling among the users of a shared cell phone outweigh the disadvantages.

Interviewing

Interviewing was conducted at Princeton Data Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Interviews for the both surveys were conducted in English and Spanish. For the standard survey, a minimum of 7 attempts were made to complete an interview at every sampled landline and cell phone number. For the high-effort survey, a minimum of 25 attempts were made to complete an interview at every landline number sampled and a minimum of 15 attempts were made for every cell phone number. For both surveys, the calls were staggered over times of day and days of the week (including at least one daytime call) to maximize the chances of making contact with a potential respondent. Interviewing was also spread as evenly as possible across the field period. An effort was made to recontact most interview breakoffs and refusals to attempt to convert them to completed interviews.

In the standard survey, people reached on cell phones were offered $5 compensation for the minutes used to complete the survey on their cell phone. In the high-effort survey, a $10 monetary incentive was initially offered to everyone, regardless of what phone they were reached on. After the first five weeks of the field period, the monetary incentive was increased to $20 and all noncontacts and refusals in the landline frame for whom we could match an address to were sent a letter with a $2 incentive. Incentives and mailed letters were used in the high-effort survey because they have been shown to boost participation in many types of surveys. In the high-effort survey, interviewers also left voicemails when possible for both landlines and cell phones that introduced the study and mentioned the incentive. After the first five weeks of the high-effort survey, all calls were made by elite interviewers, who are experienced interviewers that have a proven record of persuading reluctant respondents to participate.

The combined response rate for the standard survey was 9%; 10% in the landline frame and 7% in the cell frame. This response rate is comparable to other surveys using similar procedures conducted by the Pew Research Center and other major opinion polls. The combined response rate for the high-effort survey was 22%; 27% in the landline frame and 16% in the cell frame. The response rate is the percentage of known or assumed residential households for which a completed interview was obtained. See table at end of methodology for full call dispositions and rate calculations. The response rate reported is the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s Response Rate 3 (RR3) as outlined in their Standard Definitions.

Weighting

The landline sample is first weighted by household size to account for the fact that people in larger households have a lower probability of being selected. In addition, the combined landline and cell phone sample is weighted to adjust for the overlap of the landline and cell frames (since people with both a landline and cell phone have a greater probability of being included in the sample), including the size of the completed sample from each frame and the estimated ratio of the size of the landline frame to the cell phone frame.

The sample is then weighted to population parameters using an iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race, Hispanic origin and nativity, region, population density and telephone status and usage. The population parameters for age, education, race/ethnicity, and region are from the Current Population Survey’s March 2011 Annual Social and Economic Supplement and the parameter for population density is from the Decennial Census. The parameter for telephone status and relative usage (of landline phone to cell phone for those with both) is based on extrapolations from the 2011 National Health Interview Survey. The specific weighting parameters are: gender by age, gender by education, age by education, race/ethnicity (including Hispanic origin and nativity), region, density and telephone status and usage; non-Hispanic whites are also balanced on age, education and region. The weighting procedure simultaneously balances the distributions of all weighting parameters at once. The final weights are trimmed to prevent individual cases form having too much influence on the final results.

Sampling Error

Sampling error results from collecting data from some, rather than all, members of the population. The standard survey of 1,507 adults had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points with a 95% confidence interval. This means that in 95 out of every 100 samples of the same size and type, the results we obtain would vary by no more than plus or minus 2.9 percentage points from the result we would get if we could interview every member of the population. Thus, the chances are very high (95 out of 100) that any sample we draw will be within 2.9 points of the true population value. The high-effort survey of 2,226 adults had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points. The margins of error reported and statistical tests of significance are adjusted to account for the survey’s design effect, a measure of how much efficiency is lost in the sample design and weighting procedures when compared with a simple random sample. The design effect for the standard survey was 1.30 and for the high-effort survey was 1.27.

The following table shows the survey dates, sample sizes, design effects and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for the total sample:

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

Government Benchmarks

Comparisons were made to benchmarks from several government surveys throughout the report. Many of the comparisons are from the Current Population Survey, including the March 2011 Annual Social and Economic Supplement, the September 2011 Volunteering Supplement, the November 2010 Voting Supplement and the Civic Engagement Supplement, as well as the October 2010 Computer and Internet Use Supplement. Comparisons are also made to the 2010 National Health Interview Survey. For most comparisons, an effort was made to match the question wording used in the survey to that used in the government survey. See the topline for full details about which survey a benchmark is from and whether there are any differences in the question wording.

Each phone number was matched to a maximum of two household records in the consumer database; when a phone number was matched to more than one household, the more complete record was selected for the analysis presented in the report. There was at least some information available about the household for 18,164 landline phone numbers; 1,931 were households where an adult completed the interview, 8,913 were households that did not participate in the survey and 7,320 were for numbers that were determined to be non-working or non-residential (and thus are excluded from the analysis). For the analysis comparing respondents to non-respondents, phone numbers for which no contact was made and thus could not be determined with any certainty to be a residential household are weighted down to represent the proportion assumed to be eligible.⁶ An additional 854 phone numbers in the cell frame were also matched to household records in the consumer database based on names and addresses provided during the survey interview; matching other cell phone numbers was not possible. Thus, the analysis presented in the report is limited to numbers in the landline frame and it is unknown whether similar patterns would be observed between respondents and non-respondents in the cell phone frame.

The phone numbers and address information obtained from the consumer database were then matched to individuals in the voter database. Each phone number was matched to a maximum of six individual records in the voter database. For numbers that were matched to only one record in the voter database, voter information for that match was used in the analysis (90% of survey respondents were matched to only one record). The remainder of the numbers had more than one match. For households that did not respond to the survey, no additional steps were taken to try to select which of the records was the best match.⁷

For households that did respond, survey data was used to select which of the records best matched the data obtained from survey respondents  on sex, age (the age of the survey respondent and person in the record had to differ by four years or less) and race (white/non-white). Finally, in cases where more than one possible match still existed, a match was accepted if the respondent’s state of residence matched the state of residence in one of the voter records. A best match was chosen for 12,648 landline phone numbers, including 1,490 survey respondents. The voter database does not have party information on many respondents, since not all states collect that information in voter registration records. In addition, it is unclear how complete voting records are in the voting database, since the quality of voter registration records varies by state.

Comparing Survey Responses to Information in the Databases

The utility of the two national databases for judging the representativeness of the survey sample depends not only on the share of the survey sample for which database information is available for, but it also depends on the accuracy of the information in the databases. To assess the accuracy of the information in the databases, household information in the databases for survey respondents was compared with answers given during the survey.

Information from the voter database about voter registration, party registration and turnout in 2010 was fairly consistent with what respondents reported in the survey. Among those flagged as registered Republicans by the database, 80% said they are Republicans or lean to the Republican Party. Similarly, 76% of registered Democrats said they are Democrats or lean Democratic.

Those listed as registered in the voter database were overwhelmingly likely to report themselves as registered in the survey (93%). However, 60% of those for whom there was no record of active registration in the database said they are registered to vote.

Respondents to the survey were not asked if they voted in the 2010 congressional elections, but were asked how frequently they voted. Among those flagged in the database as having voted in 2010, 94% said in the survey that they always or nearly always voted. Those for whom the database shows no record of a 2010 vote were less likely to say they always or nearly always vote (65%), including only 41% who say they always vote.

The consumer database contained demographic and lifestyle information about households in the sample, including information on income, financial status, home value and a range of personal interests and traits not available in the voting database.

The financial characteristics of households according to the database comport reasonably well with financial information provided by respondents. About tw0-thirds (66%) of respondents in households the database categorizes as being in the top 20% of family incomes say their household earns over $75,000 a year. Comparably, 57% of respondents in households in the bottom 20% of family incomes report that they make $30,000 a year or less. About half of those in households categorized at both the top and bottom quintiles of net worth report being in a corresponding income category (52% of those in the top quintile report making $75,000 or more and 59% of those in the bottom quintile make $30,000 or less).

The database also has a financial stability index. Respondents in 77% of households rated as within the top 20% of the index (the most stable households) say they are satisfied with their personal financial situation. Among those rated in the bottom 20% of the index, 53% of respondents report being satisfied with their financial situation while 43% are dissatisfied.

Measures of home ownership were also largely consistent with respondents’ answers; 86% of those listed as owners said they owned their homes and 78% of those listed as renters in the database confirmed that they rented.

In addition, the database flags households considered to be interested in a variety of topics and activities. Many of these were not asked about in the survey, but for a few, comparisons can be made with questions in the survey that are similar. Of those the commercial database labels as interested in religious and inspirational topics, 62% report attending religious services weekly or more, compared with only 32% among those not labeled as interested.

Among people flagged as owning home computers, 86% identify as internet users in the survey; among those not flagged as computer owners in the database, 70% are internet users.

For those the consumer database identifies as interested in community or charity involvement, 64% said they had volunteered in the previous year. However, among those the database does not flag as interested, 58% said they volunteered in the last year, only slightly lower than among the flagged households.

An interest in current affairs or politics is also identified in the database. A 72% majority of those listed as interested in current affairs say they enjoy keeping up with political news a lot or some. This compares with 62% among those not flagged as interested in current affairs.

The standard survey also asked respondents about where they get news about the presidential election. Fully 72% of those identified in the database as in the top 30% of likely heavy internet users said the internet was a source for election news, compared with only 42% of those not identified as a heavy internet user. Those flagged as likely to be heavy newspaper readers and heavy watchers of primetime TV were more likely than those not flagged to say they get campaign news from the sources (38% vs. 25% for newspapers and 88% vs. 72% for primetime TV). However, there is no difference between those flagged and not flagged as heavy radio listeners or magazine readers.

Comparisons of Responding and Refusing Households

These tables show comparisons from the two databases, with non-respondents separated into two groups: refusals and breakoffs, which are confirmed households, and other working numbers for which no contact was made. The latter group likely includes eligible residential households as well as non-residential phone numbers.

The utility of the two national databases for judging the representativeness of the survey sample depends on the share of the survey sample for which database information is available and on the accuracy of the information in the databases. About half (49%) of households in the landline sample could be matched to the voter database and 64% of could be matched to the consumer database. Matching the cell phone sample was not possible for most numbers, other than some of the responding households where a name or address was obtained. And for many households in our sample, there were multiple matches to records in the database and decisions had to be made about which records to select.

To assess the accuracy of the databases, household information in the databases was compared with answers given by survey respondents on a variety of characteristics. In general, the analysis finds that the information in the databases compares reasonably well to data provided by respondents in the survey. For additional information about validating the databases, see the Appendix.

Overall, the financial characteristics and technology and media use of survey respondents and non-respondents are quite similar, but there are some differences when it comes to lifestyle and interests. Using characteristics about the households from the consumer database, responding households in the landline sample were compared with households who refused to participate and households where a person was never reached.

The financial profile of responding households closely matches that of households that did not take part in the survey. The estimated net worth of responding and non-responding households is quite similar; households whose net worth is under $100,000 make up 35% of responding households and 37% of non-responding households. Similarly, the overall financial status of responding and non-responding households is quite similar.

Responding households are no more likely to be homeowners than those that did not participate (81% vs. 80%). Similarly, there are virtually no differences between responding and non-responding households in terms of the value of their home; 7% of responding and 9% of non-responding households have home values of $500,000 or more. Similarly, 29% of responding households have home values less than $100,000, compared with 26% of households that did not participate.

Responding households also are quite similar to non-responding households when it comes to technology and media use. Slightly more responding households own a computer than households who did not participate (72% vs. 67%), but a similar share own a cell phone (42% vs. 38%). When it comes to media use, responding households are no more likely than those that refused to participate to be heavy internet users, newspaper or magazine readers, primetime TV watchers, or radio listeners.

There are some small but significant differences between responding and non-responding households on various lifestyle and interest measures. More non-responding households than responding households were not flagged on any of the interest measures (15% vs. 8%). This suggests that differences between responding and non-responding households on these interest measures may be, at least partly, due to differences in the availability of data.

A larger proportion of responding than refusing households are interested in community affairs and charity (43% vs. 33%) and politics and current affairs (31% vs. 25%). There are similar differences on interest in religious and inspirational topics and environmental issues.

There also are some differences between responding and non-responding households on interest in reading (78% vs. 73%) and exercise and health (66% vs. 60%). According to information available in the database, there also are differences on interest in cooking, sports, travel and interest in investment and finance. In addition, a slightly larger share of responding than non-responding households have a pet.

Additional analysis separated non-responding households into two groups – known households who refused to take part in the survey and households in which no contact was made – that could be compared with survey respondents. In general, the differences between responding households and refusing households are similar to the comparisons shown above and in some cases the differences are smaller. See the Appendix for tables with these comparisons.

The Pew Research standard 5-day survey, employing techniques commonly used by many opinion polling organizations, obtained interviews in just 9% of sampled households. This response rate is comparable to other Pew Research polls in 2012, and is similar to the rates obtained by other major political and media survey organizations. Over the past 15 years, response rates have declined steadily, from 36% in 1997 to 25% in 2003 and 15% in 2009.

These declines result from the increasing difficulty in making contact with someone in a household, as well as in gaining cooperation once contact is made. The standard survey made contact with 62% of households, down from 72% of households in 2009, 79% in 2003 and 90% in 1997.

Among contacted households in 2012, just 14% yielded a completed interview with an adult, lower than in 2009 (21%) and far lower than in 2003 (34%) and 1997 (43%). Some of this decline is due to the inclusion of cell phones, given the fact that people reached by cell phones cooperate at lower rates than those reached by landline (11% vs. 16%). The greater reluctance of cell phone owners to consent to an interview will likely be a growing problem for surveys as the share of interviews completed on a cell phone increases.

When additional efforts are utilized, a higher response rate can be achieved. Households in the high-effort survey were contacted over an extended field period with far more call attempts (up to a maximum of 25 calls for landline numbers and 15 calls for cell phone numbers over two and a half months for the high-effort survey vs. a maximum of 7 calls over 5 days for the standard survey) and received incentives to participate (ranging from $10-$20). Households where address information could be obtained were also sent letters encouraging them to respond to the survey. In addition, elite interviewers, who have many interviewing hours and are particularly skilled at persuading reluctant respondents, were deployed later in the field period to further increase the cooperate rate.

Although participation among cell respondents can be increased through the use of incentives and elite interviewers, there are limitations on the ability to increase participation by increasing the number of call attempts. In addition, cell phone respondents cannot be reached via traditional mail because their numbers cannot be linked with an address.

The additional techniques used to increase participation resulted in a 22% response rate, compared with just 9% in the standard survey. The high-effort survey succeeded in making contact with far more households than the standard survey (85% vs. 62%). The additional efforts also improved the cooperation rate from 14% to 27%.

The high-effort survey obtained a response rate that was far lower than was achieved with additional efforts in 2003 (50%) and 1997 (61%). Because the high-effort survey achieved a response rate of only 22%, there is a greater potential for it to be affected by non-response bias, since about three-in-four households are still not represented in the survey.

Samples Still Representative

Despite the growing difficulties in obtaining a high level of participation in most surveys, well-designed telephone polls that include landlines and cell phones reach a cross-section of adults that mirrors the American public, both demographically and in many social behaviors.

The profile of survey respondents in a standard Pew Research survey generally matches that obtained from high response rate and government surveys when it comes to gender, age, race, citizenship, marital status, home ownership and health status. Telephone surveys have traditionally under-represented young people and minorities, but the inclusion of cell phone interviews improves the overall representativeness of telephone surveys.

As has long been true, one of the largest differences between standard survey samples and the full population is on educational attainment – 39% of respondents in the standard survey say they graduated from college. That compares with 28% of adults in the Current Population Survey. Those with a high school education or less were under-represented in the survey (34% in the standard survey vs. 43% in the Current Population Survey).

The additional techniques used to encourage participation in the high-effort survey improved the representativeness of the survey sample on some variables. For example, the racial composition and educational attainment of people interviewed in the high-effort survey are somewhat closer to the government benchmarks than in the standard survey. However, the high-effort survey actually yields a larger percentage of older respondents than the standard survey and is even further from the government parameter. In addition, estimates of receiving various types of government assistance and current smoking status from the high-effort survey are not any closer to the national parameters in the high-effort survey.

Comparison of Standard and High-Effort Survey Responses

Overall, there are only modest differences in responses between the standard and high-effort surveys. Similar to 1997 and 2003, the additional time and effort to encourage cooperation in the high-effort survey does not lead to significantly different estimates on most questions.

The majority of questions (28 of 40) show a difference of two points or less between the standard and high-effort surveys; the median difference is two points. However, on seven questions, there are statistically significant differences between the two surveys. In particular, there are differences in views about government, attitudes about immigrants, political engagement and how often people go out in the evenings.

There are no significant differences between the surveys on party identification, leaned party identification or political ideology. The share of people who say they are registered to vote also is similar in both surveys (71% in standard survey vs. 69% in high-effort survey).

Registered voters in the standard survey are more likely to say they always vote (60% standard vs. 56% high-effort), whereas respondents in the high-effort survey are more likely to say that they “enjoy keeping up with political news” a lot (27% vs. 23%).

There are few differences on a variety of measures of social integration and community engagement.

Respondents in the standard survey are more likely than those in the high-effort survey to say they do not typically go out at all during an average week (20% vs. 16%). Respondents in the standard survey go out a mean number of 2.58 days, compared with a mean of 2.69 days for people in the high-effort survey. This indicates that people who are less frequently at home had a better chance of being contacted in the high-effort survey, in which more calls were placed to their households over a longer period of time than in the standard survey.

On measures of social trust there are no significant differences between the standard and high-effort surveys. Similarly, comparable percentages in both surveys say they use social networking sites and Twitter.

Both surveys asked respondents several questions about their political values. There are no significant differences on views about homosexuality, racial discrimination or Wall Street’s impact on the economy, but there are significant differences on views about government and immigration. In the standard survey, 39% favor a bigger government providing more services over a smaller government providing fewer services; that compares with 43% in the high-effort survey. Respondents in the high-effort survey are slightly more likely to say that immigrants today strengthen the country because of their hard work and talents (52% vs. 48% in the standard survey).

Effects of Over-Representing Volunteers

The additional methods used to increase participation in the high-effort survey do not significantly improve estimates of volunteering, contacting a public official or talking with neighbors, when compared with the government benchmarks. A majority (56%) of respondents in the high-effort survey say they volunteered for an organization in the past year, which is virtually the same percentage as in the standard survey (55%) and much higher than the 27% in the Current Population Survey.

Similarly, the estimates of the number who have contacted a public official in the past year are no closer to the government benchmark than those in the standard survey (29% vs. 10% in the Current Population Survey). And in both surveys, 58% say they talked with neighbors at least once in the past week, compared with 41% in the Current Population Survey.

For all these comparisons, the question wording is nearly identical to the government surveys and the differences are likely, at least partly, a result of non-response bias. But the context in which the questions are asked could not be replicated exactly and may have contributed to some of the differences observed.

Although the Pew Research surveys produce much higher incidences of volunteerism and contact with a public official, the demographic characteristics of those who say they have volunteered and contacted a public official in the past year are similar to those obtained in the Current Population Survey.

While there are large differences between volunteers and non-volunteers on many questions in the survey, the analysis indicates that this over-representation of volunteers does not introduce substantial biases into the survey, especially on political measures.

To analyze how the survey estimates might be affected if volunteers were not over-represented, the survey data were re-weighted so that along with the standard demographic weighting, the percentage of volunteers matched the proportion in the Current Population Survey.

This re-weighting has very little impact on the survey estimates, including on estimates of voter registration, party identification and ideology, or on any of the other political views tested.

For example, while volunteers are much more likely than non-volunteers to be registered to vote (79% vs. 61%), there is only a four point difference in the overall voter registration estimate between the standard weighting and the volunteer weighting. Similarly, while Republicans and Republican leaners make up a larger share of volunteers than non-volunteers (44% vs. 37%), the volunteer-weighted estimate of the Republican share is only two points lower than the standard weighting (39% vs. 41%).

A majority of volunteers say they prefer a smaller government with fewer services (56%), compared with 46% among non-volunteers. But the volunteer-weighted estimate of this attitude (49%) differs by only three percentage points from the standard-weighted estimate (52%). There are no significant differences between volunteers and non-volunteers, nor the reweighted estimates, on views of immigrants, homosexuality, racial discrimination or Wall Street.

There are only a few questions on which the re-weighted estimates are significantly different from the standard weighting. These include the frequency of talking with neighbors, church attendance, contacting a public official and frequency of voting. For all of these questions, the alternative weighting reduced the frequency of these behaviors.

Among voters, volunteers are somewhat more likely than non-volunteers to say they always or nearly always vote (88% vs. 77%). In the re-weighted data, these frequent voters comprise a slightly smaller share of the total (81%) than in the standard weighting (84%).

Volunteers are far more likely than non-volunteers to talk with their neighbors in the past week (65% vs. 49%), attend religious services at least weekly (43% vs. 25%) and twice as likely to have contacted a public official in the past year (41% vs. 18%). The re-weighting of the data lowered the estimate of talking with neighbors and contacting a public official by 5 percentage points (bringing both closer to the government benchmark), and the percentage of weekly attendance at religious services by 6 points.

For decades survey research has provided trusted data about political attitudes and voting behavior, the economy, health, education, demography and many other topics. But political and media surveys are facing significant challenges as a consequence of societal and technological changes.

It has become increasingly difficult to contact potential respondents and to persuade them to participate. The percentage of households in a sample that are successfully interviewed – the response rate – has fallen dramatically. At Pew Research, the response rate of a typical telephone survey was 36% in 1997 and is just 9% today.

The general decline in response rates is evident across nearly all types of surveys, in the United States and abroad. At the same time, greater effort and expense are required to achieve even the diminished response rates of today. These challenges have led many to question whether surveys are still providing accurate and unbiased information. Although response rates have decreased in landline surveys, the inclusion of cell phones – necessitated by the rapid rise of households with cell phones but no landline – has further contributed to the overall decline in response rates for telephone surveys.

A new study by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press finds that, despite declining response rates, telephone surveys that include landlines and cell phones and are weighted to match the demographic composition of the population continue to provide accurate data on most political, social and economic measures. This comports with the consistent record of accuracy achieved by major polls when it comes to estimating election outcomes, among other things.¹

This is not to say that declining response rates are without consequence. One significant area of potential non-response bias identified in the study is that survey participants tend to be significantly more engaged in civic activity than those who do not participate, confirming what previous research has shown.² People who volunteer are more likely to agree to take part in surveys than those who do not do these things. This has serious implications for a survey’s ability to accurately gauge behaviors related to volunteerism and civic activity. For example, telephone surveys may overestimate such behaviors as church attendance, contacting elected officials, or attending campaign events.

However, the study finds that the tendency to volunteer is not strongly related to political preferences, including partisanship, ideology and views on a variety of issues. Republicans and conservatives are somewhat more likely than Democrats and liberals to say they volunteer, but this difference is not large enough to cause them to be substantially over-represented in telephone surveys.

The study is based on two new national telephone surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. One survey was conducted January 4-8, 2012 among 1,507 adults using Pew Research’s standard methodology and achieved an overall response rate of 9%. The other survey, conducted January 5-March 15 among 2,226 adults, used a much longer field period as well as other efforts intended to increase participation; it achieved a 22% response rate.

The analysis draws on three types of comparisons. First, survey questions are compared with similar or identical benchmark questions asked in large federal government surveys that achieve response rates of 75% or higher and thus have minimal non-response bias. Second, comparisons are made between the results of identical questions asked in the standard and high-effort surveys. Third, survey respondents and non-respondents are compared on a wide range of political, social, economic and lifestyle measures using information from two national databases that include nearly all U.S. households.

Comparisons with Government Benchmarks

Comparisons of a range of survey questions with similar questions asked by the federal government on its large national demographic, health and economic studies show Pew Research’s standard survey to be generally representative of the population on most items, though there are exceptions. In terms of basic household characteristics and demographic variables, differences between the standard survey’s estimates and the government benchmarks are fairly modest.

Citizenship, homeownership, length of time living at a residence, marital status and the presence of children in the home all fall within or near the margin of error of the standard survey. So too does a measure of receipt of unemployment compensation. The survey appears to overstate the percentage of people receiving government food assistance (17% vs. 10%).

Larger differences emerge on measures of political and social engagement. While the level of voter registration is the same in the survey as in the Current Population Survey (75% among citizens in both surveys), the more difficult participatory act of contacting a public official to express one’s views is significantly overstated in the survey (31% vs. 10% in the Current Population Survey).

Similarly, the survey finds 55% saying that they did some type of volunteer work for or through an organization in the past year, compared with 27% who report doing this in the Current Population Survey. It appears that the same motivation that leads people to do volunteer work may also lead them to be more willing to agree to take a survey.

Comparisons of Standard and High-Effort Surveys

The second type of comparison used in the study to evaluate the potential for non-response bias is between the estimates from the standard survey and the high-effort survey on identical questions included in both surveys. This type of comparison was used in the Pew Research Center’s two previous studies of non-response, conducted in 1997 and 2003.³ The high-effort survey employed a range of techniques to obtain a higher response rate (22% vs. 9% for the standard survey) including an extended field period, monetary incentives for respondents, and letters to households that initially declined to be interviewed, as well as the deployment of interviewers with a proven record of persuading reluctant respondents to participate.

Consistent with the two previous studies, the vast majority of results did not differ between the survey conducted with the standard methodology and the survey with the higher response rate; only a few of the questions yielded significant differences. Overall, 28 of the 40 comparisons yielded differences of two percentage points or less, while there were three-point differences on seven items and four-point differences on five items. In general, the additional effort and expense in the high-effort study appears to provide little benefit in terms of the quality of estimates.

Comparisons Using Household Databases

A third way of evaluating the possibility of non-response bias is by comparing the survey’s respondents and non-respondents using two large national databases provided by commercial vendors that include information on nearly every U.S. household, drawn from both public and private sources.⁴ An attempt was made to match all survey respondents and non-respondents to records in both the voter and consumer databases so they could be compared on characteristics available in the databases. Very few telephone numbers in the cell phone frame could be matched in either of the databases, especially for non-respondents, and thus the analysis is limited only to the landline frame.

The first database was created by an organization that provides voter data and related services to political campaigns, interest groups, non-profit organizations and academics. It is a continually updated file of more than 265 million adults, including both voters and non-voters. The analysis indicates that surveyed households do not significantly over-represent registered voters, just as the comparison of the survey’s voter registration estimate with the Current Population Survey estimate shows. However, significantly more responding than non-responding households are listed in the database as having voted in the 2010 congressional elections (54% vs. 44%) This pattern, which has been observed in election polls for decades, has led pollsters to adopt methods to correct for the possible over-representation of voters in their samples.

The database also indicates that registered Republicans and registered Democrats have equal propensities to respond to surveys. The party registration balance is nearly identical in the surveyed households (17% Republican, 23% Democratic) and in the non-responding households (17% Republican, 22% Democratic).

The second database used for comparisons includes extensive information on the demographic and economic characteristics of the households’ residents, including household income, financial status and home value, as well as lifestyle interests. This consumer information is used principally in marketing and business planning to analyze household-level or area-specific characteristics.

Surveys generally have difficulty capturing sensitive economic variables such as overall net worth, financial status and home values. However, a comparison of database estimates of these economic characteristics indicates that they correspond reasonably well with survey respondents’ answers to questions about their family income and satisfaction with their personal financial situation. Accordingly, they may provide a valid basis for gauging whether, for example, wealthy households are less likely to respond to surveys.

The analysis indicates that the most affluent households and the least affluent have a similar propensity to respond. For example, households with an estimated net worth of $500,000 or more make up about an equal share of the responding and non-responding households (23% vs. 22%). Similarly, those estimated to have a net worth under $25,000 are about equally represented (19% in the responding households vs. 21% in non-responding households). A similar pattern is seen with an estimate of overall financial status.

The database includes estimates of the partisan affiliation of the first person listed in the household. Corroborating the pattern seen in the voter database on party registration, the relative share of households identified as Republican and Democratic is the same among those who responded (31% Republican, 44% Democratic) and those who did not respond (30%, 44%).

Some small but significant differences between responding households and the full sample do appear in a collection of lifestyle and interest variables. Consistent with the benchmark analysis finding that volunteers are likely to be overrepresented in surveys, households flagged as interested in community affairs and charities constitute a larger share of responding households (43%) than all non-responding households (33%). Similarly, those flagged as interested in religion or inspirational topics constituted 29% of responding households, vs. 22% among non-responding households.

Roughly half of Americans (52%) say Barack Obama’s expression of support for gay marriage did not affect their opinion of the president. A quarter (25%) say they feel less favorably toward Obama because of this while 19% feel more favorably.

There are wide partisan and age differences in reactions to Obama’s expression of support for gay marriage, according to the latest weekly survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted May 10-13 among 1,003 adults.

About half of Republicans (53%) say they feel less favorably toward Obama because of his support for gay marriage. By contrast, 60% of independents and 52% of Democrats say their view of Obama has not changed. Among independents, as many say they feel less favorably as more favorably toward Obama as a result of his gay marriage decision (19% each). Far more Democrats say they feel more favorably than less favorably toward Obama (32% vs. 13%).

Among those 65 and older, 42% say they feel less favorably toward Obama, while just 15% feel more favorably; 38% say their opinion of Obama is unchanged as a result of his expression of support for gay marriage. Among younger age groups, half or more – including 62% of those under 30 – say they opinion of Obama was unaffected by his gay marriage announcement.

The opinions of whites largely reflect the population as a whole: 49% say Obama’s expression of support for gay marriage did not alter their opinion of the president. Among those who say it did, somewhat more say it made their view of him less favorable than more (29% vs. 20%). Most African Americans, on the other hand, say the announcement did not alter their opinion of Obama. About two-thirds (68%) say this, while about as many say it made them view Obama more favorably (16%) as less favorably (13%).

Obama’s expression of support for gay marriage comes at a time when the public’s support for allowing gays and lesbians to marry is growing. According to a recent Pew Research survey, 47% now say they favor allowing gay marriage while 43% oppose this. In 2008, 51% opposed allowing gay marriage, while 39% favored it. (See: “More Support for Gun Rights, Gay Marriage than in 2008 or 2004″, April 25, 2012.)

Public assessments of the Supreme Court have reached a quarter-century low. Unlike evaluations over much of the past decade, there is very little partisan divide. The court receives relatively low favorable ratings from Republicans, Democrats and independents alike.

The survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted April 4-15, 2012 among 1,514 adults nationwide, finds 52% offering a favorable opinion of the Supreme Court, down from 58% in 2010 and the previous low of 57%, in 2005 and 2007. About three-in-ten (29%) say they have an unfavorable view, which approaches the high reached in 2005 (30%).

Declining Ratings across Party Lines

There are virtually no partisan differences in views of the Supreme Court: 56% of Republicans, and 52% of both Democrats and independents rate the Supreme Court favorably. And the decline in court ratings has occurred across party lines over the past three years. In April 2009, soon after Barack Obama took office, 70% of Republicans, 63% of Democrats, and 64% of independents held a favorable opinion of the court.

Republican ratings fell steeply between 2009 and 2010, with the appointments of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the court. Democratic ratings remained relatively high through 2010, but have fallen steeply since.

The weak ratings for the court across party lines stands in contrast to most previous polls, in which those in the president’s party have viewed the Supreme Court more favorably than those in the opposite party. Most recently, throughout George W. Bush’s administration, Republicans felt much more favorably toward the Supreme Court than did Democrats. In July 2007, 73% of Republicans rated the court favorably, compared with 49% of Democrats. This divide began even before Bush took office, triggered by the Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore ruling. In early January 2001, 80% of Republicans viewed the court favorably, compared with 62% of Democrats.

The Court and Health Care

The survey was conducted after the Supreme Court’s hearings on the 2010 health care law. It finds that the law’s supporters and opponents express similar views of the court.

Overall, the public remains deeply divided over the health care law: 41% say they approve of it, while 49% disapprove. Among the bill’s supporters, 52% have a favorable view of the Supreme Court, while 34% view it unfavorably. Among the bill’s opponents, the balance is only slightly less negative; 55% favorable, 28% unfavorable.

However, a survey conducted last month found that while most Americans said the health care hearings did not change their views of the court, Democrats were far more likely than Republicans to say their opinions of the court had become less favorable.

The survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and The Washington Post, conducted March 29-April 1, 2012 among 1,000 adults, found that 32% of Democrats said their opinion of the court had become less favorable as a result of the hearings on the health care law; just 16% of independents and 14% of Republicans said their views of the court had become less favorable.

Just a third of Americans have a favorable opinion of the federal government, the lowest positive rating in 15 years. Yet opinions about state and local governments remain favorable, on balance. As a result, the gap between favorable ratings of the federal government and state and local governments is wider than ever.

Ten years ago, roughly two-thirds of Americans offered favorable assessments of all three levels of government: federal, state and local. But in the latest survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, conducted April 4-15, 2012 among 1,514 adults nationwide, the favorable rating for the federal government has fallen to just 33%; nearly twice as many (62%) have an unfavorable view.

By contrast, ratings of state governments remain in positive territory, with 52% offering a favorable and 42% an unfavorable opinion of their state government. And local governments are viewed even more positively. By roughly two-to-one (61% to 31%) most Americans offer a favorable assessment of their local government.

Although favorability ratings for state governments declined between 2008 and 2009 as the financial crisis hit, they have remained steady over the past four years. Consequently, the gap between ratings of state governments and the federal government has grown.

While the balance of opinion toward state governments is favorable, majorities say their state government is not careful with people’s money (56%), is too divided along party lines (53%) and is generally inefficient (51%). But much larger percentages fault the federal government’s performance in those areas. Moreover, while more say their state government is mostly honest rather than mostly corrupt (by 49% to 37%), a majority (54%) says the federal government is mostly corrupt.

Falling Ratings for the Federal Government

The overall decline in favorability toward the federal government in Washington is consistent with other views of government. Recent Pew Research Center studies have shown overall public trust in government at or near all-time lows (See these reports from 2011 and 2010.). And a survey conducted in January 2012 found ratings of Congress have also reached historic lows.

In the current survey, 51% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of the federal government in Washington, compared with 27% of independents and just 20% of Republicans. This contrasts with partisan views of the federal government when George W. Bush was president. As recently as 2008, Republicans held a more favorable opinion of the federal government in Washington (53%) than did Democrats (29%).

Since Barack Obama’s first year in office, public assessments of the federal government have dropped nine-points, with most of the change among Democrats and independents. In 2009, 61% of Democrats and 35% of independents had favorable opinions of the federal government in Washington, those figures stand at 51% and 27%, respectively, today. Republicans’ views, already low in 2009, have shown less change.

Republicans More Satisfied with State Governments

While Republicans offer an overwhelmingly negative assessment of the federal government in Washington, they take a far more positive view of state governments than do either Democrats or independents.

Among Republicans, more have a favorable than unfavorable view of their state government, by a 62% to 34% margin. Democrats (50% favorable, 45% unfavorable) and independents (49%, 44%) are divided.

The higher ratings among Republicans overall are driven by the strong satisfaction Republicans feel in the 21 states that have Republican leaders at the helm. Fully 70% of Republicans and Republican leaners in these states give their state government a favorable rating. Republicans states are those that have Republican governors and Republican majorities in both state legislative chambers; among the largest are Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas (see appendix at the end of this report for a full list of states).

By contrast, in the 11 states with unified Democratic control (the largest being California, Illinois, Washington and Massachusetts), just 33% of Republicans and Republican leaners offer a favorable rating.

Democrats’ views of their state governments are less correlated with the political makeup of the government. In the 11 states with Democratic governors and Democratic legislative majorities, 55% of Democrats and Democratic leaners rate their state government favorably; in states with Republican governors and Republican legislative majorities, 43% feel favorably toward their state government.

Views of State Governments

State governments receive more positive ratings than the federal government across a range of performance-related traits. In a separate survey, conducted April 19-22 among 1,004 adults, more people describe their state government as mostly honest (49%) rather than mostly corrupt (37%). Evaluations of the federal government run in the opposite direction: 54% say it is mostly corrupt, while just 31% say it is mostly honest. More say state governments address people’s needs (42%) than say the same about the federal government (30%). State governments are also seen as more efficient (38%) than the federal government (24%).

Partisanship is seen as a bigger problem at the federal level than at the state level. Three-quarters (75%) say the federal government is too divided along party lines, with just 20% saying the federal government can usually work together to get things done. State governments get substantially less negative ratings; 53% say their state government is too divided along party lines, while 36% say it usually works together to get things done.

Just one-in-three (33%) say their state government is careful with people’s money, but that is nearly double the 17% who say the federal government is careful with people’s money.

Appendix: Party of Governors and State Legislatures

Republican governors and Republican majorities in both state House and Senate:
AL, AZ, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, LA, ME, MI, MS, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WY

Democratic governors and Democratic majorities in both state House and Senate:
AR, CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, MA, VT, WA, WV

Mixed party control of governorship, state House, state Senate. This includes states with a nonpartisan legislature (NE), states with no majority (ties) in one or more chambers (AK, OR, WI), and states with independent governors (RI). Wisconsin results reflect outcome of recent recall elections.
AK, CO, IA, KY, MN, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OR, RI, VA, WI

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, March 19, 2012.

Opinions about a pair of contentious social issues, gun control and gay marriage, have changed substantially since previous presidential campaigns. On gun control, Americans have become more conservative; on gay marriage, they have become more liberal.

Currently, 49% of Americans say it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns, while 45% say it is more important to control gun ownership. Opinion has been divided since early 2009, shortly after Barack Obama’s election. From 1993 through 2008, majorities had said it was more important to control gun ownership than to protect gun rights.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted April 4-15, 2012, also finds that the public is divided over gay marriage:  47% favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally, while 43% are opposed. In 2008, 39% favored and 51% opposed gay marriage, based on an average of polls conducted that year. In 2004, just 31% supported gay marriage, while nearly twice as many (60%) were opposed.

Moreover, for the first time in a Pew Research Center survey there is as much strong support as strong opposition to gay marriage. In the current survey, 22% say they strongly support allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally; an identical percentage (22%) strongly opposes gay marriage. In 2008, there was about twice as much strong opposition to as strong support for gay marriage (30% vs. 14%).

In 2004, when the issue was widely thought to have increased turnout among socially conservative voters in several key states, 36% strongly opposed gay marriage while just 11% strongly favored it. (For more, see Andrew Kohut’s piece in the New York Times on the changing politics of gay marriage, “The Electorate Changes and Politics Follow,” April 16, 2012.)

The new survey also finds continued majority support for legal abortion: 53% of Americans say that abortion should be legal in all (23%) or most cases (31%); 39% say that abortion should be illegal in all (16%) or most cases (23%).

That is little changed from recent years. In 2009, the percentage favoring legal abortion in all or most cases fell below 50% for the first time since 2001. Since then, however, support for legal abortion has rebounded and is generally in line with trends dating to 1995.

As in recent campaigns, voters rate social issues – including gun control, abortion, birth control and gay marriage – as far less important than the economy or jobs. About half of registered voters (47%) say gun control will be very important to their vote for president this fall; even fewer rate abortion (39%), birth control (34%) and gay marriage (28%) as very important. By wide margins, the economy (86% very important) and jobs (84%) are the top voting issues.

Republican voters are more likely than Democrats to view abortion and gay marriage as very important. About half of Republicans (51%) rate abortion as very important to their vote, compared with 40% of Democrats. In addition, 36% of Republicans say that gay marriage is very important; 27% of Democrats agree. However, the percentage of Republicans rating gay marriage as very important has declined by 13 points since 2004. Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to say that birth control will be very important to their votes (47% vs. 31%). (For more, see “With Voters Focused on Economy, Obama Lead Narrows”, April 17, 2012.)

Race, Gender Differences over Gun Rights

In the current survey, 57% of whites say it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns; just 37% say it is more important to control gun ownership. This is little changed from surveys conducted since April 2009. From 1993 through 2008, however, majorities of whites consistently said that controlling gun ownership was more important than protecting gun rights.

African Americans are far less likely than whites to rate the protection of gun rights as more important than gun control. In the current survey, 35% say it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns, while 60% say gun rights are more important.

But the percentage of blacks saying that protecting gun rights is more important has climbed by 13 points, from 22%, since last October. The share of blacks prioritizing gun control has fallen 11 points, from 71% then to 60% today.

There long have been gender differences in opinions about gun control, but both men and women have become more supportive of gun rights. In the current survey, 60% of men say it is more important to protect gun rights, up from 46% in April 2008. Just 39% of women say it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns. But that percentage also is higher than it was four years ago (30%).

Partisan differences in opinions about gun control have widened in recent years. Before 2009, no more than about six-in-ten Republicans prioritized gun rights over gun control. In six surveys since April 2009, between 65% and 72% (in the current survey) of Republicans have said it is more important to protect gun rights.

Independents also have become more supportive of gun rights. Currently, 55% say it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns; 40% say it is more important to control gun ownership. That is little changed from surveys conducted since 2009. In prior surveys, majorities of independents said it was more important to control gun ownership than to protect gun rights.

Democrats’ opinions have shown far less change over time. In the current survey, 67% of Democrats say it is more important to control gun ownership, compared with just 27% who say it is more important to protect gun rights.

Decreasing Opposition to Gay Marriage

In the last two presidential campaigns, there was far more opposition than support for gay marriage. But today, opinions are divided and there is as much strong support as strong opposition to gay marriage (22% each). (For a visual display of changes in attitudes toward gay marriage across various groups since 2001, see “Graphics Slideshow: Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage,” Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life).

Since 2004, there has been a broad-based decline in opposition – including strong opposition –to gay marriage. In 2004, Americans younger than 30 were divided (48% opposed, 45% favored). Today, young people favor gay marriage by more than two-to-one (65% to 30%). Opposition has declined by the same percentage – 18 points – among those 65 and older; still, a majority (56%) of this group continues to oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. Strong opposition has declined 18 points since 2004 among those 65 and older (from 46% to 28%) and 14 points among those younger than 30 (from 28% to 14%).

In the current survey, majorities of Democrats (59%) and independents (52%) favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. In 2008, Democrats favored gay marriage by 50% to 42%, while independents were divided (44% favored, 45% opposed). In 2004, pluralities of both groups (50% of Democrats, 53% of independents) opposed gay marriage. Republicans continue to oppose gay marriage by a wide margin (68% to 23%), but Republican opposition has declined by 10 points – and strong opposition by 14 points – since 2004.

White evangelical Protestants remain overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage, and opinion among this group has shown relatively little change since 2004. In the current survey, 78% of white evangelicals oppose gay marriage, with 56% strongly opposed.

Whites, Blacks and Gay Marriage

In 2008, there were sizable differences in opinions about gay marriage among whites and blacks. While whites opposed gay marriage by a modest 51% to 41% margin, blacks opposed gay marriage by more than two-to-one (63% to 26%).

But the gap has narrowed. Since 2008, the proportion of African Americans favoring gay marriage has increased from 26% to 39%, while opposition has fallen from 63% to 49%.

Support for gay marriage also has increased among whites, though far less dramatically (from 41% in 2008 to 47% in the current survey).

Abortion Views Little Changed

In contrast with opinions about gun control and gay marriage, public attitudes regarding abortion have changed relatively little in recent years. In surveys conducted in 2011 and 2012, 53% say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases; 41% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.

Opinion was more evenly divided in 2009 and 2010 (48% legal in all most cases vs. 44% illegal in all most cases). But opinions since the start of last year are almost identical to those from surveys conducted in 2007 and 2008 (54% legal vs. 40% illegal). This analysis combines surveys in each two-year period (2007-2008, 2009-2010, 2011-2012), which enables analysis of the views of small demographic groups.

Unlike opinions about gay marriage, opinions about abortion differ only modestly across age groups. Narrow majorities of those younger than 30 (53%), 30 to 49 (54%) and 50 to 64 (55%) say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Nearly half of those 65 and older (48%) also support legal abortion.

There are only small differences in opinions about abortion between men and women: 55% of women and 51% of men say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. By contrast, opinions differ substantially by education: 61% of college graduates support legal abortion compared with 46% of those with a high school education or less.

As in the past, there are wide partisan, ideological and religious differences over abortion. Conservative Republicans oppose legal abortion by about two-to-one (65% to 31%). Majorities across other political and ideological groups, including 55% of moderate and liberal Republicans, favor legal abortion.

Among religious groups, majorities of white evangelical Protestants (64%) and Hispanic Catholics (54%) oppose legal abortion. Support for legal abortion is highest among Jews (86%) and the religiously unaffiliated (72%). There continue to be wide differences in views based on religious attendance, regardless of affiliation: Fully 72% of those who say they seldom or never attend religious services support legal abortion; that compares with fewer than half as many of those who attend weekly or more (34%).