Public Highly Critical of State of Political Discourse in the U.S.

Rubén Weinsteiner


Reactions to Trump’s rhetoric: Concern, confusion, embarrassment

The public renders a harsh judgment on the state of political discourse in this country. And for many Americans, their own conversations about politics have become stressful experiences that they prefer to avoid.

Large majorities say the tone and nature of political debate in the United States has become more negative in recent years – as well as less respectful, less fact-based and less substantive.

Meanwhile, people’s everyday conversations about politics and other sensitive topics are often tense and difficult. Half say talking about politics with people they disagree with politically is “stressful and frustrating.”

When speaking with people they do not know well, more say they would be very comfortable talking about the weather and sports – and even religion – than politics. And it is people who are most comfortable with interpersonal conflict, including arguing with other people, who also are most likely to talk about politics frequently and to be politically engaged.

Donald Trump is a major factor in people’s views about the state of the nation’s political discourse. A 55% majority says Trump has changed the tone and nature of political debate in this country for the worse; fewer than half as many (24%) say he has changed it for the better, while 20% say he has had little impact.

Perhaps more striking are the public’s feelings about the things Trump says: sizable majorities say Trump’s comments often or sometimes make them feel concerned (76%), confused (70%), embarrassed (69%) and exhausted (67%). By contrast, fewer have positive reactions to Trump’s rhetoric, though 54% say they at least sometimes feel entertained by what he says.

Pew Research Center’s wide-ranging survey of attitudes about political speech and discourse in the U.S. was conducted April 29-May 13 among 10,170 adults. Among the other major findings:

Broad agreement on the dangers of “heated or aggressive” rhetoric by political leaders. A substantial majority (78%) says “heated or aggressive” language directed by elected officials against certain people or groups makes violence against them more likely. This view is more widely shared among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents than Republican and Republican leaners.

Partisans demand a higher standard of conduct from the other party than from their own. Majorities in both parties say it is very important that elected officials treat their opponents with respect. But while most Democrats (78%) say it is very important for Republican elected officials to treat Democratic officials with respect, only about half (47%) say it is very important for officials from their party to treat Republican politicians with respect. There is similar divide in the opinions of Republicans; 75% say Democrats should be respectful of GOP officials, while only 49% say the same about Republicans’ treatment of Democratic officials.

Uncertainty about what constitutes “offensive” speech. As in the past, a majority of Americans (60%) say “too many people are easily offended over the language that others use.” Yet there is uncertainty about what constitutes offensive speech: About half (51%) say it is easy to know what others might find offensive, while nearly as many (48%) say it is hard to know. In addition, majorities say that people in this country do not generally agree about the types of language considered to be sexist (65%) and racist (61%).

Majority says social media companies have responsibility to remove “offensive” content. By a wide margin (66% to 32%), more people say social media companies have a responsibility to remove offensive content from their platforms than say they do not have this responsibility. But just 31% have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in these companies to determine what offensive content should be removed. And as noted, many Americans acknowledge it is difficult to know what others may find offensive.

Talking about Trump with people who feel differently about him. The survey asks people to imagine attending a social gathering with people who have different viewpoints from theirs about the president. Nearly six-in-ten (57%) of those who approve of Trump’s job performance say they would share their views about Trump when talking with a group of people who do not like him. But fewer (43%) of those who disapprove of Trump say they would share their views when speaking with a group of Trump supporters.
What’s OK – and off-limits – for political debates

While Americans decry the tone of today’s political debates, they differ over the kinds of speech that are acceptable – and off-limits – for elected officials to use when criticizing their rivals.

Some language and tactics are viewed as clearly over the line: A sizable majority (81%) says it is never acceptable for a politician to deliberately mislead people about their opponent’s record. There is much less agreement about the acceptability of elected officials using insults like “evil” or “anti-American.”

Partisanship has a major impact on these opinions. For the most part, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say many of the insults and taunts are never acceptable. For example, 53% of Democrats say it is never acceptable for an elected official to say their opponent is anti-American; only about half as many Republicans (25%) say the same.

As with views of whether elected officials should “respect” their opponents, partisans hold the opposing side to a higher standard than their own side in views of acceptable discourse for political debates.

Most Republicans (72%) say it is never acceptable for a Democratic official to call a Republican opponent “stupid,” while far fewer (49%) say it is unacceptable for a Republican to use this slur against a Democrat. Among Democrats, 76% would rule out a Republican calling a Democratic opponent “stupid,” while 60% say the same about Democrat calling a Republican “stupid.” See Chapter 2 for an interactive illustration of how people’s views about the acceptability of political insults vary depending on whether or not they share the same party affiliation of the elected officials casting the insults.
Large shares have negative reactions to what Trump says

Majorities of Americans say they often or sometimes feel a range of negative sentiments – including concern, confusion, embarrassment and exhaustion – about the things that Trump says.

Positive feelings about Trump’s comments are less widespread. Fewer than half say they often or sometimes feel informed, hopeful, excited and happy about what the president says. A 54% majority says they at least sometimes feel entertained by what Trump says, the highest percentage expressing a positive sentiment.

Democrats overwhelmingly have negative reactions to Trump’s statements, while the reactions of Republicans are more varied. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, at least 80% say they often or sometimes experience each of the seven negative emotions included in the survey.

A 59% majority of Republicans and Republican leaners say they often or sometimes feel concerned by what Trump says. About half also say they are at least sometimes embarrassed (53%) and confused (47%) by Trump’s statements.

By contrast, large majorities of Republicans say they often or sometimes feel hopeful (79%), entertained (78%), informed and happy (76%) and other positive sentiments in response to the things Trump says.

No more than about 10% of Democrats express any positive feelings toward what Trump says, with two exceptions: 17% say they are often or sometimes informed, while 35% are at least sometimes entertained.
Republicans see a less ‘comfortable’ environment for GOP views

Republicans say that members of their party across the country are less comfortable than Democrats to “freely and openly” express their political views. In addition, Republicans are far more critical than Democrats about the climate for free expression in the nation’s educational institutions – not just colleges, but also community colleges and K-12 public schools.

Just 26% of Republicans say that Republicans across the country are very comfortable in freely and openly expressing their political opinions; nearly two-thirds of Republicans (64%) think Democrats are very comfortable voicing their opinions. Among Democrats, there are more modest differences in perceptions of the extent to which partisans are comfortable freely expressing their political views.

There are smaller partisan differences when it comes to opinions about how comfortable Republicans and Democrats are expressing their views in their local communities. Yet these opinions vary depending on the partisan composition of the local community. Republicans and Democrats living in counties that Trump won by wide margins in 2016 are more likely than those in evenly divided counties (or those that Hillary Clinton won decisively) to say Republicans are very comfortable expressing their views.

Republicans’ concerns about the climate for free speech on college campuses are not new. The new survey finds that fewer than half of Republicans (44%) say colleges and universities are open to a wide range of opinions and viewpoints; Democrats are nearly twice as likely (87%) to say the same.

Republicans also are less likely than Democrats to say community colleges and K-12 public schools are open to differing viewpoints. By contrast, a larger share of Republicans (56%) than Democrats (40%) say that churches and religious organizations are very or somewhat open to a wide range of opinions and viewpoints.

Members of both parties generally view their own local communities as places that are open to a wide range of viewpoints. Large and nearly identical shares in both parties say their local community is at least somewhat open to a wide range of opinions and viewpoints (75% of Democrats, 74% of Republicans).


The climate for discourse around the country, on campus and on social media

Seven-in-ten or more Americans say that Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives are at least somewhat comfortable to “freely and openly express their political views” in both their local communities and in the country overall. But there are key partisan differences in these feelings – particularly in views of the national political climate, with Republicans especially likely to believe there is a more stifling environment around speech for Republicans than for Democrats.

Overall, Americans are more likely to see Democrats as comfortable expressing their views in this country than to say this about Republicans. While about half of the public (48%) says that Democrats in this country are “very comfortable” to freely and openly express their political views, a smaller share (36%) says the same about Republicans.

Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are especially likely to feel that Democrats and liberals are comfortable sharing their political views in this country – and also to feel that Republicans are not. Nearly nine-in-ten Republicans (88%) say Democrats are at least somewhat comfortable openly sharing their views, with 64% saying that Democrats in the country are “very comfortable” openly expressing their political views. By comparison, only about a quarter (26%) say Republicans in the country are very comfortable doing this (61% say Republicans are at least somewhat comfortable doing this).

By comparison, there are only modest differences in Democratic perceptions of partisans’ comfort with political expression in the country. Roughly eight-in-ten Democrats say Republicans are at least somewhat comfortable freely and openly expressing their opinions in this country – roughly the same share as say this about Democrats (79% and 83%, respectively).

While Democrats are slightly more likely to describe Republicans than Democrats as very comfortable to freely express their views (45% vs. 37%), the 8 percentage point gap in these perceptions is considerably narrower than the 38 point gap in GOP perceptions.

There are similar patterns in beliefs about liberals’ and conservatives’ comfort expressing their political views in the country. Overall, 83% of Americans say liberals in this country are at least somewhat comfortable freely and openly expressing their views, while 71% say this about conservatives. Democrats are modestly more likely to say conservatives are more comfortable than liberals with expressing their views (85% vs. 79%, respectively). By contrast, about nine-in-ten Republicans (91%) say liberals are at least somewhat comfortable freely expressing their views in this country, while 56% say conservatives are at least somewhat comfortable doing this.

When asked about partisan groups in “your community,” roughly similar shares of Americans say Republicans (37%) and Democrats (40%) are very comfortable expressing their views.

Democrats are about equally likely to say Republicans in their community and Democrats in their community are comfortable to freely and openly express their views: About eight-in-ten say both groups are somewhat comfortable doing this, including about four-in-ten saying they are very comfortable.

Republicans are more likely to say Democrats in their community are comfortable freely and openly expressing their political views than to say this about Republicans: 86% say Democrats are at least somewhat comfortable, while 73% say this about Republicans. However, this difference in perceptions about GOP comfort and Democratic comfort is considerably narrower at the community level than it is for the national environment.
How open people think their community is to Republicans and Democrats expressing their views depends on how red or blue it is

Perceptions of how comfortable partisans are expressing political views in their local communities vary by the political makeup of those communities. For example, 48% of adults who live in counties that Donald Trump carried by 10 points or more in the 2016 election say that Republicans in their local community are “very” comfortable expressing their political views; by contrast, just 30% of adults living in counties that Hillary Clinton won by similar margins say Republicans in their community are very comfortable freely and openly expressing their political views.

An opposite – though somewhat less pronounced – pattern is seen in views of Democrats’ comfort expressing their political views: 46% of adults living in counties that Clinton won by 10 points or more say Democrats in their communities are very comfortable expressing their political views; 37% of adults living in counties that Trump won by 10 or more points say this.

When it comes to Republicans’ comfort of political expression in their communities, both Democrats and Republicans see greater Republican comfort in counties Trump carried by 10 points or more than in counties where the election was closely contested or where Clinton won by at least 10 points.

This same dynamic is present in Democrats’ views of how comfortable Democrats in their communities are to freely and openly express their views (as the Clinton share of the 2016 vote rises, Democrats’ perceptions of the comfort Democrats feel expressing their views increases).

But Republican views of how comfortable Democrats are sharing their political views do not follow this pattern. About equal shares of Republicans who live in solid Clinton counties (49%) and solid Trump counties (46%) say they think Democrats in their community feel very comfortable sharing their political views.
Public sees a deterioration in the tone of national political debate

Overwhelming majorities of the public say that the tone and nature of political debate in the country has become more negative (85%), less respectful (85%) and less fact-based (76%) over the last several years. And six-in-ten say the debate has been less focused on issues than in the past.

Few Americans say there has been positive movement on any of these dimensions over the last several years – just 3% say the tone of national political debate has become more positive, while 2% say it has become more respectful, 8% say more fact-based and 20% say it has become more focused on issues.

About a third of the public (35%) says that the tone of politics has become more entertaining in recent years. Still, nearly half (46%) say it has become less entertaining over this period.

Partisans offer similar evaluations of the current state of political debate in the country. For instance, 86% of both Republicans and Democrats say the tone of political debate has become more negative in recent years, while about six-in-ten in both groups say political debate has become less focused on issues (60% of Republicans, 62% of Democrats). Those who discuss politics more frequently – in both partisan groups – are somewhat more likely than others to view a decline in national political discourse.
Wide partisan differences in views of how open educational institutions, religious organizations are to a ‘wide range of opinions and viewpoints’

Roughly two-thirds of Americans (68%) say colleges and universities are very or somewhat open to “a wide range of opinions and viewpoints,” while a slightly larger majority (73%) say the same about community colleges. About six-in-ten (61%) view K-12 public schools as at least somewhat open to different views, while about half (48%) describe churches and religious organizations this way.

Three-quarters (75%) say their own local community is very or somewhat open to a wide range of opinions and viewpoints.

However, relatively small shares describe any of these places or institutions as “very” open – a quarter (25%) say this about colleges and universities, while roughly the same share (22%) says this about community colleges; 14% describe their own community this way. About one-in-ten say K-12 public schools (12%) and churches and religious organizations (10%) are very open to many different views.

There are wide partisan differences in these views – particularly in assessments of the openness of postsecondary educational institutions. Nearly nine-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (87%) describe colleges and universities as at least somewhat open to a wide range of opinions and viewpoints – including 34% who say these institutions are very open. By comparison, just 44% of Republicans and Republican leaners say colleges and universities are either very (15%) or somewhat (30%) open in this way (roughly a quarter say colleges and universities are “not at all” open to viewpoint diversity).

The partisan gap is smaller, though still substantial, in evaluations of community colleges. About six-in-ten Republicans (57%) say community colleges are very or somewhat open to many different opinions and viewpoints, while almost nine-in-ten Democrats (86%) say this.

The partisan gap seen in assessments of educational institutions extends to views of primary and secondary public schools as well. While about seven-in-ten Democrats (71%) describe K-12 public schools as at least somewhat open to differences in opinions and viewpoints, roughly half of Republicans (49%) say the same.

In contrast, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say churches and religious organizations are open to a range of opinions and viewpoints. A 56% majority of Republicans say this, compared with just 40% of Democrats.

When it comes to their local communities, partisans are in general agreement – about three-quarters of both Republicans (74%) and Democrats (75%) say their local communities are at least somewhat open to a wide range of opinions and viewpoints.

Overall, women (73%) are more likely than men (63%) to say colleges and universities are at least somewhat open. And while just 57% of Americans ages 65 and older say these institutions are at least somewhat open, fully seven-in-ten (71%) of Americans under 65 say this.
Most say social media companies should remove offensive content, but fewer are confident in them to determine what should be removed

Amid public debate about how social media companies should handle controversial content, about two-thirds of Americans (66%) say these companies have a responsibility to remove offensive content from their platforms; 32% say they do not have this responsibility.

While majorities in both parties say social media companies should remove offensive content from their platforms, this view is more widely held by Democrats than Republicans: About three-quarters of Democrats (77%) say this, compared with 52% of Republicans and Republican leaners.

Yet the public does not have very much confidence in social media companies to determine what offensive content should be removed from their platforms.

About three-in-ten Americans (31%) have at least a fair amount of confidence in social media companies to decide which content to remove – including just 4% who say they have a great deal of confidence in these companies to do this.

Among Republicans, 23% have confidence in social media companies to determine what content should be removed; far greater shares say they have not too much (42%) or no confidence at all (34%) in companies to make this determination.

Democrats also largely lack confidence in social media companies to determine what content should be removed, though they are somewhat more likely than Republicans to express at least a fair amount of confidence (37%).

While majorities across demographic groups say social media companies have a responsibility to remove offensive content from their platforms, there remain gender, age and racial differences in the shares who express this view.

Overall, women (72%) are more likely than men (59%) to say social media companies have this responsibility, and gender differences are in evident in both parties.

About six-in-ten Republican women (62%) say this, compared with about four-in-ten Republican men (43%). And Democratic women (79%) are modestly more likely than Democratic men (73%) to say social media companies have this responsibility.

Blacks (74%) are more likely than whites (64%) and Hispanics (66%) to say social media companies should remove offensive content.

Older adults are also more likely than younger adults to say companies have this responsibility: About seven-in-ten of those older than 65 (73%) say social media companies should remove such content; by comparison, 59% of 18- to 29-year-olds say this.

Women – who are more likely than men to say social media companies should remove offensive content – also have more confidence than men in these companies’ abilities to determine what content should be removed. Overall, 36% of women, compared with 25% of men, say they have at least a fair amount of confidence in companies to do this.

About half (48%) of black people express at least a fair amount of confidence in social media companies to determine what content should be removed, compared with just a quarter of whites. Four-in-ten Hispanics say they have at least a fair amount of confidence in companies to make this determination.

Although the youngest Americans are less likely than the oldest Americans to say social media companies have a responsibility to remove offensive content, they have more confidence than older Americans in these companies’ abilities to determine what content should be removed. Nearly four-in-ten 18- to 29-year-olds (38%) have a fair amount or great deal of confidence in social media companies to determine what content should be removed from their platforms, compared with just 24% of those ages 65 and older.

Those who find it important for them personally to use language that other people do not find offensive are more likely to say that social media companies have a responsibility to remove offensive content from their platforms.

Among those who say it is very important for them personally to use language that doesn’t offend others, about three-quarters (77%) say social media companies are responsible for removing offensive content.

But among Americans who say it is not too or not at all important for them personally to use inoffensive language, fewer than half (44%) say social media companies have this responsibility.

The pattern holds within party, particularly among Republicans. Two-thirds of Republicans who say it is very important that they don’t offend others say social media companies should remove offensive content. By contrast, a much smaller share of Republicans (32%) who place lower importance on using inoffensive language say social media companies should remove such content.

Among Democrats, 83% of those who say it is very important that their language doesn’t offend others say social media companies have a responsibility to remove offensive content; a smaller majority (61%) of those who place little or no importance on using inoffensive language say the same.



The bounds of political debate and criticism

The public draws distinctions when it comes to the types of speech and behavior they deem acceptable from elected officials. Wide majorities of Americans say it is acceptable for elected officials to call their opponent uninformed on the issues and to raise their voice in a debate, but there is much lower tolerance for officials personally mocking their opponents or deliberately mischaracterizing their record.

Roughly three-quarters of Americans say it is at least sometimes acceptable to say their opponent’s policy positions are incorrect (73%) or that their opponent is uninformed on the issues (74%). A narrow majority (58%) says it is at least sometimes acceptable for elected officials to raise their voice in a debate. Few see these behaviors as never acceptable.

But there are behaviors that overwhelming majorities say have no place in political discourse. About eight-in-ten (81%) say it is never acceptable to deliberately mislead people about an opponent’s record or to say something negative about the physical appearance of an opponent’s spouse (81%), while 73% say it is never acceptable to criticize their opponent’s appearance – and nine-in-ten or more consider these behaviors at most rarely acceptable.

The public also generally views calling one’s political opponent “stupid” as out of bounds: 62% say this is never acceptable, while an additional 22% say it is rarely acceptable. And about half of the public says it is never acceptable for an official to shout over their opponent in a debate (49%) or to ridicule an opponent (50%), with three-quarters or more saying these behaviors are no more than rarely acceptable.

However, public opinion is more mixed over the acceptability of calling an opponent’s policy positions “evil” – while 35% say this is never acceptable and 34% say it is rarely acceptable, 31% say it is at least sometimes acceptable. Similarly, while 41% believe that it is never acceptable for an elected official to say their opponent is “anti-American,” 31% say this is rarely acceptable and 27% say this is at least sometimes acceptable.
Partisans differ over acceptability of some types of political criticism

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to view a range of behaviors as out of bounds. And some of the largest partisan gaps are over whether it is acceptable for elected officials to call into question the patriotism of their political opponents.

About three-quarters of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (76%) say it is rarely or never acceptable for an elected official to say “they love America more than their opponent does,” including half who say this is never acceptable.

By comparison, 45% of Republicans and Republican leaners say it is rarely or never acceptable for an official to say they love America more than their opponent – including just 21% who consider this completely out of bounds in politics. The pattern of opinion about whether it is acceptable to call one’s opponent anti-American is nearly identical.

There also are substantial partisan gaps in other areas, including the acceptability of ridiculing one’s opponent (59% of Democrats say this is never acceptable vs. 40% of Republicans), calling them stupid (70% vs. 51%) or saying their policy positions are evil (42% vs. 26%). But Democrats and Republicans are in general agreement that deliberately misleading people about their opponent’s record is out of bounds (82% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans say this is never acceptable), as is criticism of a spouse’s appearance (84% of Democrats, 78% of Republicans say it’s never acceptable).
Insults are seen as more acceptable when your party is the instigator

Partisans also have different views of how acceptable these types of political insults are, depending on the partisanship of the political officials involved.




Trump’s impact on the tone of political debate, important characteristics for elected officials

A majority of Americans say that Donald Trump has had a negative impact on the tone of political debate in the United States.

Overall, 55% say that Trump has changed the tone and nature of political debate in the U.S. for the worse since entering politics; fewer than half as many (24%) say he has changed it for the better, and 20% say he has not changed it much either way.

Democrats overwhelmingly say Trump has changed the tone of political debate for the worse. More than eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners (84%) say Trump has had a negative effect on political debate in this country, including 92% of liberal Democrats and 78% of conservative and moderate Democrats.

Republicans and Republican leaners are more divided in their views: 49% say Trump has changed the tone of the debate for the better, while 23% say he has changed it for the worse and 27% say he hasn’t changed it much either way. A majority of conservative Republicans (58%) think Trump has changed the tone of political debate for the better, compared with 35% of moderate and liberal Republicans.

Aside from the partisan differences on this question, there are significant divides by age and education. Those with higher levels of education are much more likely than those with lower levels to say that Trump has changed the tone of political debate for the worse. For instance, 73% of postgraduates say this compared with 47% of those with no college experience.

And adults younger than 50 (59%) are more likely than those 50 and older (51%) to say that Trump’s impact on the tone of political debate in the U.S. has been negative.

The differences among Republicans over Trump’s impact on the tone of political debate extend beyond ideology.

Among Republicans and Republican leaners, older adults and those without a college degree are significantly more likely than younger adults and those with a college degree to say Trump has changed the tone of political debate in the country for the better.

In addition, Republicans who say they talk about politics with others at least weekly are much more likely than those who talk politics less often to say Trump’s impact on debate has been a positive one (62% vs. 40%).
Majorities say Trump’s comments elicit concern, exhaustion, confusion

When asked about their reactions to the things Trump says, the public reports experiencing negative reactions more frequently than positive ones.

Out of a list of 15 possible reactions, “concerned” is the most frequently reported reaction to Trump’s comments. Overall, 76% say Trump’s comments often (48%) or sometimes (29%) make them feel concerned. Relatively few say Trump’s comments rarely (16%) or never (6%) make them feel concerned.

Other negative emotions also are widely experienced in response to Trump’s comments, including confusion (70% say this happens often or sometimes), embarrassment (69%), exhaustion (67%) and anger (65%).

Feeling entertained is the most frequent positive reaction to Trump’s comments: 54% say they often (21%) or sometimes (33%) feel entertained by what Trump says.

Fewer than half say Trump’s rhetoric at least sometimes makes them feel informed (43%), hopeful (41%), happy (37%), proud (36%) and other positive sentiments.

Large majorities of Democrats and Democratic leaners report that Trump’s comments at least sometimes make them feel each of the seven negative emotions asked about in the survey. For example, 92% say they often or sometimes feel concerned by what Trump says and 89% often or sometimes feel exhausted by his rhetoric.

Conversely, majorities of Republicans and Republican leaners say they at least sometimes experience each of the eight positive emotions included in the survey in response to the things Trump says.

However, emotional reactions to Trump’s rhetoric among Republicans and Democrats are not entirely parallel, with Democrats somewhat more likely to say they have negative reactions than Republicans are to say they have positive ones.

For instance, across the seven negative items, an average of 87% of Democrats say they often or sometimes feel this way because of Trump’s comments. Across the eight positive items, an average of 74% of Republicans say they often or sometimes feel this.

In addition, significant shares of Republicans say Trump’s comments make them feel negative emotions, at least sometimes. Overall, 59% of Republicans say the things Trump says often or sometimes make them feel concerned, 53% say his comments make them feel embarrassed and 47% say they feel confused. About a third of Republicans (32%) say they feel insulted by Trump’s rhetoric, at least sometimes.

By contrast, relatively small shares of Democrats report feeling positive emotions in reaction to what Trump says. While 35% of Democrats say Trump’s comments often or sometimes make them feel entertained, fewer than two-in-ten say they often or sometimes experience any of the other positive emotions.
Public says elected officials should avoid use of heated language

Americans believe there is a link between elected officials’ use of heated or aggressive rhetoric and the possibility of violence against people and groups, and there is broad agreement that officials should avoid this type of language.

About eight-in-ten (78%) say that elected officials using heated or aggressive language to talk about certain people or groups makes violence against those people or groups more likely; far fewer (21%) say this type of language does not make violence more likely.

Majorities in both parties say there is a connection between the language officials use to talk about certain groups and the possibility of violence, but this view is more widely held among Democrats and Democratic leaners (91%) than among Republicans and Republican leaners (61%).

Consistent with this view, 73% of the public says elected officials should avoid heated or aggressive language because it could encourage some people to take violent action; 25% say that elected officials should be able to use heated or aggressive language to express themselves without worrying about whether some people may act on what they say. Among Democrats, 83% say elected officials should avoid the use of heated language because of the possibility that it could encourage violence; a narrower majority of Republicans (61%) also take this view.
Honesty, knowledge highly valued in elected officials; narrower majorities say respect, willingness to compromise are very important

There is widespread agreement among the public that it is very important for elected officials to be honest and ethical (91%), to be knowledgeable on the issues (89%) and to admit when they are wrong (82%).

Roughly two-thirds say it is very important for elected officials to treat opponents with respect (68%) and to be willing to compromise with them (65%).

Among six traits included in the survey, only one – spending time raising money for reelection – is not identified as a valued trait for elected officials. Just 10% say it is very important that elected officials spend time raising money for reelection; 29% say this is somewhat important while a majority (59%) say this is not too or not at all important.

Some traits, such as honesty, are seen as universally important for elected officials across different contexts. However, views of the importance of other traits – notably, willingness to compromise with opponents and treating them with respect – vary depending on one’s own partisan affiliation and the party of the elected official.

Among Americans overall, 68% say it is very important for elected officials to treat their political opponents with respect. Democrats (72%) are somewhat more likely than Republicans (63%) to highly value politicians treating opponents with respect. Similarly, there is a modest partisan divide between the shares of Democrats (69%) and Republicans (61%) who say it is very important for elected officials to be willing to compromise with their political opponents.

There are much more pronounced partisan gaps when respondents are asked specifically about Republican and Democratic elected officials.

Both Republicans and Democrats are far more likely to say it’s very important for the other party’s elected officials to be willing to compromise and to treat opponents with respect than it is for their own party’s elected officials to behave this way.

Nearly eight-in-ten Democrats say it is very important for Republican elected officials to be willing to compromise with Democrats (79%) and to treat Democratic elected officials with respect (78%). However, far fewer value these behaviors when asked about their own party’s elected officials: Just 48% of Democrats say it is very important for Democratic elected officials to be willing to compromise with Republicans, and 47% say the same about Democratic officials treating Republican officials with respect.

A similar dynamic is seen among Republicans. While 78% of Republicans say it is very important for Democratic elected officials to be willing to compromise with Republicans, only 41% feel it is very important for members of their own party be open to compromise with Democrats. Similarly, Republicans are far more likely to say Democratic officials should treat their Republican opponents with respect (75%) than to say Republican elected officials should be respectful toward their Democratic opponents (49%).



The public’s level of comfort talking politics and Trump

Americans are much more cautious about talking politics with others than discussing a range of other subjects, including the weather and sports.

Comfort with talking about the weather is near universal: 95% of the public says that they would be either very (74%) or somewhat (22%) comfortable talking about the weather with someone they don’t know well. Sizable majorities also say they would be very or somewhat comfortable talking about movies and television (90%), the economy (77%) and sports (69%).

The public is less comfortable talking about politics, religion and Donald Trump. Overall, 55% say they would feel at least somewhat comfortable talking about Trump with someone they do not know well; just 25% say they would feel very comfortable doing this. Public comfort talking about religion is similar: 60% would be at least somewhat comfortable discussing this subject, but only about a quarter (24%) would feel very comfortable.

Talking politics ranks even lower on the public’s comfort list. Just 17% say they would be very comfortable talking politics with someone they don’t know well; another 35% say they would feel somewhat comfortable.

Partisans express similar levels of comfort discussing topics like the weather, sports and entertainment, but Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they are comfortable talking about Donald Trump, the economy and religion.

Two-thirds of Republicans and Republican leaners (67%) say they would be very or somewhat comfortable talking about Trump with someone they don’t know well, while only about half of Democrats and Democratic leaners (48%) say this.

Republicans also are more likely than Democrats to say they would feel comfortable talking about the economy (83% vs. 73%), religion (69% vs. 55%) and politics (57% vs. 49%).
Half say it is stressful to talk politics with people they disagree with

When it comes to political conversations with those they disagree with, the public is split in their reactions: Half say talking politics with people they disagree with is generally stressful and frustrating, while about as many (48%) say it is interesting and informative.

Democrats and Democratic leaners (53%) are slightly more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners (47%) to say political conversations with people they disagree with are stressful and frustrating. The share of Democrats who find these conversations stressful is higher than it was in the spring of 2016 – prior to Donald Trump’s election – when 45% said this. Views among Republicans have changed little over the past several years.

Liberal Democrats are especially likely to say they find political conversations with people they disagree with frustrating: 63% say this, compared with 44% of conservative and moderate Democrats.

There also is an ideological divide in these views among Republicans: Conservatives (52%) are more likely than moderates and liberals (39%) to find talking politics with people they disagree with to be stressful and frustrating.
Offering your views on politics – and Trump – over dinner

When asked to think about being at a small dinner with strangers who disagree with them about Donald Trump, Americans who approve of his job performance are more likely to say they would share their own views about him than are those who disapprove.

Nearly six-in-ten adults who approve of Donald Trump’s job performance (57%) say they would share their views about the president at a small dinner where the other guests are talking about how they really dislike Trump. Only about four-in-ten of those who disapprove of Trump (43%) say they would be likely to share their views in a scenario where people at the table were talking about how they really like Trump.

Similar dinner party scenarios were asked about for three other political topics (note: each respondent was only asked about one scenario). However, for these other topics – minimum wage, gun policy and a border wall with Mexico – there is no gap by issue position in the shares who would volunteer their views. For instance, 74% of those who favor raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and 70% who oppose this say they would voice their opinions to a group of dining companions who are expressing views opposite to their own.

In addition, for all three issue areas, clear majorities – regardless of their stance on the topic – say they would express their views at the dinner.


A survey experiment: Sharing political views with strangers who disagree

Comfort with conflict is strongly associated with people’s willingness to express their opposing views about Trump and other political topics in a dinner party setting (see appendix for more details on the comfort with conflict scale).

Only about a quarter (26%) of those who score low on a three-question scale measuring comfort with conflict would share their views about Trump over dinner with people who disagree with them. By contrast, 51% of those who fall in the middle of the scale and 76% of those who have high comfort with conflict say they would share their own views about Trump with a group of dinner companions who are expressing the opposing view.

The association between comfort with conflict and willingness to share your own views in a small dinner setting holds across the three other issue areas, though it is especially pronounced in the scenario about views of Trump.

Trump is a particularly difficult dinner conversation topic for those who are least comfortable with conflict: Among those with low comfort with conflict, just 26% would share their views about Trump to a table taking the opposing position. By comparison, 38% of those with low conflict comfort would share their views on the border wall, while about half would share their views about assault-style weapons (50%) or the federal minimum wage (52%). Among those who are most comfortable with conflict, there are more modest differences in willingness to share views in each of these scenarios.

People’s willingness to share their views about Trump varies depending on the partisan makeup of the places where they live.

Trump approvers who live in counties that Trump won by wide margins over Hillary Clinton in 2016 are more likely than Trump approvers who live in more politically mixed places or in counties that Clinton won by wide margins to say they would share their views over dinner with a group of people who don’t like the president. There is a similar – but inverse – pattern in the willingness of those who disapprove of Trump to speak up among a group of people who like Trump.

About six-in-ten Trump approvers living in counties that Trump won by 10 percentage points or more in 2016 (62%) say they would share their views about the president at a small dinner where people at the table are having a conversation about how they really dislike Trump. By comparison, about half of Trump approvers who live in places where the election was decided by less than 10 points (53%) or in places that Clinton won by more than 10 points (49%) say they would share their views in this situation.

This general pattern also is seen among those who disapprove of Trump: 49% of Trump disapprovers who live in counties Clinton won by at least 10 points would share their views of the president at a small dinner where people at the table are having a conversation about how much they like Trump, while 38% of disapprovers who live in counties that were decided by less than 10 points and 39% of disapprovers who live in counties that Trump won by at least 10 points say they would share their own views.

As a result, in counties that Trump won by 10 percentage points or more, there is a 23 percentage point gap between the share of Trump approvers (62%) and disapprovers (39%) who would express their views of the president at a dinner with those who disagree with them. By comparison, in counties that Clinton won by at least 10 points, Trump approvers (49%) and Trump disapprovers (47%) are about equally likely to say they would share their views if they were in this situation.
Why would you participate in – or avoid – contentious discussions about Trump?

When those who say they would share their views at a small dinner with people whose views of the president differ from their own are asked why they would share, about four-in-ten Trump disapprovers (39%) and a similar share of Trump approvers (35%) say they would do so because it’s important to for others to know where they stand.

Strongly held views about the president are also mentioned by sizable shares in both groups as a reason they would speak up, though Trump approvers are more likely than disapprovers to say this: 34% of Trump approvers who would share their views in these circumstances cite positive views or praise of Trump as the reason why they would participate in the conversation, while about a quarter of Trump disapprovers who would do so (24%) mention deeply negative or strong criticism of Trump as a reason.

Among those who would share their views, 25% of Trump disapprovers and 15% of Trump approvers explain that they would do so because the conversation might be productive.

Relatively few people who would engage in a conversation about Trump with people who have a different view of him than they do would do so in the expectation that they could change others’ minds about him (10% of disapprovers and 14% of approvers who say they would share their views cite this as a reason).

The most common reasons given for not sharing personal views of Trump at a dinner with strangers who feel differently is a desire to avoid confrontation or discomfort: More than half of those who say they would avoid sharing their views about Trump mention something along these lines as a reason why, with similar shares of Trump approvers (56%) and disapprovers (57%) saying this.

Though less common a response, 10% of Trump disapprovers who would not share their views and 17% of approvers who would not share their views cite a criticism of those who have different opinions of the president than their own – particularly a sense that these groups are closed-minded or judgmental – as their reason for keeping their opinions to themselves.
Those most comfortable with conflict more likely to be politically engaged

Comfort with conflict is associated with many attitudes about discourse and politics, including the willingness to share views of Trump in social settings. (See appendix for more details on the comfort with conflict scale.)

Those with higher levels of comfort with conflict are among the most active in politics. They are more likely than groups who are less comfortable with conflict to say they follow what’s going on in government most of the time, to say they always vote and to talk about politics frequently.

For instance, over half of Democrats and Republicans with high levels of comfort with conflict say they talk politics weekly or more often (55% and 54%, respectively). Smaller shares of those with low levels of comfort with conflict say they talk politics weekly or more.

Comfort with conflict is also predictive of some other views about political discourse. For example, Republicans and Democrats with high levels of comfort with conflict are also more comfortable talking about politics with someone they do not know well. And they are more likely to say that political conversations with those who hold opposing views are interesting and informative rather than stressful and frustrating.
Most say they don’t enjoy seeing political opponents get caught up in scandals

About two-thirds of Americans (66%) say that they do not enjoy seeing elected officials they dislike getting caught up in scandals or facing personal setbacks, while 32% say they enjoy this.

Though enjoyment at watching politicians they dislike face scandals is a minority position in both parties, Democrats (36%) are somewhat more likely than Republicans (28%) to say they enjoy this.

And among Democrats, liberals (41%) are more likely than conservative and moderate (32%) Democrats say they enjoy seeing political opponents face personal setbacks. There are no ideological differences among Republicans in these views.

In both parties, men are more likely than women to say they enjoy it when elected officials they dislike face setbacks. Among Democrats, 43% of men and 31% of women say they like it when politicians they dislike get caught up in scandals or face setbacks; among Republicans, 33% of men and 22% of women say the same.

Democrats ages 18 to 29 are especially likely to say they enjoy seeing elected officials they dislike get caught up in scandals and face personal setbacks: 46% Democrats say this, compared with about a third of Democrats in older age groups.

Republicans who express higher levels of comfort with conflict are more likely than those with lower levels of comfort to say they enjoy when opposition faces personal setbacks. Among Democrats, there are no significant differences in these views by comfort with conflict.

Within both parties, those who talk politics frequently are somewhat more likely than those who talk politics less often to enjoy seeing officials they dislike face setbacks.


The personal side of speech and expression

A large share of Americans say it is important to them personally to use language that does not cause offense, and an even larger majority say they are confident that the language they use is not offensive to other people.

About eight-in-ten (79%) say it is very (42%) or somewhat (37%) important to them personally to use language that other people do not find offensive. Relatively few (19%) say this is not too or not at all important to them.

Large majorities of both Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (83%) and Republicans and Republican leaners (74%) say it is very or somewhat important that they do not use language that others find offensive. But Democrats are more likely to say this is very important (47% vs. 35%).

Americans are broadly confident that they do not use offensive language: Nearly nine-in-ten adults say they are very (42%) or somewhat (45%) confident that the language they use is not offensive to other people. Comparable majorities of Republicans and Democrats say they are at least somewhat confident that the language they use is not offensive to other people (87% and 88%, respectively).

There are notable demographic differences when it comes to views on the personal use of offensive language.

Women, older adults and those with a postgraduate degree are especially likely to place high importance on using language that is not offensive to others. Women and older adults also tend to express higher confidence that the language they use is not offensive.

Almost half of women (47%) say it is very important to them personally to not use offensive language. Slightly more than a third of men (36%) say the same. There is a similar gap between the shares of women (46%) and men (37%) who say they are very confident that their own language is not offensive.

Among those ages 65 and older, 56% say it is very important for them personally to not use offensive language. By contrast, just 30% of those ages 18 to 29 say this is very important to them personally. Older adults also are more confident than younger adults that the language they use is not offensive to others: 53% of those 65 and older and 47% of those 50 to 64 say they are very confident that the language they use is not offensive; this compares with 38% of those ages 30 to 49 and just 31% of those 18 to 29.

Higher levels of education also are associated with greater concern over not using offensive language. About half of those with a postgraduate degree (52%) say it is very important to them not to use language others find offensive, compared with 43% of those who have a college degree, 37% of those with some college experience and 41% of those who have a high school diploma or less education. There are only slight educational differences in the shares saying they are very confident that they use language that is not offensive to others.

Within both political parties, there is a gender gap over the importance of using inoffensive language. Republican men (28%) are significantly less likely than Republican women (43%) to say it is very important to them personally to use language that is not offensive. And Democratic men (43%) prioritize this less than Democratic women (51%).

Younger Republicans and Democrats are both less likely than older adults in their respective parties to say it is very important to use language that other people do not find offensive. The size of the partisan gap is largely consistent across age groups, with Democrats expressing greater concern about this than Republicans.

Among Democrats, those with a postgraduate degree are significantly more likely than those with lower levels of education to say it is very important to them personally to use language other people do not find offensive. By contrast, there are no meaningful differences among Republicans by levels of educational attainment.
Have people changed how they discuss sensitive conversation topics?

When it comes to conversations around subjects like race, gender and religion, a narrow majority (55%) say they have not really changed how they talk about these subjects, while 45% say they are more careful with the language they use now than they used to be.

On balance, Republicans are more likely to say they have not really changed how they talk about these subjects (61%) than to say they are now more careful with the language they use (39%).

By contrast, Democrats are evenly split in their views. Half say they are more careful now than they used to be, while an identical share say they have not really changed how they talk about these subjects.

Younger adults are more likely than older adults to say they are more careful with the language they use to talk about subjects like race, gender and religion than they used to be.

Among adults ages 18 to 29, 52% say they are more careful with the language they use now, compared with 43% of adults ages 30 and older.

While there is no significant gender gap overall, Democratic men are more likely than Democratic women to say they are now more careful with the language they use when they talk about these subjects (54% vs. 46%, respectively). There are no differences between the views of Republican men and women.
Race, education differences in feeling ‘unfairly judged’ for language use

Overall, 35% of adults say they often (7%) or sometimes (28%) feel unfairly judged by others because of the language they use to express themselves. A larger share (64%) say they rarely (38%) or never (25%) feel unfairly judged by others because of how they express themselves.

While there are differences in these perceptions by age and race, there are no differences based on partisanship.

Roughly four-in-ten of those ages 18 to 29 (42%) and ages 30 to 49 (39%) say they often or sometimes feel unfairly judged by others because of the language they use to express themselves. Among those ages 50 to 64, 34% report feeling this way and just 24% of those 65 and older say they often or sometimes feel unfairly judged by others because of the language they use.

Hispanics (45%) and black people (38%) are significantly more likely than whites (30%) to say they feel unfairly judged by others because of the language they use to express themselves.

Among adults overall, those without a college degree (38%) are more likely than those who have graduated from college (29%) to say they often or sometimes feel unfairly judged by others because of the language they use to express themselves.

This education pattern is present among both whites and blacks. Among whites, 34% of those without a college degree say they often or sometimes feel unfairly judged because of the language they use to express themselves, compared with 23% of those who have graduated from college.

Similarly, black adults without a college degree are more likely than those who have graduated from college to say they at least sometimes feel unfairly judged by others because of how they express themselves (40% vs. 32%).

There are no significant differences among Hispanics on this question by level of educational attainment.

Overall, 36% of adults say that when they are around people with different racial and ethnic backgrounds than their own, they often (6%) or sometimes (30%) feel the need to change the way they express themselves. A majority of the public says they rarely (37%) or never (26%) feel the need to change how they interact with others of different racial backgrounds.

There are significant differences in these views by race and ethnicity. Four-in-ten blacks and Hispanics say they often or sometimes feel the need to change the way they express themselves around people with different racial and ethnic backgrounds than their own; a somewhat smaller share of whites (33%) says the same.

There is little overall difference in these views by level of educational attainment. However, black adults with a college degree are significantly more likely than blacks without a college degree to say they feel the need to change the way they express themselves when they are around those with different racial backgrounds than their own (48% vs. 37%).

This education pattern among black people can also be seen in the share who say they never feel the need to change the way they express themselves around people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Overall, 44% of blacks with a high school diploma or less education say they never feel the need to change the way they express themselves around people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds; blacks who have some college experience but no four-year degree (32%), or who have a four-year college or postgraduate degree (20%), are much less likely to say they never have to change the way they express themselves.


The challenge of knowing what’s offensive

Majorities of the public say there is not agreement in the country over what is considered sexist (65%) or racist (61%) language; and about half (48%) say it is hard to know what other people might find offensive.

There’s a modest partisan divide over whether it’s easy or hard to know what others might find offensive. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are somewhat more likely to say it’s hard (53%) than easy (46%) to know what other people might find offensive. By contrast, a narrow majority of Democrats and Democratic leaners (55%) say it’s easy to know what others might find offensive; 44% say it’s hard to know.

Postgraduates (59% to 40%) and college graduates (55% to 45%) are more likely to say it’s easy than hard to know what other people would find offensive. Those with some college experience or no more than a high school diploma are about evenly divided over how easy it is to know what others find offensive. Democrats with higher levels of education are more likely than less-educated Democrats to say it’s easy to know what others might find offensive. Among Republicans, there are no significant differences in views by level of education.

Six-in-ten of those who say it’s very important to them personally to use language that other people do not find offensive say it’s easy to know what people would be offended by. Smaller shares of those who say it’s somewhat (47%) or not too or not at all important (41%) to them personally to use inoffensive language say it’s easy to know what others find offensive.

By 61% to 38%, more Americans say people generally do not agree over what is considered racist language.

Black people are somewhat more likely than whites and Hispanics to say people agree about what is considered racist language. Still, just 44% of blacks say that people generally agree on what is considered to be racist language, while 53% say people do not agree on this. Majorities of whites (63%) and Hispanics (59%) say people do not agree on this.

Among Republicans and Republican leaners, 65% say people generally do not agree over the definition of racist language; 58% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say the same

Similar to views on what constitutes racist language, just 34% say people agree on what is considered to be sexist language; a far larger share (65%) says people do not agree about this.

There is no gender gap in views on this question: 65% of women and 64% of men say people generally do not agree over what sexist language is.

Among partisan groups, 67% of Republicans and Republican leaners and 63% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say people do not generally agree over what constitutes sexist language.

There are large partisan and racial differences when it comes to views on the care people should take with language and how quick people are to take offense.

When asked to choose which statement better describes their views, 60% say that too many people are easily offended these days over the language that others use; a smaller share (39%) says people need to be more careful about the language they use to avoid offending people with different backgrounds.

Views among whites and blacks are nearly the opposite of each other. About two-thirds of blacks (65%) say that people need to be more careful about the language they use to avoid offending others; 34% say that too many people are easily offended over language these days. Among whites, views are the reverse: 66% say that too many people are easily offended over the language others use, compared with 33% who say people should be more careful with their language. Among Hispanics, 54% say people are too easily offended, while 45% say people should be more careful with their language.

There is a wide partisan gap on this question. A large majority of Republicans and Republican leaners (82%) say people are too easily offended. By contrast, Democrats and Democratic leaners are more likely to say that people should be more careful with their language to avoid causing offense (56%) than to say that people are too easily offended over the language others use (42%).

Among Democrats, blacks are substantially more likely than whites to say that people need to be more careful with their language. About two-thirds (67%) of black Democrats say this, compared with 55% of white Democrats.


Rubén Weinsteiner

Felipe Solá: “Bolsonaro sólo quería una foto y hablar cinco minutos a un costado” con Alberto Fernández

Frustrada cumbre en Uruguay

El canciller argentino cuestionó así el pedido del presidente de Brasil para reunirse con su par argentino. Reveló que la gestión se hizo sin contemplar los temas la agenda bilateral.


El canciller Felipe Solá junto al presidente de Brasil, Jair Bolsonaro.


El canciller Felipe Solá aseguró este martes que el presidente de Brasil, Jair Bolsonaro, pidió reunirse con su par argentino, Alberto Fernández, porque "sólo quería una foto".

"Sólo quería una foto y conversar cinco minutos a un costado", advirtió el funcionario argentino al ser consultado sobre el pedido del jefe de Estado brasileño para verse con Fernández durante la ceremonia de asunción de Luis Lacalle Pou, en Montevideo.

Finalmente, esa reunión no se concretó porque el evento coincidió con el acto que encabezó el presidente Fernández para inaugurar las sesiones ordinarias del Congreso de la Nación. La intención oficial definir otra fecha para el encuentro bilateral con Bolsonaro.

Solá argumentó su cuestionamiento al advertir que esas gestiones de Brasil se realizaron sin contemplar una "agenda" para discutir los temas compartidos por ambos países.

Al respecto, en una entrevista con el diario El País de Uruguay, el canciller remarcó que hay una serie de cuestiones pendientes. "Por parte de las cancillerías hay unos 20 puntos. En casi todo no dijimos nada, salvo en los acuerdos de Mercosur y Unión Europea", detalló el funcionario al respecto.

El canciller también tomó distancia de la postura de Uruguay respecto a la crisis en Venezuela y aclaró que el gobierno de Fernández "no reconoce" al presidente encargado Juan Guaidó.

"Discrepamos con la postura de Uruguay respecto a Venezuela. Nosotros no reconocemos al gobierno de Guaidó. No nos gusta cómo gobierna (Nicolás) Maduro, pero por eso no vamos a dejar de reconocer que es un gobierno que nació en la democracia y que después se volvió autoritario. Pero ganar o perder se tiene que resolver en las urnas", desarrolló.





Seguido, recordó que Uruguay "invitó a la embajadora y al otro no (al gobierno de Maduro). Estoy de acuerdo que Maduro puede que sea una presencia provocativa. Pero ni siquiera aceptó al embajador de Venezuela en Uruguay…".

Solá dijo que el objetivo es que "se reduzcan las sanciones a Venezuela, en especial las norteamericanas, y eso no está ocurriendo". "Sin esa reducción no hay diálogo posible y sin diálogo no hay acuerdo. Sabemos que Maduro está negociando con parte de la oposición y que se avanza hacia elecciones legislativas", completó.

"Argentina va a ser interlocutor en todos los casos. La crisis en Venezuela es muy grave", ratificó

TikTok, la app que desbancó a WhatsApp:la aplicación desarrollada en China pasó a ser la más descargada en el mundo

Es una red social adictiva e hiperquinética para crear videos muy breves, en clave humor. Causa furor entre los preadolescentes.
Por Dolores Curia


Tiktok superó a WhatsApp y es la app más descargada en todo el mundo.


Facebook es para los padres. Twitter, un criadero de trolls. Instagram es el reino de la purpurina, la publicidad encubierta y la nada. O por lo menos así parecen verlo los preadolescentes del mundo y de más acá. Lo nuevo de lo nuevo es un invento chino. Una red social adictiva e hiperquinética para crear videos muy breves, en clave humor, donde el tono Cha cha cha, el playback y la destreza física le ganan por lejos a otro tipo de contenidos. Es la primera app de características sociales creada y gestionada por una empresa china que triunfa a semejante nivel en Occidente: de este lado del mundo se llama TikTok (la versión original china es “Douyin”) y es un éxito descomunal.

La empresa matriz es ByteDance y compite de igual a igual con Instagram, Facebook y Youtube, y ya expresó sus intenciones de absorber a Twitter y a Snapchat. Entre las cinco apps más populares del planeta, es la única que no pertenece a Mark Zuckerberg, este año se convirtió en la más descargada en el mundo. Bajó del podio nada menos que a WhatsApp.

En palabras de sus propios dueños que conversaron con este diario: “TikTok es el principal destino del mundo para videos móviles de formato corto y vertical, ya sea para crear y / o descubrir videos auténticos e interesantes que sean alegres y divertidos”. Así la describe Marina Wang, Editora Ejecutiva de Douyin, quien se refirió a la app como “una plataforma inclusiva que fomenta un fuerte sentido de comunidad y pertenencia donde se alienta a todos a ser auténticos”.

TIK TOK ES CUESTION DE TIEMPO

Para Miquel Pellicer, experto digital radicado en España y Director de Innovación de la agencia Interprofit, el efecto de encantamiento que TikTok produce en los púberes reside principalmente en sus posibilidades creativas: “Aprenden a desarrollar contenidos muy interesantes: edición de video, componen música, narran con imágenes. Hay millones de filtros y herramientas, no es nada sencillo de usar, hay que desarrollar habilidades. Puedes tomar un video de otro usuario y editarlo con uno propio. Son posibilidades infinitas. Puedo editarme jugando a la pelota haciendo papelones al lado de otro video con una jugada maestra de Messi”.

De la mano de la popularidad para TikTok llegaron también las polémicas. Una de ellas gira alrededor de las dudas que surgen frente a una app con mayoría de usuarios jovencísimos y una supuesta laxitud en sus políticas de privacidad. Uno de los puntos más conflictivos con respecto a este tema es que una vez que se sube un video, cualquier usuario puede descargarlo fácilmente, algo que es un poco, pero solo un poco, más difícil de hacer con otras redes sociales. “La verdad es que lo puedes configurar para que otra persona no te descargue tus videos. Y si yo quiero descargarme un video de otra persona en Instagram por ejemplo, por más que la app en sí no lo permita, hoy es muy sencillo grabar lo que sucede en la pantalla. Sí, hay miedos con respecto a ciertos lugares oscuros de los contenidos a los que pueden acceder los menores y las formas de facilitar o no cierto un control parental. Sé que la plataforma está trabajando en ello. Pero estos peligros son los mismos que con cualquier aplicación”, opina Pellicer.

Para Gabriela Martínez Castro, directora del Centro de Estudios Especializado en Trastornos de Ansiedad (www.ceeta.org) el furor de TikTok entre preadolescentes toma la forma de un universo paralelo sólo apto para menores. “Diría que para los niños y adolescentes argentinos hoy es la red social principal. Es el medio de comunicación que más usan, ya sea para chicos de cualquier estrato sociocultural, como para lxs adultxs podría ser hoy WhatsApp”. Es una comunidad, donde lxs tiktokers intercambian música, dialogan, se informan, se desinforman, se comparan, se imitan, eligen cómo vestirse, comparten sus angustias, sus anécdotas, se aconsejan, se enamoran, se pelean, se odian. Según Castro, TikTok es para esa franja etaria el gran generador de movimiento y ruido social “de velocísima expansión, que genera adhesión y a veces fanatismo y adicción. Es un espacio donde se habla mucho de discriminación pero también se la sufre”.

“Se habla desde los derechos de las mujeres hasta tips de cómo esquivar la injerencia de los padres. Es para los preadolescentes una comunidad global con sus propias reglas, sus propios lenguajes, deberes y obligaciones, donde pasan muchísimo tiempo del día”, asegura Castro, que recibe muchas consultas sobre el tema. “Allí circula información y los chicos se conectan mucho de modo virtual, pero la contracara de esto puede ser la pérdida de habilidades sociales en el mundo real, angustiarse tremendamente al borde del ataque de pánico ante un examen del colegio, mucha vergüenza para interactuar con otros en el mundo real. Chicos que tal vez pasan todo el día sin dirigirse la palabra con nadie en la escuela pero que chatean todo ese tiempo a través de la app, porque a través del celular les resulta mucho más fácil. Lo que yo observo es mucho aislamiento y mucha sensación de soledad desde muy temprana edad, incluso niños”.

Guido Entenberg, Psicólogo e integrante fundación ETCI (Equipo de Terapia Cognitiva Infantojuvenil) relata para Página12 que recibe muchas consultas sobre este tema y pero pone algunos paños fríos al asunto. Su recomendación para lxs adultxs que participan de la crianza de lxs jóvenxs usuarios es: “Háganse una cuenta, empiecen a usar TikTok, vean de que se trata”. Para Entenberg, lo que lxs adultxs pueden hacer ante este tema “no dista mucho de lo que ya hacen fuera de las redes. Lxs chicxs se van a encontrar en TikTok, como en cualquier red social, con los mismos desafíos que se encuentran fuera de ellas. Es imposible cubrir todos los agujeros y rincones de los peligros a los que pueden estar expuestos los chicos. Más que decirles ‘no uses esto’ creo que es mejor tratar de entender qué los motiva tanto, entrar en ese mundo, compartir con ellos. Preguntarles también si saben a qué tipo de cosas se exponen, si saben lo que es el bullying, lo que es el grooming. Preguntarles qué podría pasar si algo llegara a salir mal con uno de sus videos y quedaran expuestos a algo que no les guste”. En resumen, “en vez de decirle a tu hijo ‘dejá la Play’, aprendé a jugar al FIFA, y capaz te puede resultar divertido. Me llegan muchas consultas de gente preocupada por la cantidad de tiempo que los chicos pasan con las redes. Dicen que quieren limitárselo a una hora de pantalla diaria. Y está bien. Pero cuando ellos mismos llegan de trabajar están una hora con el celular y dos con Netflix. Entonces, ¿quién es el que tiene el problema con las pantallas?”.

Yo, tiktoker

En TikTok priman las coreografías, los sketchs de humor absurdo, la galería de vanidades, la anécdota de tono confesional, los challengers (que son desafíos generados por la app, que reta a imitar alguna habilidad corporal o mental, filmarse y compartirla) y también abundan los alegatos contra toda autoridad, imitaciones donde quedan mal parados padres, madres y docentes, entre otras figuras de poder de la niñez y la adolescencia.

El perfil de Cande Copello, tiktoker local y pionera, usuaria desde 2015, con casi tres millones de seguidores, no se distancia mucho de los contenidos más usuales. Esta joven de 19 años le contó a Pagina12 que le dedica a la app de los videos relámpago un poco más de horas que un trabajo de jornada completa: “Paso casi todas las noches viendo videos para inspirarme y actualizarme en las herramientas y posibilidades técnicas y artísticas, porque las van actualizando todo el tiempo y además me lleva unas dos o tres horas diarias producir, grabar y editar mis videos”. También recibe, indicaciones y sugerencias de los talent managers de la app para mejorar su rendimiento, con tips sobre cómo recaudar más likes.

La empresa detrás de TikTok, según la revista especializada Fast Company, tiene más de 40 mil personas contratadas, diez veces más que Twitter, pero millones de generadores de contenido como Cande Copello, que lo hacen gratuitamente. En cierto modo el motor invisible de este fenómeno tecnofinanciero, cuyas ganancias se calculan millonarias y que para 2021 se proyecta que supere los 700 millones de usuarixs, parece ser el tiempo, el cuerpo, la energía, el carísima, la inventiva y demás habilidades de sus tiktokers, por lo menos de aquellxs que a raíz de su número de seguidores pueden considerarse influencers. "Es una pena que todo esto no se monetice para nosotros, como si pasa con los youtubers”, lamenta Copello. “Al contrario de YouTube, TikTok no le paga a sus influencers. Sí me han invitado a viajes, como cuando con 16 años me llevaron a Los Ángeles a un encuentro de tiktokers de todo el mundo”. La paga que reciben lxs tiktokers es indirecta y la mayoría de las veces por canje, a través de marcas que se contactan para que usen y recomienden sus productos.

TIK TOK ¿ES UNA BOMBA?

“Desde escenas cómicas hasta clips rápidos de rutinas diarias, TikTok muestra una amplia gama de contenido creativo e inspirador que brinda alegría ilimitada a todos sus usuarios de todas las edades y generaciones, todo a través de una aplicación fácil de usar. TikTok ofrece algo para todos. No hacemos hincapié en los jóvenes, sino que trasciende generaciones”: así la describe Marina Wang desde la casa matriz de ByteDance en Beijing, con énfasis en palabras como “felicidad” y “pureza”. Sin embargo, si bien TikTok se presenta como una app de diversión apolítica, Estados Unidos la tiene en la mira como una posible una amenaza para la seguridad nacional.

En los últimos días, la administración de Seguridad en el Transporte de Estados Unidos (TSA) les prohibió a sus empleados descargar la app de origen oriental en sus teléfonos personales. Y se analiza extender la medida al ejército y a otras áreas vinculadas con Defensa. “Estos videos realmente te hacen reír, son creativos, pero China podría estar riéndose por razones muy diferentes y eso debería preocuparnos”, dijo el senador demócrata Chuck Schumer, uno de los impulsores de las restricciones al uso de la app en las áreas de gobierno del país del norte.

También hubo acusaciones contra TikTok de “sembrar propaganda islámica” -según The Wall Street Journal- y hasta hubo voces que advirtieron que la app china era usada como plataforma de propaganda de Estado Islámico para hipnotizar y reclutar infantes. En resumen, un gran estado de alerta envuelve a TikTok, que viniendo de parte del país gobernado por Donald Trump funciona como un irónico espejo invertido: pánico ante la sospecha de que a través de la app el gobierno chino obtenga información de metadata de ciudadanos norteamericanos… ¡teléfono para Cambridge Analytica!

A pesar de haber sido diseñada explícitamente para desmotivar el intercambio de noticias (casi no hay marcas temporales en los posteos, ni posibilidad de compartir links y los anuncios políticos están prohibidos explícitamente), la sensación de confesionario y verosimilitud que otorga el facetime, la brevedad y pregnancia de los mensajes y la facilidad que ofrece para viralizar un video aún si el usuario tiene un número relativamente pobre de seguidores, hacen de TikTok la manera más efectiva para que cualquier individuo de a pie llegue a una audiencia considerable en un lapso corto de tiempo.

TIKTOK ES EL MENSAJE

Es por esto que los equipos de campaña de Estados Unidos hace rato que miran con otros ojos ese espacio para replantear sus estrategias de contenidos. Trump, quien con tanta habilidad ha sabido hacer un chiste de sí mismo, lo sabe perfectamente. Uno de los videos con record en reproducciones salido de TikTok es el que repone la letra de la canción “Señorita” a partir de fragmentos de los discursos del Presidente de Estados Unidos. Pero no todas son flores para el oficialismo. También se cuenta entre los más virales de los últimos meses el montaje que tiene a su vice, Mike Pence, de protagonista, con el que se da a entender que está a favor de las terapias de shock para la “conversión” para personas lgbti.

“Tal como los grandes medios como The Washington Post están llegando a TikTok y lo hacen aggiornándose a esta estética tan fresca, en España Podemos también tiene allí su perfil. Es el único partido que de momento está, pero van a ir llegando los otros”, agrega el experto español Miquel Pellicer. “Esto se explica porque el elector de Podemos es un votante joven y se trata de una fuerza política que se consolidó alrededor de las protestas del 15M, es decir, hay un gran entrenamiento en manejo de redes. Es un partido nativo digital”.

Para Pellicer, “los políticos en general se están dando cuenta de que en TikTok hay un gran poder de narrativa. Y si no, mírenla a Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez”. Pellicer se refiere a la congresista más joven de la historia norteamericana, hija de migrantes latinos, con poca experiencia partidaria y, sin duda, la gran estrella del momento de la comunicación política. Lo que Pellicer describe como “una verdadera millennial parlamentaria: basta con ver sus Instagram live, que son un éxito. Alexandria registra lo que hace en sus stories y responde los comentarios de todo el mundo”. Tal como describe Pellicer: “TikTok se está convirtiendo en un buen terreno de juego de cara las elecciones en Estados Unidos en el que se reúnen creadores de contenidos, periodistas, analistas políticos, medios y candidatos”.



No es un dato menor que casi la mitad de lxs usuarixs de TikTok tengan entre 14 y 26 años, es decir, lxs votantes que este año se incorporan a a votar en Estados Unidos. Además de futuros creadores audiovisuales y electores debutantes, podría pensarse que la app oriental ya acoge a quienes van a reemplazar en pocos años a los analistas políticos televisivos. Con la pose frente a cámara como estado natural y de entrecasa, lxs tiktokers han entendido perfectamente el quid para hacer llegar sus mensajes sea cual sea el contenido: sin tiempo para el parpadeo y ante una audiencia que pide cada vez mayor velocidad, la letra entra, antes que con sangre, con humor y en forma de meme.

La Fed sale al rescate de la economía de EEUU con una baja de tasas de emergencia por el coronavirus



Jerome Powell, titular de la Reserva Federal. La Reserva Federal de Estados Unidos bajó las tasas de interés en forma de emergencia.

La Reserva Federal de Estados Unidos bajó las tasas de interés el martes, una decisión de emergencia diseñada para proteger a la economía más grande del mundo del impacto del coronavirus.

Se trató del primer recorte de emergencia de las tasas de interés desde 2008, en el punto álgido de la crisis financiera, lo que pone de manifiesto la severidad con que el banco central está observando el rápido deterioro del panorama por la propagación del coronavirus en el mundo.

En un comunicado, a Fed anunció la disminución del rango meta de la tasa de fondos federales a 1,00%-1,25%.

"Los fundamentos de la economía de Estados Unidos siguen siendo sólidos. Sin embargo, el coronavirus plantea riesgos en curso para la actividad económica", dijo la Fed en un comunicado.

"En vista de estos riesgos y para apoyar los objetivos del máximo empleo y estabilidad de precios, el Comité de Mercado Abierto de la Reserva Federal decidió hoy (martes) reducir el rango meta de la tasa de fondos federales", indicó. La decisión fue unánime entre los responsables de la política monetaria.

En una rueda de prensa, el presidente de la Fed, Jerome Powell, dijo que el coronavirus pesaría sobre la economía de Estados Unidos por algún tiempo y sostuvo que cree que la acción del banco central proporcionaría "un impulso significativo a la economía".

"Vimos un riesgo para las perspectivas de la economía y decidimos actuar", destacó Powell. "Sé que la economía de Estados Unidos es fuerte (...) Espero que regresemos a un crecimiento sólido y también a un mercado laboral sólido".

La medida de la Fed se conoce antes de su próxima reunión programada para el 17 y 18 de marzo y refleja la urgencia con que siente que debe actuar para evitar la posibilidad de una recesión mundial.

Las acciones estadounidenses subieron inicialmente tras el anuncio, que de hecho era esperado por algunos en el mercado cuando se hizo evidente que el virus COVID-19 no podría ser contenido en China, pero luego volvieron a operar en rojo.

El brote ha paralizado las cadenas globales de suministros y produjo una debacle de las bolsas ante el temor a una recesión mundial.

La recaudación tributaria cayó 5,6% real y obligó al BCRA a emitir para financiar el déficit

La recesión volvió a jugar en contra, en un mes con escaso acceso al crédito privado

 





La recaudación de febrero registró una caída de 5,6% interanual en términos reales, si se corrobora el 2,5% de inflación que espera la city (ver página 4). Se trató de un pésimo mes para los ingresos públicos, de la mano de la recesión. Eso a pesar del intento del Gobierno de dinamizar a través de su política fiscal, de ingresos y monetaria.

Febrero tuvo un problema extra para el Tesoro: por el reperfilamiento del AF20, las licitaciones del mes apenas recaudaron $12.000 millones. Por eso el BCRA volvió a asistir por $170.000 millones, sin consecuencias en los dólares oficial y paralelo -por el cepo y la sobredolarización prelectoral- ni en la inflación -por el congelamiento de tarifas-.



Con todo, los números de recaudación publicados mostraron que, más que dinamizar, la política oficial apenas tendría por ahora algún potencial para no echarle más leña al fuego de la recesión. "Si bien la caída de la economía no se profundiza, el mercado interno todavía no recupera el dinamismo", evaluaron desde Afip.

Algunos números de enero (producción de autos, despachos de cemento e importaciones) mostraron que en el primer mes del año la economía moderó su flojo desempeño. En la continuidad, febrero, los datos de recaudación no fueron muy alentadores, con IVA desplomándose e impuesto al cheque matizando, dos indicadores de consumo pero con una diferencia clave: la recaudación de IVA tiene rezago, y $8 de cada $10 corresponden a tributos del mes anterior, por lo que la suba de febrero, que fue de 30,3%, es decir un negativo de 13,7% en términos reales, en realidad correspondería al flojo consumo de enero.

Desde Afip afirmaron que las compensaciones que se realizan desde IVA hacia ganancias, combustibles e internos también afectaron la recaudación del tributo. La consultora LCG estimó que sin ellas el IVA habría estado 7 puntos por encima, marcando una baja real en torno a 9%.

El impuesto al cheque, en cambio, subió su recaudación 41,9%, pero con un día hábil menos que febrero del 2019. Desde LCG cuantificaron lo que dejó de aportar esa jornada de menos y señalaron que sin ella la mejora habría sido de 50,3%. Una baja real de 0,5%.

Desde Afip destacaron que el mal desempeño de la recaudación sigue sosteniéndose en la recesión y en el camino negativo del empleo y el salario. Sin embargo, los números mostraron desaceleración de la caída, de 4 puntos, respecto a enero.

La consultora ACM señaló en ese sentido: "Los impuestos asociados a la Seguridad Social tuvieron un desempeño levemente por encima del promedio, con una suba de 42,8%, mostrando cierta recuperación en términos reales respecto de enero. La dinámica en los próximos meses estará influida por las negociaciones paritarias y el desempeño del empleo formal". Desagregando, los aportes personales tuvieron una mejora nominal de 42,3%, lo que en términos reales significó una caída de 5,8%. Las contribuciones patronales, por su parte, treparon 44,9%, también por debajo de la inflación, marcando una contracción real de 4,1%.

El mercado baja su expectativa de inflación para este año al 40%

Se trata del tercer recorte de manera consecutiva. El REM también moderó su pronóstico de recesión a un 1,2%.
El Banco Central publicó este viernes el Relevamiento de Expectativas de Mercado (REM) del mes de febrero en el que se recortaron las previsiones de inflación de las consultoras al 40% para el 2020.

Se trata de la tercera actualización a la baja de forma consecutiva a partir de los buenos resultados que mostró el Índice de Precios al Consumidor (IPC). De hecho, el informe de la máxima autoridad monetaria cuestionó "el desempeño productivo del REM", al que calificó como "decepcionante".

"A efectos de intentar rescatar el relevamiento, el BCRA ha introducido mecanismos de incentivo para los participantes con la expectativa que resulten en una significativa mejora del REM", informó el Central en relación al nuevo ranking de los mejores pronosticadores de cada variable.

Sucede que en enero el mercado había anticipado una inflación del 3,5% y finalmente terminó en el 2,3%, según reportó el Indec. Por el contrario, durante los últimos dos años del gobierno de Macri mantuvo una visión sumamente optimista que siempre corrió por detrás de los números oficiales y se quedó corta tanto respecto a la inflación como a la magnitud de la recesión.

En este informe, las consultoras prevén un avance del 2,5% en el nivel general de precios de febrero, más de medio punto porcentual por encima de lo estimado por Eco Go y Orlando Ferreres.

En tanto, los analistas del REM prevén una contracción del Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) real para 2020 de 1,2%, lo que constituye una caída de 0,3 puntos porcentuales en relación a los pronósticos de enero.

Finalmente, el mercado espera que el tipo de cambio oficial finalice el año en $78,9 y que el déficit fiscal primario totalice $135.300 millones.

Young adults around the world are less religious by several measures

Adults under 40 are less likely to be religiously affiliated

Perhaps the simplest way to measure attachment to religion among people of all ages is to look at the percentage of people who identify with a religious group. Pew Research Center surveys around the world routinely ask: “What is your present religion, if any?” Respondents are given a country-specific list of potential responses (which generally include several major world religions, as well as “atheist,” “agnostic” or “nothing in particular”).

The vast majority of people around the world claim a religious identity, such as Christian, Muslim or Hindu. But there is a clear age gap: Out of 106 countries surveyed, young adults are significantly less likely to be affiliated with a religious group in 41. In only two countries are young adults more likely to identify with a religion, while there is no significant difference in 63 countries.

Looked at another way, young adults are more likely to be religiously unaffiliated. This is especially true in North America, where in both the U.S. and Canada younger people are less likely to claim a religious identity. (These findings are in line with the rise of the religious “nones” in the U.S., which is being driven largely by high levels of disaffiliation among young generations.) The gap is also prevalent in Europe – in 22 out of 35 countries – and in Latin America, where it applies in 14 out of 19 countries (including Mexico).

However, the pattern is not as pronounced in other parts of the world. In the Middle East-North Africa region and sub-Saharan Africa, where most people identify as either Muslim or Christian, there are no countries where young people are less affiliated. In fact, the only two countries out of a combined 30 in these regions with an affiliation gap are Chad and Ghana, where young adults are more likely than their elders to claim a religious affiliation – making these nations the only exceptions to the prevailing pattern around the world.

In the Asia-Pacific region, a religiously diverse area with a wide variety of religious practices, 17 out of 20 countries show no significant contrasts. However, the three nations in that region that do show differences – South Korea, Australia and Japan – have some of the world’s biggest gaps. In South Korea, 39% of younger adults are affiliated with a religious group, compared with 63% of their elders, a difference of 24 points. In Australia, the gap is 23 points (43% vs. 66%), and in Japan it is 18 points (31% vs. 49%). In many other countries in the region, such as Pakistan, India and Indonesia, affiliation is all but universal across both age groups.

There is a particularly large gap in religious affiliation – 28 percentage points – in Canada (49% of adults under 40 and 77% of older adults are affiliated). The U.S. differential is smaller, though still considerable at 17 points (66% vs. 83%).

In the average country out of 35 in Europe, there is a 10-point difference between the share of younger adults who identify with a religion (75%) and the share of older adults who do (85%), with the Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Norway and Sweden each showing gaps of 20 points or more. In the Latin America-Caribbean region, the average country has a gap of 6 points (87% vs. 93%), with Uruguay and the Dominican Republic exhibiting large differences.

Averaging the national percentages in each of the 106 countries surveyed yields a global picture that clearly reinforces the regional patterns: The share of younger adults in the average country worldwide who claim a religion is 85%, compared with 90% among people ages 40 or older. 16
Importance of religion: Older adults regard religion as less important in only two countries

Asking people about their affiliation is a basic way to measure a society’s overall attachment to religion. Asking respondents how important religion is in their lives goes one step further, and may be the most direct way to gauge the intensity of that connection. While this question does not directly measure any particular religious practice, it correlates well with more concrete measures – and also has an advantage in that it works equally well across many different religious groups, which is not the case for some specific measures of belief and practice.

Younger adults in many different parts of the world are less likely than their elders to say that religion is “very important” to them. This is a particularly prevalent theme in Latin America, where age gaps appear in 14 out of 19 countries. It is also common in Europe, where 19 out of 35 countries show significant gaps. The United States and Canada also post larger-than-average differences.

There are even significant age gaps in four out of nine countries surveyed in the Middle East-North Africa region, where younger and older adults are almost universally affiliated.

In the Asia-Pacific region, there is no significant difference between age groups in 15 out of 20 countries surveyed, although – as on the affiliation question – South Korea and Japan again are among the countries where the young are less religious. And in sub-Saharan Africa, younger and older adults tend to give similar responses when asked about the importance of religion in most of the 21 countries surveyed.

Globally, adults under 40 are less likely to say that religion is very important in their lives in 46 out of 106 nations, while adults who are 40 or older are less likely to say this in only two countries. In 58 countries, there is no significant difference.

When the national percentages are averaged across all of the countries with available data, younger adults are 6 percentage points less likely than their elders to say religion is “very important” in their lives.

In Latin America, the average country has a gap of 10 points. While the average age gap in Europe is somewhat smaller (7 points), the region is home to two of the world’s biggest country-level gaps: Poland, where 16% of adults under 40 and 40% of older people say religion is very important to them, and Greece (41% vs. 63%). There is also a 7-point gap in the average Middle Eastern country, led by Lebanon (20-point gap) and Algeria (12 points).

In a couple of countries (Georgia and Ghana), the age gap goes against the global pattern; in these places, young adults are more religious than their elders by this measure. For example, in Ghana – where young adults are also more likely to be affiliated – 91% of younger adults say religion is very important in their lives, compared with 85% of older adults.

Looking at specific religious groups, half (50%) of younger Christians in the average country – in contrast to 56% of those in the older age group – say religion is very important in their lives. The gap between younger and older Muslims in the average country is 3 percentage points, with 76% of those under 40 and 79% of those ages 40 and older saying that religion is very important.

Viewed another way, in roughly half the countries where data are available on Christians (37 out of 78), young Christian adults are significantly less likely than older Christians to say religion is very important to them.

Muslims’ responses about the importance of religion in their lives show less of a consistent age gap. Young Muslims in 10 countries surveyed are less likely than their elders to ascribe a high level of importance to religion, while in 32 other countries, there is no significant difference.
Weekly religious service attendance: Young adults worship less often in both Christian and Muslim populations

Young adults are, on the whole, less likely than their elders to say they attend religious services every week.

Lower attendance among young adults is especially pervasive in Latin America, where it is seen in 17 out of 19 countries, and in North America, where both the U.S. and Canada show substantial gaps. The pattern also applies to more than half of the countries surveyed in the Middle East-North Africa region and in Europe.

Globally, younger adults are less likely to attend prayer services than their elders in 53 out of 102 countries surveyed, while the opposite is true in just three – Liberia, Rwanda and Armenia. Liberia is a major outlier by this measure; younger Liberians are much more likely than their older compatriots to say they worship at least weekly (85% vs. 66%). One reason for this could be that recent civil wars in Liberia may have affected levels of religious commitment differently among older and younger Liberians (for more on this theory, see sidebar below).


Unusual age patterns in religious commitment linked to violent conflict

While the general trend throughout the world is for younger people to enjoy more peace and prosperity than previous generations – forming the basis for one possible explanation for the persistent age gap in religious commitment – this is not always the case. In fact, the few countries where young adults are more religious than their elders all have something in common: a recent history of violent conflicts leading to civilian deaths.17

Any number of possible factors may explain these exceptional cases, and each country has its own set of unique circumstances. But it may be that conditions in these places were at least somewhat more stable when older adults were coming of age, and the existential insecurity experienced by younger adults explains why they are more religious. Indeed, research has found that religious identity is more likely to be influenced by events in early adulthood than later.18

In Liberia, younger adults are more likely than older adults to pray every day and attend weekly religious services. These age groups also differ in their affiliations: Younger Liberians are almost exclusively Christian or Muslim (96%), but a considerable minority of Liberians ages 40 and older (29%) identify with an ancestral, animist, tribal or other traditional African religion.19 Liberia has experienced two civil wars within the lifetimes of younger adults, one from 1989 to 1997 and the other from 1999 to 2003. The survey in Liberia was conducted in 2009; all adults under 40 in the survey would have been born after 1969, with most coming of age during wartime.

In addition, younger adults in Ghana – where clan-based violence over royal succession killed more than 2,000 people in the early 1990s – are more likely to be affiliated and to say that religion is very important. In Rwanda, where government forces and militias killed over 500,000 people and displaced millions in 1994, younger adults attend religious services more frequently than older adults. And in Chad, which has experienced violent conflicts involving the government, rebel groups and neighboring countries for decades, younger adults are more likely to identify with a religion and pray every day.

Not all of the examples are in Africa: Younger adults in Georgia say religion is very important to them more often than older adults do. Georgia has experienced a secessionist war in Abkhazia and a conflict with Russia in the past three decades, although the fall of the Soviet Union may also be a factor in religious differences by age. Older adults in Georgia mostly came of age during the Soviet period, when religion was repressed – including by Georgian-born leader Joseph Stalin.

At the same time, other countries have experienced conflict during the same period and do not show these types of patterns. In Bosnia-Herzegovina and Israel, for example, any differences in which younger adults may appear more religious are not statistically significant. And, in the Palestinian territories and the Democratic Republic of Congo, younger adults have experienced a great deal of armed conflict but still follow the prevailing global pattern of being less religious than their elders.

In the average country around the world, adults under 40 are 6 percentage points less likely than older people to say they go to worship services weekly (36% vs. 42%).

Again, by this measure, gap sizes vary by region. In sub-Saharan Africa, younger and older adults attend at similarly high rates (averages of 78% and 79%, respectively). But in the average country in the Middle East-North Africa region, just 44% of young adults say they are weekly attenders – well below the 55% average of those ages 40 and older who describe themselves this way. The average country’s age gap in worship attendance in this overwhelmingly Muslim region is similar to the one in the predominantly Christian Latin America region (38% vs. 48%) There also is a 6-point gap in the average country in the religiously diverse Asia-Pacific region (31% vs. 37%).

In Europe, weekly attendance is less common overall, but there is still an age gap (10% vs. 16%). And Poland stands out as having by far the largest gap among all countries surveyed: 26% of Polish adults under 40 say they attend religious services weekly, compared with 55% of their elders. The unusually large age gap in Poland may be due to the Catholic Church’s association with nationalism, Polish identity and resistance to the Soviet Union during Poland’s communist period; younger Poles did not experience this period firsthand, but it may have had a lasting impact among the older generation.20

Adults under 40 in Colombia, another predominantly Catholic country, also are much less likely than their elders to go to church regularly. And there are similar patterns in different religious contexts in the Muslim-majority countries of Iran, Jordan and Tunisia.

Indeed, at the global level, younger Muslims attend mosque less frequently, on average, than older Muslims, just as younger Christians attend church less often than older Christians.

Measuring religious observance by weekly attendance at worship services does not work equally well for all major religious groups. While it is generally a reliable measure of religious norms within Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Islam and Judaism), it may be less well suited for Buddhism, Hinduism and other Eastern religions.21

For Hindus, data are only available from the U.S.; the 11-point gap in weekly attendance between older and younger American Hindus is not necessarily representative of Hindus globally, since the vast majority of the world’s Hindus live in India.
Daily prayer: Large age gaps in the Americas

The generational divide in religious commitment is most apparent when examining daily prayer. Not only is it the measure with the highest number of countries with an age gap, but it is also the measure by which the average country has the biggest gap globally.

Young adults are less likely to pray daily in all 19 countries surveyed in Latin America, in both the U.S. and Canada, and in 27 out of 35 European countries. Gaps also exist in several countries in the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East-North Africa region and sub-Saharan Africa. Overall, the pattern holds in 71 out of 105 countries surveyed.

In the U.S., 44% of young adults engage in daily prayer, compared with 62% of those ages 40 and older. Canadians in both age groups pray less than their American counterparts, yet they also have a large age gap, with 16% of younger and 30% of older adults praying daily. There also are double-digit differences between the average shares of older and younger adults who pray daily in Latin America, the Middle East and Europe.

In sub-Saharan Africa, again, the average country’s gap is negligible at 3 percentage points, with high rates of daily prayer among both younger and older adults (74% vs. 77%). Similar to religious service attendance, Liberia bucks the global pattern – young Liberians are more likely than older Liberians to pray daily. This is also the case in Chad, where young adults also are more likely to be religiously affiliated.

Despite regional variations, the global pattern is clear: In the average country, across 105 countries surveyed, fewer than half of adults under 40 (44%) say they pray at least once a day, while most people ages 40 and older (54%) do this. 22

Some of the countries with especially large age gaps in daily prayer are highly religious overall, while others are not. For example, in Nicaragua, young adults are 17 percentage points less likely to say they pray daily than older Nicaraguans (67% vs. 83%). Finland has a similarly sized gap of 15 points, even though daily prayer is far less common among Finns in both age groups (8% vs. 23%).

An age gap in daily prayer is also found within multiple religious groups. Overall, young Christian adults are less likely to pray daily in 48 countries – a solid majority of the 77 countries with a sufficient sample of Christians to analyze. In the average country, 42% of young Christians pray daily, compared with 51% of older Christians. For Muslims, there is a significant age gap in daily prayer in 16 of 41 countries with data, with an average gap of 7 percentage points across those countries.

There is a similar age gap among Hindus in India (74% vs. 81%) – where more than 90% of the world’s Hindus live – and an even larger one among Hindus in the U.S. (39% vs. 62%). (India and the U.S. are the only countries with a sufficient number of Hindu respondents to enable comparisons between age groups.)

Among Jews in both the U.S. and Israel, there is no significant age gap in daily prayer, perhaps in part because Orthodox Jews – who tend to have more children – make up a growing share of both Jewish populations, and thus a larger percentage of young Jewish adults.


Rubén Weinsteiner