Methodology

The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Overview

Data in this report comes from Wave 198 of the American Trends Panel (ATP), Pew Research Center’s nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. The survey was conducted Aug. 24-30, 2026. A total of 5,166 panelists responded out of 5,602 who were sampled, for a survey-level response rate of 92%.

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 5,166 respondents is plus or minus 1.6 percentage points.

The survey includes an oversample of non-Hispanic Asian adults in order to provide more precise estimates of the opinions and experiences of this smaller demographic subgroup. This oversampled group is weighted back to reflect its correct proportions in the population.

SSRS conducted the survey for Pew Research Center via online (n=4,997) and live telephone (n=169) interviewing. Interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish.

To learn more about the ATP, read “About the American Trends Panel.”

Panel recruitment

Since 2018, the ATP has used address-based sampling (ABS) for 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 Computerized Delivery Sequence File. This Postal Service file has been estimated to cover 90% to 98% of the population.¹ Within each sampled household, the adult with the next birthday is selected to participate. Other details of the ABS recruitment protocol have changed over time but are available upon request.² Prior to 2018, the ATP was recruited using landline and cellphone random-digit-dial surveys administered in English and Spanish.

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

Sample design

The overall target population for this survey was noninstitutionalized persons ages 18 and older living in the United States. It featured a stratified random sample from the ATP in which 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 SSRS. The web program used for online respondents was rigorously tested on both PC and mobile devices by the SSRS project team and Pew Research Center researchers. The SSRS project 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 gift code to Amazon.com, Target.com or Walmart.com.  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 Aug. 24-30, 2026. Surveys were conducted via self-administered web survey or by live telephone interviewing.

For panelists who take surveys online:³ Postcard notifications were mailed to a subset on Aug. 24.⁴ Survey 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 Aug. 24. All remaining English- and Spanish-speaking sampled online panelists were included in the full launch and were sent an invitation on Aug. 25.

Panelists participating online were sent an email invitation and up to two email reminders if they did not respond to the survey. ATP panelists who consented to SMS messages were sent an SMS invitation with a link to the survey and up to two SMS reminders.

For panelists who take surveys over the phone with a live interviewer: Prenotification postcards were mailed on Aug. 21. Soft launch took place on Aug. 24 and involved dialing until a total of nine interviews had been completed. All remaining English- and Spanish-speaking sampled phone panelists’ numbers were dialed throughout the remaining field period. Panelists who take surveys via phone can receive up to six calls from trained SSRS interviewers.

Data quality checks

To ensure high-quality data, Center researchers performed data quality checks to identify any respondents showing 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, three ATP respondents were removed from the survey dataset prior to weighting and analysis.

Weighting

The ATP data is weighted in a process that accounts for multiple stages of sampling and nonresponse that occur at different points in the panel survey process. First, each panelist begins with a base weight that reflects their probability of recruitment into the panel. These weights are then 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 1st and 99th percentiles to reduce the loss in precision stemming from variance in the weights. 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

How family income tiers are calculated

Family income data reported in this study is adjusted for household size and cost-of-living differences by geography. Panelists then are assigned to income tiers that are based on the median adjusted family income of all American Trends Panel members. The process uses the following steps:

1. First, panelists are assigned to the midpoint of the income range they selected in a family income question that was measured on either the most recent annual profile survey or, for newly recruited panelists, their recruitment survey. This provides an approximate income value that can be used in calculations for the adjustment.
2. Next, these income values are adjusted for the cost of living in the geographic area where the panelist lives. This is calculated using price indexes published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. These indexes, known as Regional Price Parities (RPP), compare the prices of goods and services across all U.S. metropolitan statistical areas as well as non-metro areas with the national average prices for the same goods and services. The most recent available data at the time of the annual profile survey is from 2024. Those who fall outside of metropolitan statistical areas are assigned the overall RPP for their state’s non-metropolitan area.
3. Family incomes are further adjusted for the number of people in a household using the methodology from Pew Research Center’s previous work on the American middle class. This is done because a four-person household with an income of say, $50,000, faces a tighter budget constraint than a two-person household with the same income.
4. Panelists are then assigned an income tier. “Middle-income” adults are in families with adjusted family incomes that are between two-thirds and double the median adjusted family income for the full ATP at the time of the most recent annual profile survey. The median adjusted family income for the panel is roughly $76,000. Using this median income, the middle-income range is about $50,700 to $152,000. Lower-income families have adjusted incomes less than $50,700 and upper-income families have adjusted incomes greater than $152,000 (all figures expressed in 2025 dollars and scaled to a household size of three). A panelist is assigned “no answer” in the income tier variable if they did not provide all three pieces of information needed to calculate their tier (family income, household size and residential address).

Two examples of how a given area’s cost-of-living adjustment was calculated are as follows: the Monroe metropolitan area in Louisiana is a relatively inexpensive area, with a price level that is 16.4% less than the national average. The San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont metropolitan area in California is one of the most expensive areas, with a price level that is 15.6% higher than the national average. Income in the sample is adjusted to make up for this difference. As a result, a family with an income of $41,800 in the Monroe area is as well off financially as a family of the same size with an income of $57,800 in San Francisco.

Secondary data analysis

The data for the analysis of national median household incomes is derived from the Annual Social and Economic Supplements (ASEC) of the Current Population Survey (CPS), which are conducted in March of every year. The specific files used are from March 2002 to March 2025 and contain data on the annual income of households from 2001 to 2024. Conducted jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the CPS is a monthly survey of about 60,000 households and is the source of the nation’s official statistics on unemployment. The ASEC survey in March typically features a larger sample size (about 75,000 in recent years) and is the source of the annual income and poverty estimates reported by the Census Bureau.

Methodological and other revisions to the CPS may have an impact on estimated trends. For example, the 2015 ASEC introduced a redesigned set of income questions.

The classification of households into lower-, middle- and upper-income tiers is based on the same principles used in the survey analysis. However, the income ranges that define the boundaries of each income tier are based on incomes as reported in the ASEC. For the national estimates, incomes are not adjusted for the local cost of living.

“Middle-income” households are defined as those with an annual household income that is two-thirds to double the national median, after incomes have been adjusted for household size. In the 2025 ASEC, a middle income household with three people has an income between $66,700 and $200,000 (in 2024 dollars).

The metropolitan analysis of income gaps used the 2024 American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is the largest household survey in the United States, with a sample of more than 3 million addresses. Collected by the U.S. Census Bureau since 2001, it covers the topics previously included in the long form of the decennial census. The ACS estimates the size and characteristics of the nation’s resident population.

The ACS analysis applies same definition of lower-, middle- and upper-income households as the national ASEC analysis. However, household incomes are adjusted for the local cost of living using the metropolitan Regional Price Parities (RPP) published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The upshot of adjusting for the local cost of living is that the household income needed to be “middle income” is lower in low-cost metro areas compared with high-cost metros.

The 2024 ACS data has household income information on 263 metropolitan areas. Our analysis used the 204 metro areas having at least 100 unweighted upper-income households.

The ASEC and ACS microdata used for this analysis were provided by the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) from the University of Minnesota. IPUMS standardizes variable names and coding across years as much as possible, making it easier to analyze the data over time.

The wealth analysis is based on the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) that is sponsored by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Department of Treasury. It has been conducted every three years since 1983 and is designed to provide detailed information on the finances of U.S. households. The SCF sample typically consists of approximately 4,500 households.

The SCF data has information on household income as well as household wealth. The SCF household income data is used to define the income tiers in analyzing household wealth. So, for example, in the 2022 SCF a household with three persons needs an income between $61,300 and $184,000 (in 2024 dollars) to be “middle income.”