Mindsets Revisited: Results of the Second Iteration of the Census Barriers, Attitudes, and

Motivators Survey

Monica J. Wroblewski, U.S. Census BureauFrederica R. Conrey, Booz Allen

Randal ZuWallack, ICF MacroRobynne Locke, ICF Macro

AAPOR Orlando, FL

May 17, 2012

Background CBAMS I Survey conducted in support of the 2010 Census

Integrated Communications Program (ICP) Fielded from July – August 2008 by ICF Macro

Measured attitudes towards and knowledge of the Census, potential motivators and barriers to participation, ranking of potential messages, and demographics

Revealed 5 distinct mindsets among the population that varied in knowledge of and attitudes toward the Census

Results contributed to the development of targeted 2010 Census messaging

CBAMS II - Methodology Fielded May – July 2011 Landline, cell phone, and in-person interviews Included HTC populations: American Indian Reservations, sites with

high Hispanic population density, sites with high Asian population density, and rural areas with high poverty

Conducted in English and Spanish for all modes and also in Vietnamese and Chinese for in-person surveys

$10 incentive for in-person interviews 4,071 completed interviews (combined response rate of 33.6%)*

2,004 landline (26% RR) 995 cell phone (16% RR) 1,071 in-person (64% RR)

*Response rates calculated using AAPOR RR3

CBAMS II Research Questions:

1. What is the best method for identifying Census mindsets;

2. Did mindsets change since the implementation of the 2010 Census ICP;

3. Can mindsets be categorized differently moving forward, and if yes, what are the new mindsets; and

4. What are the profiles of the new mindsets.

What is the best method for creating mindsets? Methods Tested

K-Means Q-Factor Latent Class Analysis (LCA)

Decision Criteria1. Segment Distribution and Size: Are the models producing actionable segments?2. Distinction of Segments: Clarity of profiles and distinguishing features3. Reclassification: Discriminant analysis to evaluate re-creation of segments

Used a total of 21 variables K-Means and Q-Factor Continuous or ordinal variables LCA Categorical variables

Tested 4, 5, and 6 mindset solutions for each method

Distribution of Mindsets for Four, Five, and Six Mindset Solutions Using Different Methods

   Four Mindset Solutions  Five Mindset Solutions  Six Mindset Solutions Mindset  K‐Means  Q‐Factor  LCA  K‐Means  Q‐Factor  LCA  K‐Means  Q‐Factor  LCA 1  36%  36%  36%  28%  28%  33%  23%  30%  24% 2  22%  29%  31%  26%  24%  25%  18%  22%  23% 3  22%  19%  18%  23%  19%  17%  16%  19%  18% 4  19%  16%  15%  14%  16%  13%  15%  16%  14% 5    9%  13%  12%  14%  11%  13% 6      13%  2%  9% 

Range of Percent Intent to Respond for Four Mindset Solution Using Different Methods

Mindset  K‐Means  Q‐Factor  LCA 1  76%  79%  88% 2  68%  65%  77% 3  56%  59%  62% 4  59%  59%  35% Overall  20%  20%  53% 

Average range across all variables for 6 segment solution 23% for K‐Means 27% for Q‐Factor 37% for LCA

Error Rates in Classification for Four, Five, and Six Mindset Solutions Using Different Methods   Four Mindset Solutions  Five Mindset Solutions  Six Mindset Solutions Mindset  K‐Means  Q‐Factor  LCA  K‐Means  Q‐Factor  LCA  K‐Means  Q‐Factor  LCA 1  4%  29%  10%  4%  29%  11%  5%  33%  17% 2  10%  20%  10%  4%  20%  13%  9%  12%  19% 3  13%  8%  9%  12%  10%  12%  15%  26%  13% 4  10%  13%  2%  3%  14%  4%  3%  15%  2% 5     19%  17%  8%  10%  19%  14% 6        12%  4%  1% Overall  9%  18%  8%  8%  18%  10%  9%  18%  11% 

Average error rate across solutions 9% for K‐Means 18% for Q‐Factor 10% for LCA

Summary: The Best Method for Creating Mindsets

LCA produces meaningful and actionable segment sizes K-Means tends to equalize segment distribution; Q-Factor produced a very small cluster

Groups identified using LCA had more distinct features than did groups identified using the other two approaches

K-Means and LCA had similar, low error rates, and Q-Factor analysis had consistently higher error rates

Recommendation: Use LCA to define CBAMS II mindsets

How are mindsets now different from mindsets created prior to the 2010 Census?

Comparison based upon retrospective fit of segments with variables common to CBAMS I and II (26 variables) using LCA

LCA model selection statistics suggest 4 mindsets for CBAMS I plus the Unacquainted

4 mindsets generally have characteristics that align with Leading Edge, Head Nodders, Insulated and Cynical Fifth

Group sizes changed

Additional large mindsets emerge in CBAMS II when adding a fifth and sixth segment, but not for CBAMS I

Implications Increase in Census affinity Cynical Fifth equivalent is less knowledgeable, suggesting migration

of most knowledgeable members to Leading Edge equivalent Increased knowledge of Census uses among Insulated equivalent Unacquainted down from 7 to 3% suggesting an overall increase in

Census awareness

Comparison of Mindset Sizes

CBAMS ILCA

CBAMS IILCA

Leading Edge equivalent 20% 35%*

Head Nodders equivalent 20% 19%

Insulated equivalent 23% 23%

Cynical Fifth equivalent 30% 20%*

Unacquainted 7% 3%*

* Significant at p < 0.05

What are the CBAMS II Mindsets?

Results from previous question suggested there are now more than 5 segments

Explored 5, 6, 7, and 8 segment solutions with expanded set of variables Common to CBAMS I: affinity, knowledge, beliefs New to CBAMS II: trust in government/privacy, important issues,

paperwork, motivators

Recommendation: 7 segments

A. Gov’t Perception

B. Knowledge,Internet Preferences

C. Gov’t Trust, Paperwork Attitudes, andInternet Preferences

D. Knowledge,Paperwork Attitudes, and Internet Preferences

A

BDC

What are the final CBAMS II mindsets? 3 High Affinity Groups/Census is Important: Government-Minded Compliant and Caring Dutiful

1 Indifferent Group: Local-Minded

3 Low Affinity/Census is not Important Uninformed Cynical Suspicious

Government Minded (19%) Attitudes Completing the Census is a civic responsibility

Knowledge High knowledge of what the Census is and is not

used for Motivators Political Representation; Roads and Highways;

Fire and Police Services Demographics Educated, Affluent, Married, White, Mostly born in

the US, and Mostly speak English only

Compliant and Caring (15%) Attitudes Completing the Census is a civic responsibility Thinks there is personal benefit to completing the Census

Knowledge High knowledge of what the Census is and is not used for

Motivators Schools; Daycare; Health Care; Elder Care; Job Training

Demographics Female, Married, but otherwise Demographically Diverse

Dutiful (14%) Attitudes Completing the Census is a civic responsibility Responsibility to let the government know what the

community needs Knowledge Knowledgeable about Census uses Misinformed about what the Census is not used for

Motivators Political Representation; Schools; Fire and Police

Services; Healthcare Demographically Diverse

Local-Minded (12%)

Attitudes Believe government has their best interests in mind

Knowledge Misinformed about what the Census is not used for

Motivators Schools; Daycare; Health Care; Elder Care; Job Training

Demographics Female, Less Educated, Lower Income, Non-White,

and Many Immigrants

Uninformed (16%) Attitudes Does not believe the Census can personally

benefit or harm Knowledge Knowledgeable about what the Census is not used for Misinformed about Census uses

Motivators Hospitals and Elder Care

Demographics Less Educated, Lower Income, and Many do not speak

English in the home

Cynical (10%) Attitudes Concerned about personal information and privacy Low trust in the government

Knowledge Knowledgeable about what the Census is not used for

Motivators Political Representation; Roads and Highways; Fire

and Police Services Demographics Male, Older, Married, White, Mostly born in the US,

and Most speak English only

Suspicious (14%) Attitudes Low intent to reply Thinks the Census can personally harm

Knowledge Misinformed about Census uses

Motivators Schools and Healthcare

Demographics Young, Single, Mobile, Less Educated, and Ethnically

Diverse

Mindsets in Action Developing an easy to use segmentation tool Recruit for Focus Groups, etc. Append to Pre-Existing Surveys

Coordinating outreach efforts with Census partners

Future Iterations of CBAMS Monitor Mindsets Use results to aid in the design of the 2020 Census

communications campaign

Conclusions Identified a new method to classify mindsets: LCA

Found that, with respect to CBAMS I mindsets, CBAMS II mindsets are more knowledgeable about the Census with higher Census affinity

Seven final CBAMS II mindsets