Pew Research Center’s 2026 political typology divides the public into nine groups. The assignment of individuals to one of the nine groups is based on their responses to 30 questions about social and political values.
The table below lists the items used in the construction of the typology groups. Items included in the typology construction measure a variety of different political values. Many of these values items are similar to those used in past typology studies.
| Question | Response options | |
|---|---|---|
| RELIG_GOV: Please choose the statement that comes closer to your own views even if neither is exactly right. | 1 – Religion should be kept separate from government policies 2 – Government policies should support religious values and beliefs | |
| * | NATIONID_CHR: How important is it for the United States to … Have a culture based in Christian religious beliefs | 1 – Extremely important 2 – Very important 3 – Somewhat important 4 – Not too important 5 – Not at all important |
| * | NATIONID_BRD: How important is it for the United States to … Maintain secure borders | 1 – Extremely important 2 – Very important 3 – Somewhat important 4 – Not too important 5 – Not at all important |
| * | NATIONID_REF2: How important is it for the United States to … Take in refugees from countries where people are trying to escape violence | 1 – Extremely important 2 – Very important 3 – Somewhat important 4 – Not too important 5 – Not at all important |
| NATIONID_CAP: How important is it for the United States to … Have an economic system based on capitalism | 1 – Extremely important 2 – Very important 3 – Somewhat important 4 – Not too important 5 – Not at all important | |
| FINAGENCY: How much personal control do you think most Americans have over how financially successful they will be in life? | 1 – A great deal 2 – A fair amount 3 – Not too much 4 – None at all | |
| * | DIVRS_FAIR: In general, do you think efforts to promote diversity in workplaces and schools have made society … | 1 – A lot more fair 2 – A little more fair 3 – No more or less fair 4 – A little less fair 5 – A lot less fair |
| NATPROBS_CLIM: How much of a problem do you think each of the following are in the country today? Climate change | 1 – A very big problem 2 – A moderately big problem 3 – A small problem 4 – Not a problem at all | |
| * | CMFRT_LISTMOD_GUN: Thinking about things that sometimes happen in society, how comfortable are you with each of the following? People openly carrying guns in public places | 1 – Extremely comfortable 2 – Very comfortable 3 – Somewhat comfortable 4 – Not too comfortable 5 – Not at all comfortable |
| * | CMFRT_LISTMOD_PRN: Thinking about things that sometimes happen in society, how comfortable are you with each of the following? Someone using the pronouns they/them instead of he or she to describe themselves | 1 – Extremely comfortable 2 – Very comfortable 3 – Somewhat comfortable 4 – Not too comfortable 5 – Not at all comfortable |
| * | SOCIETY_SSM: Do you think each of the following is generally good or bad for our society? Same-sex marriages being legal in the U.S. | 1 – Very good for society 2 – Somewhat good for society 3 – Neither good nor bad for society 4 – Somewhat bad for society 5 – Very bad for society |
| * | SUPERPWR2: In the future, how important is it for the U.S. to be the only military superpower in the world? | 1 – Extremely important 2 – Very important 3 – Somewhat important 4 – Not too important 5 – Not at all important |
| * | CNTRYFAIR2_OTHUS: Do you think other countries generally treat the U.S. … | 1 – Extremely fairly 2 – Very fairly 3 – Somewhat fairly 4 – Not too fairly 5 – Not at all fairly |
| ALLIES: Please choose the statement that comes closer to your own views even if neither is exactly right. | 1 – In foreign policy, the U.S. should take into account the interests of its allies even if it means making compromises with them 2 – In foreign policy, the U.S. should follow its own national interests even when its allies strongly disagree | |
| REGULATEMOD: In general, do you think government regulation of business does… | 1 – More good than harm 2 – More harm than good 3 – About the same amount of harm and good | |
| GOVSIZE1: If you had to choose, would you rather have … | 1 – A smaller government providing fewer services 2 – A bigger government providing more services | |
| FOLGOV: Would you say you follow whats going on in government and public affairs … | 1 – Most of the time 2 – Some of the time 3 – Only now and then 4 – Hardly at all | |
| ** | RUNWHY_SRV: In your view, how many of the people who currently serve in elected office in local, state, and federal governments ran for office because they wanted to… Serve the public. | 1 – All of them 2 – Most of them 3 – Some of them 4 – A few of them 5 – None of them |
| PROBOFFa: How much of a problem, if any, would you say each of the following are in the country today? People being too easily offended by things others say | 1 – Major problem 2 – Minor problem 3 – Not a problem | |
| PROBOFFb: How much of a problem, if any, would you say each of the following are in the country today? People saying things that are very offensive to others | 1 – Major problem 2 – Minor problem 3 – Not a problem | |
| OPENIDEN: Please choose the statement that comes closer to your own views even if neither is exactly right. | 1 – Americas openness to people from all over the world is essential to who we are as a nation 2 – If America is too open to people from all over the world, we risk losing our identity as a nation | |
| RACESURV17: How much, if at all, do you think the legacy of slavery affects the position of Black people in American society today? | 1 – A great deal 2 – A fair amount 3 – Not much 4 – Not at all | |
| POLHUM: When politicians you agree with humiliate their political opponents, do you … | 1 – Like it a lot 2 – Like it a little 3 – Dislike it a little 4 – Dislike it a lot | |
| POORASSIST: Thinking about assistance the government provides to people in need, do you think the government … | 1 – Should provide more assistance 2 – Should provide less assistance 3 – Is providing about the right amount of assistance | |
| Additional questions used to create the typology, but not in the online quiz | Response options | |
| NATPROBS_INEQ: How much of a problem do you think each of the following are in the country today? Economic Inequality | 1 – A very big problem 2 – A moderately big problem 3 – A small problem 4 – Not a problem at all | |
| * | CMFRT_LISTMOD_ATHL: Thinking about things that sometimes happen in society, how comfortable are you with each of the following? Transgender athletes competing on sports teams that don’t match their sex at birth | 1 – Extremely comfortable 2 – Very comfortable 3 – Somewhat comfortable 4 – Not too comfortable 5 – Not at all comfortable |
| ALLIES_BURD: All in all, do you think the relationships the U.S. has had with its allies over the past 50 years have been more of a … | 1 – Burden to the U.S. 2 – Benefit to the U.S. 3 – About equally a benefit and burden to the U.S. | |
| * | US_ACTIVE: How important is it for the U.S. to take an active role in world affairs? | 1 – Extremely important 2 – Very important 3 – Somewhat important 4 – Not too important 5 – Not at all important |
| TALKIMP: How important is it to you personally to use language that other people do not find offensive? | 1 – Very important 2 – Somewhat important 3 – Not too important 4 – Not at all important | |
| PRTY_CHSE: How well does the following statement describe your views? I often wish there were more political parties to choose from in this country. | 1 – Extremely well 2 – Very well 3 – Somewhat well 4 – Not too well 5 – Not at all well |
The typology groups are created with a statistical procedure that uses respondents’ scores on all 30 items to sort them into relatively homogeneous groups. The specific statistical technique used to calculate group membership is weighted clustering around medoids (using the WeightedCluster package version 1.8.1 in R version 4.1.3). The items selected for inclusion in the clustering were chosen based on extensive testing to find the model that fit the data best and produced groups that were substantively meaningful. Prior Pew Research Center typologies used either this approach (2021) or a closely related method, cluster analysis via the k-means algorithm (2017 and prior), to identify groups.
Decisions made at different points in the analysis can have a dramatic impact on the ultimate results of any data partitioning exercise. Different solutions are possible using the same data depending on the algorithm used for partitioning, the ways in which the variables are coded, and even the order in which respondents are sorted. However, the models we looked at across different specifications bore similarities to each other and shared many common features.
Missing data imputation
The variables used in the clustering solution were from Wave 183 of the American Trends Panel (ATP), Pew Research Center’s nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. There was a small amount (ranging from 22 cases to 198 cases) of item nonresponse in the measures used. To account for the missingness in the measures, multiple imputation (via the mice package version 3.18.0) using predictive mean matching was used. This resulted in 10 copies of the dataset to account for uncertainty in the imputation. For the clustering algorithm, these 10 imputed datasets were stacked, and the algorithm partitioned the stacked dataset. In rare cases where a single respondent was classified into multiple groups because of variation in the imputed data, the assignment from one of the 10 imputed datasets was selected at random. This means that if a respondent with missing data was classified 7 times as a Faith First Conservative and 3 times as No Apologies Right, they had a 70% chance of being assigned to the Faith First group and a 30% chance of being assigned to the No Apologies group.
Coding of input variables
Many data partitioning methods are sensitive to the scaling of the variables.
For 12 questions with a five-point scale, in recoding we added distance between the middle response option and both the high and lower values to allow for more distinction between those on one side of the scale and those on the other side. These questions are noted with a single asterisk (*) in the above table.
For RUNWHY_SRV (noted above with a double asterisk –**), the top 3 response categories were collapsed into a single category.
All variables were then standardized by subtracting their means and dividing by their standard deviations. This has the effect of equalizing the impact of each variable and putting more weight on distinctive responses to each question.
Selecting the number of groups
Solutions with different numbers of groups were examined, and the results evaluated for their effectiveness in producing cohesive groups that were sufficiently distinct from one another and large enough in size to be analytically practical and substantively meaningful.
Other methodological decisions
To address the potential sensitivity of cluster analysis to the order in which cases are entered, each model was run several times.
While each model differed somewhat from the others, all of them shared certain key features. The final model selected to produce the political typology was judged to be strong from a statistical point of view, persuasive from a substantive point of view, and representative of the general patterns seen across the various models run.
In some past political typologies, so-called “Bystanders” (politically disengaged Americans) were identified and excluded from the analysis out the outset. For the 2026 typology, the clustering was performed using data from registered voters and people who follow government most or some of the time. Less politically engaged Americans tend to have less common patterns of attitudes, and excluding them from the clustering had the effect of sharpening the distinctions between the groups. Although they were not used in the modeling, unregistered respondents and those who followed government less of the time were assigned to the group to which they were most similar and are included in the analyses in the report.
Linking the typology survey to data from other ATP waves
The 2026 typology is the second time Pew Research Center has conducted its typology analysis on the American Trends Panel. A key advantage of using the panel is the ability to link the core typology survey respondents to their responses to other American Trends Panel waves for analysis. As a result, this report draws from 15 separate surveys conducted over the course of 2025 and 2026, as well as records from prior Pew Research election surveys and commercial voter files previously matched to members of the panel (refer to the survey methodologies for more details about the individual surveys and their methodologies).
This depth of data is far greater than for political typologies conducted prior to 2021. The 2026 typology has both one of the largest sample sizes we have had for a political typology (more than 10,000 interviews) and a much wider selection of data attached to each case than in most past years.
ATP waves used for typology analysis
| ATP wave | Survey field dates |
| W161 | Jan. 27-Feb. 2, 2025 |
| W165 | Mar. 10-16, 2025 |
| W166 | Mar. 24-30, 2025 |
| W167 | Apr. 7-13, 2025 |
| W170 | May 5-11, 2025 |
| W172 | June 2-8, 2025 |
| W176 | Aug 4-10, 2025 |
| W177 | Aug. 18-24, 2025 |
| W179 | Sept. 8-14, 2025 |
| W180 | Sept. 22-28, 2025 |
| W182 | Oct. 20-26, 2025 |
| W183 | Nov. 17-30, 2025 |
| W185 | Jan. 20-26, 2026 |
| W190 | Mar. 23-29, 2026 |
| W192 | April 20-26, 2026 |
Media measures
Measures of media use come from ATP W165 as a part of a large study of media use and perceptions. Respondents were asked to identify the news outlets that they regularly get news from. For more on how Pew Research Center measures media consumption see, “The Political Gap in America’s News Sources.”
Validated voting measures
Voter turnout and vote choice in the 2020 and 2024 elections are based on multiple sources. First, self-reports of candidate choice are collected immediately after general elections. Second, panelists are matched to commercial voter file databases to verify whether or not they voted in an election. For more details see this report, “Behind Trump’s 2024 Victory.”
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:
- 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.
- 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 2023. Those who fall outside of metropolitan statistical areas are assigned the overall RPP for their state’s non-metropolitan area.
- 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.
- 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 $77,800. Using this median income, the middle-income range is about $51,900 to $155,600. Lower-income families have adjusted incomes less than $51,900 and upper-income families have adjusted incomes greater than $155,600 (all figures expressed in 2024 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 Pine Bluff metropolitan area in Arkansas is a relatively inexpensive area, with a price level that is 19.7% less than the national average. The San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley metropolitan area in California is one of the most expensive areas, with a price level that is 18.2% 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 $40,200 in the Pine Bluff area is as well off financially as a family of the same size with an income of $59,100 in San Francisco.
Evaluations of elected officials’ motives scale
The evaluations of elected officials’ motives scale combines two questions about why elected officials run for office that were both asked in ATP W183. These questions asked how many of the people who currently serve in elected office in local, state, and federal governments ran for office because they wanted to address the issues they care about and how many ran because they wanted to serve the public. The two questions were each recoded to a scale ranging from 0-1 where 1 indicates the least skepticism about elected officials’ motives. These two scores were then averaged.
