Critique of PRRI’s 2026 Survey on Empathy and Question Design

Questionable Survey Design Sparks Controversy Over Empathy in American Values Study

Recent findings from the Public Religion Research Institute’s (PRRI) 2026 American Values Survey have sparked debate over the framing of empathy within the survey. The results suggest a division among white evangelicals, with many viewing empathy as potentially dangerous rather than a fundamental moral value. However, the design of the survey has drawn criticism from experts and analysts alike, raising questions about its methodology.

PRRI, an established entity in public opinion polling, released its latest survey on October 20, revealing that while most Americans view empathy as essential for a healthy society, a majority of white evangelical Protestants believe it can be dangerous if it detracts from a society guided by God’s truth. This finding aligns with discussions in faith circles where evangelical figures like R. Albert Mohler Jr. and Allie Beth Stuckey have criticized the value of empathy.

Respondents were given two choices: empathy as a foundational moral value or empathy as potentially dangerous. They had to choose the statement closest to their viewpoint on a scale of agreement. This binary framing has been questioned by observers who note that the survey did not allow for nuanced responses that reflected agreement with both statements or disagreement with one altogether.

Melissa Deckman, PRRI’s CEO, explained that if the questions were asked independently, respondents might have agreed with both, highlighting the potential complexity of opinions on empathy. However, Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist at Stanford, pointed out that the survey’s binary choice fails to capture true sentiment, noting that respondents might lean towards one option while disagreeing with both to different extents.

Krosnick also criticized the survey for using “multi-barreled” questions, which bundle multiple clauses into one statement, potentially confusing respondents. For instance, a respondent might believe in the danger of straying from God’s truth but not see empathy as inherently dangerous, making it unclear how they would answer.

The survey’s wording has changed from previous years, where empathy was framed more definitively as dangerous. This alteration has affected the narrative PRRI presents, with past surveys indicating different groups as the most likely to view empathy negatively. Despite Deckman’s acknowledgment of the wording change, PRRI’s presentation has sometimes implied a direct comparison, impacting the interpretation of results.

PRRI’s survey methods have faced scrutiny for lacking transparency in wording changes and for crafting complex questions with loaded terms. Krosnick suggests a clearer approach would involve straightforward language and separate questions to better gauge public opinion on empathy’s role in society.

Such concerns extend beyond empathy. PRRI’s survey questions regarding political figures like Donald Trump have also shifted in wording, affecting how results are reported and perceived. Deckman acknowledged this oversight and indicated that future reports would note such changes.

While public polling plays a crucial role in understanding societal views, flawed methods can reinforce biases instead of providing clear insights. The ongoing debate over PRRI’s survey highlights the importance of transparency and precision in crafting survey questions to accurately reflect public sentiment.