Kindness
USA 2027
EXHIBIT A:
MSQ USA Kindness
Perception Indicator
(The MacLean | Schecter – Quanttitudes USA Kindness Perception Indicator)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary
2. Current State of Kindness Perception Among U.S.
Adults: Key Findings from the USA Kindness
Perception Survey
3. Description of the USA Kindness Perception Survey
Methodology (2015)
4. Kindness USA 2027: Goal Definition
5. Methodology for Measuring the MSQ USA
Kindness Perception Indicator and Determining if
the Goal Has Been Achieved in 2027
6. About MacLean | Schecter & Quanttitudes LLC
Independent Calculation Agent:
Holding Company:
KindnessUSA
Co-Sponsor:
Technology Partner:
Legal Advisors:
Document Management:
Accounting Advisors:
DreamCo LLC
Custom Designed & Led by:
www.dreamstore.me | Let’s do it together
1. Executive Summary
1.1.The MacLean | Schecter – Quanttitudes (MSQ) USA Kindness Perception Indicator measures the
percentage of adults in the U.S. who believe that people in the country are kind toward each other across
age, ethnic, racial, gender, political or other such typical differentiating factors. For the purposes of this
indicator a kind person is defined as someone who cares deeply about the well-being of others and
consistently demonstrates empathy and compassion toward them, even if they are strangers or people
they don’t consider friends, or even likeable on different levels.
While this indicator has been rigorously designed to measure kindness perceptions in the most accurate and
methodologically sound way possible, for guiding purposes and in the event of unforeseen developments
in survey methodology in the coming years, we establish the “Spirit of the Indicator” as follows:
“The measurement of U.S. adults’ perception of whether other people in the U.S. have a deep respect
for the human life, human condition, and well-being of their fellow Americans,1 even those with whom
they may not share common characteristics such as religion, ethnicity, race, gender, political ideology,
geography, or economic or social status.”
1.2. The current estimate is that no more than 25% of U.S. adults perceive their fellow Americans as kind people
per the definition provided in point 1.1, according to Quanttitudes LLC (the Independent Calculation Agent,
or ICA, of the MSQ USA Kindness Perception Indicator). This estimate is based on a survey conducted by
Quanttitudes and MacLean | Schecter in July 2015.
1.3.The USA Kindness Perception Survey was a research study conducted by Quanttitudes and MacLean |
Schecter in order to obtain an initial read of the perception of kindness among U.S. adults. The survey was
also conducted to test the conceptual framework guiding the design of the MSQ USA Kindness Perception
Indicator and to experiment with questions designed to measure the different dimensions of kindness, per
such framework.
1.4. The benchmark for achieving the Kindness USA 2027 goal has been set at getting an ambitious 80% of
U.S. adults to perceive that they live in a kind society.
1.5. Section 5 provides a detailed explanation of the methodology behind the MSQ USA Kindness Perception
Indicator. It is important to remark that the indicator faces demands that are unusual for most survey research
endeavors. Namely, it must serve as the basis for enacting (or leaving without effect) a legally binding
contract backing multimillion-dollar transactions. As such, its sample must be robust enough to estimate
the perception of kindness among U.S. adults with the lowest margin of sampling error—including design
effects—that can be reasonably achieved. Therefore, some of the customary cost-efficiency decisions that
apply to surveys with less stringent demands for accuracy (i.e., largely disproportionate sampling designs
that boost the sample size of strategically important segments, with a minimum increase in the overall
sample size) are not practical in this case, as they tend to gain efficiency at the expense of large design
effects. Also, according to studies of kindness in the U.S.,2 population density and U.S. census region
are key variables explaining the variability of this phenomenon. Therefore, these variables will be used
as our stratification criteria for this sample. Finally, the MSQ USA Kindness Perception Indicator may be
monitored periodically by different individuals throughout the 10-year time frame of contract maturity. The
objective of these periodic measurements would be to allow entities in charge of promoting kindness at the
city/county level to track their progress toward the goal. Therefore, the sample design we chose factors
in the need to provide city/county-level readings, starting with the most important U.S. cities in terms of
population.
1.6. MacLean | Schecter is an organization founded with the belief that “Anything a Society Truly Wants Can
Be Financed and Achieved.” As such, it is committed to creating a better world through the custom design,
engineering and production of DreamFutures contracts, securities and markets. MacLean | Schecter seeks
to innovate in an area where people lack empowerment to help shape the world they truly want to live in.
It seeks to develop powerful simplicities, like the Kindness USA DreamFuture, so that individuals and
organizations will find it very simple to unleash a powerful force in realizing the dreams that are meaningful
to them, while eliminating the risk that the capital they channel toward their desired socially impactful goal
1
1
2
The term “Americans” refers to those who reside in the U.S. and may include non-U.S. citizens
Robert Levine “The Kindness of Strangers,” American Scientist. May–June 2003
can be lost if such goal is not achieved (in accordance with the terms of a particular DreamFuture). We
believe this powerful force will come from new awareness of positive, non-partisan, common good goals
for society; innovative frameworks for collaboration on such goals; and the deployment of new capital in
America’s communities toward such goals.
Quanttitudes LLC is an organization focused on helping companies measure and manage the whole
spectrum of human variables that affect their business performance in a holistic and integrated fashion.
Jesús Rios, its founder and CEO, has 20 years of experience working at Gallup, Inc. Jesús is currently
responsible for overseeing Gallup’s research and consulting practices in Latin America, including the
design, execution and analysis of the Gallup Poll in 25 countries in the region.
2. Current State of Kindness Perception Among U.S. Adults: Key Findings from the USA Kindness Perception Survey
2.1.In July 2015, Quanttitudes and MacLean | Schecter surveyed a representative sample of U.S. adults
(n=1,000) on their views about kindness in their society (see section 3 for details on survey methodology).
One thousand respondents is the typical and widely accepted sample size used in electoral or social
polling where researchers are interested in gauging the prevalence of a social phenomenon at the overall
country level. The following are the key survey findings:
• Only 1 in 4 respondents (25%) rated the kindness of their fellow Americans favorably (4s or 5s on a
5-point scale), with 51% rating it as neutral (3s) and 24% rating it as negative (2s or 1s).
• Moreover, most adults in the U.S. believe kindness has either deteriorated or remained stagnant in
recent years. When asked how the current level of kindness compares to 10 years ago, 51% said
Americans are less kind or much less kind now, while 33% believe they are equally kind. Residents of
the Midwest are more likely than residents of other regions to state that kindness in the U.S. has declined
in the last decade (58%).
• Older respondents (age 60+) as well as Hispanics, African Americans and residents of the South are the
most positive in their current perceptions of kindness, while young adults (age 25–34) and those living in
the Northeast are the most negative.
• In stark contrast with their perception of fellow Americans, U.S. adults are quite positive when judging
their own personal level of kindness, with an impressive 75% rating their own kindness at 4 or 5 on the
5-point scale.
How kind would you say people in the U.S. are in general? / How kind do you consider yourself? On the
scale below, please select any number from 1 to 5 keeping in mind that 1 means “Not Kind at All” and 5
means “Extremely Kind”
60%
55%
51%
50%
40%
30%
21%
20%
10%
0%
3%
Perception of Adults in the U.S.
Source: Quanttitudes LLC
23%
20%
3%
1%
Not Kind at All (1)
2
20%
2
2%
3
Self-Perception
4
Extremely Kind (5)
• Consistent with the trend in self-perception of kindness, more U.S. adults (75%) reported having
performed random acts of kindness for strangers in the 7 days prior to the survey than having received
or witnessed them (41% and 45%, respectively). To add to this paradox, nearly all respondents (96%)
reported involvement in some random act of kindness, either as doers, witnesses or receivers within the
7 days prior to the survey. These results show a clear disconnect not only between the self-perceptions
and the perception of fellow Americans with regard to kindness, but also between the reported incidence
of kind behaviors and the overall perception of kindness in the U.S. society.
• When surveyed about their perceptions of kindness as related to specific social groups, no groups were
mentioned as “great examples of kindness” by strong majorities. In fact, the only groups singled out by
more than 50% of respondents were “Healthcare Workers” (55%) and “Your Neighbors” (52%). On the
other hand, the groups least associated with “great examples of kindness” were “Corporate Executives”
and “Political Leaders,” each mentioned by only 5% of respondents. The group “Police Officers”—
which has recently (2015) been subject to intense public criticism—was considered a “great example
of kindness” by one-third (33%) of the respondents, with Caucasians expressing more favorable views
(37%) of police officers than Hispanics (25%) or African Americans (23%).
Which of the following would you say are Great Examples of Kindness in the city or area where you live?
(% Yes)
55%
Healthcare Workers
52%
Your Neighbors
47%
Teachers
43%
Religious Leaders
42%
General Service Workers
Police Officers
33%
Small Business Owners
33%
Corporate Executives
5%
Political Leaders
5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Source: Quanttitudes LLC
• In order to explore the perception of kindness as related to the interaction of certain diverse pairs of
groups in the U.S. society, respondents were asked whether they believe such groups “stand out for
treating each other with kindness” or not. Here again, no groups gathered favorable responses by
overwhelming majorities. However, the groups perceived as coexisting more kindly were “Adults and
the Elderly” (57%), “Adults and Children” (38%) and “Men and Women” (31%), while the ones viewed
as interacting with the least kindness were “Nationals and Immigrants” (18%), “Adults and Teenagers”
(16%) and “People with Different Political Ideologies” (7%).
3
Which of the following groups would you say Stand Out for Treating Each Other with Kindness?
57%
Adults and the Elderly
38%
Adults and Children
Men and Women
31%
People with Different Socioeconomic Status
24%
People from Different Racial / Ethnic Groups
24%
People with Different Religions
24%
People with Different Sexual Orientation
22%
Nationals and Immigrants
18%
Adults and Teenagers
16%
7%
People with Different Political Ideologies
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Source: Quanttitudes LLC
2.2. Based on the exploratory survey results, these inferences can be drawn:
• U.S. adults perceive an important deficit of kindness in their society, not only in absolute terms (with
just 25% rating the kindness of their fellow Americans favorably) but also as compared to their own selfperceived levels of kindness (rated favorably by 75%).
• According to most U.S adults (84%) surveyed, kindness in the U.S. has deteriorated (51%) or made no
progress (33%) in the past decade.
• The country’s leadership is unfavorably perceived with regard to kindness. Just 5% believe political or
corporate leaders are “great examples of kindness,” and 33% believe the same of police officers and
small business owners.
• With the exception of “Adults and the Elderly,” no other diverse pairs of social groups are perceived to
“stand out for treating each other with kindness” by a majority of U.S. adults.
3. Description of the USA Kindness Perception Survey Methodology (2015)
The USA Kindness Perception Survey was a research study conducted by Quanttitudes and MacLean | Schecter
in July 2015 in order to obtain an initial read of the perception of kindness among U.S. adults. The survey was
also conducted to test the conceptual framework guiding the design of the MSQ USA Kindness Perception
Indicator and to experiment with questions designed to measure the different dimensions of kindness, per such
framework (see “Questionnaire” section below). The following are the survey’s methodological specifications:
3.1.Eligible Respondents:
The survey was conducted among male and female adults, 18 years of age and older, who are prerecruited panelists of the KnowledgePanel™. The KnowledgePanel™ is a commercially available online
probabilistic panel owned by GfK. Because of its probabilistic nature, this panel allows for sampling that is
projectable to the U.S. adult population.
4
3.2.Data Collection Method:
The survey was part of an Omnibus web survey, which included questions on other topics. In order to avoid
potential biases caused by a “framing effect” from other topics, the kindness questions were placed up
front in the questionnaire.
3.3.Sample:
One thousand (n=1,000) individuals representative of the U.S. adult population. One thousand respondents
is the typical and widely accepted sample size used in electoral or social polling where researchers are
interested in gauging the prevalence of a social phenomenon at the overall country level. The recruitment
of the KnowledgePanel™ panelists is performed by means of a probabilistic method (address-based
sampling).
The sample was post-stratified by means of weighting in order to correct for randomly occurring
disproportions in key demographic and/or geographic variables. Panelists who don’t have internet service
or a personal computer in their household are provided a laptop and a paid internet service plan by the
panel owner.
3.4.Sampling Error:
The margin of error for this sample is +/- 3% at the 95% confidence level. This is the maximum error for
the total sample of n=1,000. Demographic or geographic sample breakouts carry a greater margin of error.
3.5.Questionnaire:
The survey was comprised mostly of closed-ended questions. It combined Likert-type scale questions with
multiple-choice batteries.
Questionnaire Length: 9 questions, 3 of which were batteries measuring ratings of multiple attributes. The
survey took respondents approximately 4 minutes to complete.
The survey questions were designed to measure the following four constructs:
a) Overall Perception of Kindness: A summary measure that represents the outcome the Kindness
USA 2027 DreamFuture is concerned about
b) Kindness Disposition & Experience: A measure of each respondent’s self-perception with regard to
kindness as well as his/her personal experience regarding random acts of kindness (RAKs) involving
strangers
c) Perception of Community Member Kindness: A measure of perceived kindness as referred to key
members of the respondent’s community
d) Kind Coexistence: A measure of perception as to whether certain groups with diverse backgrounds
treat each other with kindness in the U.S.
5
a) Overall Perception of Kindness
Whether respondent believes that he/she lives in a country where
people are kind to each other
b) Pillar I
Kindness
Disposition &
Experience
Whether respondent views
him / herself as a kind person
Whether respondent has
performed / received / witnessed
a random act of kindness in the
past 30 days
c) Pillar II
Perception of
Community
Member Kindness
Whether respondent views
key members of his / her
community as kind
d) Pillar III
Kind Coexistence
Whether respondent
believes that groups with
different backgrounds
(i.e. socioeconomic,
racial / ethnic, religious, etc.)
treat each other with kindness
Source: Quanttitudes LLC
As shown above, constructs b, c, and d were conceived as “pillars” of the overarching Overall Perception
of Kindness construct. The role of these “pillars” as part of the analytic plan for this survey was twofold:
• To further our understanding of the kindness phenomenon
• To test their fit as components of a composite MSQ USA Kindness Perception Indicator
The following are the survey questions populating our conceptual framework:
a) Overall Perception of Kindness
How kind would you say people in the U.S. are in general? (1 - 5 scale)
Compared to 10 years ago, would you say that nowadays people in the U.S. are much kinder,
somewhat kinder, the same, somewhat less kind, or much less kind?
b) Pillar I
Kindness Disposition & Experience
- On a 1 to 5 scale where 1 means
not kind at all and 5 means
extremely kind, how kind do you
consider yourself?
- Random acts of kindness are good
deeds performed by strangers with
no apparent reason other than
doing good. They could be a small
action like holding the door for
someone, or big actions like saving
someone from being run over by a
car. In the past 7 days, have you
done a RAK for a stranger? / Have
you received a RAK from a
stranger? / Have you witnessed a
RAK from a stranger?
c) Pillar II
Perception of Community Member
Kindness
In the city or area where you live,
would you say the following people
are generally kind to others, or not
kind to others?
a) Your neighbors
b) Political leaders
c) Corporate executives
d) Police officers
e) Healthcare workers (doctors,
nurses, etc.)
f) Teachers
g) Religious leaders
h) Small business owners
i) General service workers such as
postal workers, trash
collectors, yard workers, etc.
Source: Quanttitudes LLC
RAK: Random Act of Kindness
3.6.Survey Date: July 24–26, 2015
6
d) Pillar III
Kind Coexistence
Within the city or area where you live,
would you say that the following
groups are generally kind to each
other, or not kind to each other?
a) People of different racial or ethnic
backgrounds, etc.
b) People of different income levels
c) People of different religions
d) People of different sexual
orientation
e) Adults and children
f) Adults and the elderly
g) Adults and teenagers
h) Men and women
i) Nationals and immigrants
4. Kindness USA 2027: Goal Definition
As stated before, Quanttitudes estimates that no more than 25% of U.S. adults currently believe they live in
a kind society. Also, 75% believe they are kind people (rate their own kindness at 4 or 5 out of 5). Therefore,
setting this self-perception as a benchmark, the Kindness USA 2027 DreamFuture goal is to get an ambitious
80% of U.S. adults to perceive that they live in a kind society.
In other words, achieving this goal would equate to more than closing the gap between self-perception and
perceptions of fellow Americans overall with regard to kindness and living in an America where our communities
are grounded in a deep sense of belonging and empathy for each other. A dream come true.
5. Methodology for Measuring the MSQ USA Kindness Perception Indicator and Determining if the Goal
Has Been Achieved in 2027
5.1. Purpose of the MSQ USA Kindness Perception Indicator
As stated before, the purpose of the MSQ USA Kindness Perception Indicator is to measure the percentage
of U.S. adults that recognize kindness as a ubiquitous trait of the U.S. society.
5.2.Methodological Premises and Decisions Guiding the Operational Definition of Kindness Perception
In order to operationalize “kindness perception” for measurement purposes, the following methodological
premises, assumptions and decisions have been adopted:
• Kindness manifests itself as a phenomenon with varying degrees of intensity. Therefore, the perception
of kindness is best captured through an interval level of measurement, using a multiple-point scale
rather than a dichotomous one. For the purpose of this study, a 5-point, Likert-type scale will be used.
This item, which will be called “Overall Kindness Perception,” is the same one used in the USA
Kindness Perception Survey described above.
• Also per our USA Kindness Perception Survey, in order to capture responses grounded in a common
understanding of the kindness phenomenon, a definition statement that reflects the Spirit of the indicator
will be provided to respondents prior to asking how kind they think people in the U.S. are.
• It is assumed that the terms “empathy,” “compassion” and “caring deeply about the welfare of other
human beings” reflect the spirit of the MSQ USA Kindness Perception indicator. Therefore, these terms
will be used in the text preceding the Overall Kindness Perception question.
• After testing the reliability of the three “pillars” of kindness included in our conceptual framework, two
pillars (Community Member Kindness and Kind Coexistence) have been retained to form a composite
Indicator along with the Overall Perception of Kindness question. The “Kindness Disposition and
Experience” pillar did not fit together well with the other pillars from the statistical viewpoint and,
therefore, it is not being included in the composite indicator.
• The final composite indicator is comprised of a total of 20 items (9 from the “Perception of Community
Member Kindness” pillar, 10 from the “Kind Coexistence” pillar, and the Overall Kindness Perception
question). These items show enough internal consistency to be considered a reliable measure of a
unique construct (Kindness Perception), with a reliability Cronbach Alpha coefficient of 0.80.
5.3. Operational Definition of Kindness
For the purpose of the MSQ USA Kindness Perception Indicator calculation, a respondent is deemed to
perceive kindness in the U.S. if he or she meets the following three conditions:
• Rates the kindness of his/her fellow Americans with a “4” or “5” on the Overall Kindness Perception
question.
• Rates the kindness of at least one key member of his/her community with a “4” or “5” on a 5-point scale,
out of the 9 candidates included in the “Perception of Community Member Kindness” pillar.
• Rates the mutual treatment of at least one pair of groups with diverse backgrounds with a “4” or “5” on
a 5-point kindness scale, out of the 10 candidate pairs included in the “Kind Coexistence” pillar.
7
MSQ USA Kindness Perception Indicator
(Scoring Key)
Component
Question(s)
Condition
Overall Kindness
Perception
Perception of
Community Member
Kindness
Some people believe a
kind person is someone
who cares deeply about
the well-being of other
human beings and
consistently
demonstrates empathy
and compassion toward
them, even if they are
strangers or people they
don’t like much.
Based on this definition
of kindness (which may
or may not be the same
as yours), how kind
would you say people in
the U.S. are in general?
On a 1 to 5 scale where 1
means “Not Kind at All”
and 5 means “Extremely
Kind,” please tell me
how kind you believe
people in the U.S. are in
general.
Thinking about the city
or area where you live,
how kind would you say
the following people
are? To respond, please
use a 1 to 5 scale where
1 means “Not Kind at
All” and 5 means
“Extremely Kind.”
Answer 4 or 5
Answer 4 or 5
Source: Quanttitudes LLC
A.
B.
C.
D.
Your neighbors
Police officers
Political leaders
Corporate
executives
E. Teachers
F. Healthcare workers
G. Religious leaders
H. General service
workers
I. Small business
owners
Kind Coexistence
Thinking about the city
or area where you live,
I’d like to ask you how
kindly or unkindly
certain groups of
people treat each
other. For each group
that I mention, please
tell me on a 1 to 5 scale,
how you think they
treat each other. How
kindly or unkindly
would you say (READ
A–J) they treat each
other?
A. People with different
income levels or
socioeconomic
status
B. People with different
religions
C. People with different
political ideologies
D. People from
different racial or
ethnic groups
E. People with different
sexual orientation
F. Men and women
G. Adults and children
H. Adults and
teenagers
I. Adults and the elderly
J. Nationals and
immigrants from
other countries
Answer 4 or 5
All three conditions must be met
5.4.MSQ USA Kindness Perception Indicator Design
8
At the time the MSQ USA Kindness Perception Indicator survey is being designed, the best practice for
conducting nationally representative surveys in the U.S. is a dual-frame telephone survey methodology,
using live interviewers supported by a Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system. This
methodology combines landline and mobile phone random digit dialing (RDD) sampling frames. However,
intense research collaboration and debates are taking place within the survey research industry in order
to improve this methodology or change it altogether, as response rates for telephone surveys continue to
decline and households are dropping landline phones at an accelerated rate. These trends are forcing
researchers to rely more on cellular phone sampling frames that are generally less accurate than landline
ones for stratifying samples by geographical areas. Other considerations such as cost constraints, the
need for agility in generating survey results, and the need for flexibility showing both auditory and visual
stimuli as part of surveys are putting pressure on the industry to develop new survey methods.
Based on the above considerations, it is likely that at the time the future survey is implemented to determine
if the goal has been achieved the best practice for conducting nationally representative surveys of the U.S.
adult population will have changed considerably. Therefore, some aspects of the methodology herein
described may need to be adjusted. However, any adjustments to the survey methodology, including the
sample design, must preserve the Spirit of the Indicator and cover the entire U.S. adult population in
the most rigorous manner possible. For reference purposes, the following methodological design depicts
the level of data collection standards and sampling precision that the survey would have, should it be
conducted today.
5.4.1. Unit of Analysis
Male and female adults, 18 years of age and older, who reside permanently in one of the 50 U.S. states
or the District of Columbia and can be reached by means of landline or cellular phone.
5.4.2.Sampling Strategy
The MSQ USA Kindness Perception Indicator faces demands that are unusual for most survey research
endeavors. Namely, it must serve as the basis for enacting (or leaving without effect) a legally binding
contract backing multimillion-dollar transactions. As such, its sample must be robust enough to estimate
the perception of kindness among U.S. adults with the lowest margin of sampling error—including design
effects—that can be reasonably achieved. Therefore, some of the customary cost-efficiency decisions
that apply to surveys with less stringent demands for accuracy (i.e., largely disproportionate sampling
designs that boost the sample size of strategically important segments, with a minimum increase in the
overall sample size) are not practical in this case, as they tend to gain efficiency at the expense of large
design effects.
Also, according to studies of kindness in the U.S.,3 population density and U.S. census region are key
variables explaining the variability of this phenomenon. Therefore, these variables will be used as our
stratification criteria for this sample.
Finally, the MSQ USA Kindness Perception Indicator may be monitored periodically by different individuals
throughout the 10-year time frame of contract maturity. The objective of these periodic measurements
would be to allow entities in charge of promoting kindness at the city/county-level to track their progress
toward the goal. Therefore, the sample design we chose factors in the need to provide city/county level
readings, starting with the most important U.S. cities in terms of population.
Based on the above findings and considerations, the following guidelines must drive the sampling design
for the MSQ USA Kindness Perception Indicator:
a) Sampling error not to exceed +/- 1.5 percentage points at the 99% confidence level
b) Readings at the city/county level for the 25 most populated cities in the U.S.
c) Sample to be random stratified, per the following stratification criteria:
]
Region. Proportional allocation to the four U.S. standard geographic regions (Northeast, South,
Midwest, West), per U.S. Census Bureau parameters.
] County-level population density per the U.S. Census Bureau 2010 decennial census. Six population
density strata were developed. Sample to be proportionally allocated to such strata.
] Landline/Wireless phone. Fifty percent of the sample to be conducted via landline and the other
50% via wireless. Respondents who are contacted via wireless must be inquired about their
access to a landline at home. Wireless respondents who can be interviewed via landline are to be
kept in the sample. The effect of overlapping landline and wireless frames must be corrected via
weighting.
9
3
Robert Levine “The Kindness of Strangers,” American Scientist. May–June 2003
]
Cities. The 25 most populated cities in the country (plus Atlanta) must be selected with certainty.
The sample must be disproportionally allocated within strata in order to oversample those cities/
counties among the top 25 U.S. cities (plus Atlanta) that don’t reach a minimum of n=100 cases
through proportional allocation. The rest of the counties within the strata must be undersampled
proportionally in order to preserve the stratum’s proportional allocation relative to the total sample.
5.4.3.Sampling Frames
A dual-frame RDD (landline + wireless phone) sampling approach will be utilized.
Both the landline and wireless samples will be drawn from randomly generated (RDD) pools of numbers
from active phone exchanges or blocks associated to the counties that populate each sample stratum.
Respondents contacted via wireless phones will be asked their state/county of residence in order to adjust
the geographic allocation in case they currently reside in a geography other than the one associated to
the 100-block of their phone number.
5.4.4.Sample Size & Margin of Error
Per the above-listed guidelines, the sample must be drawn from the most current U.S. population
estimates published by the U.S. Census Bureau. All U.S. counties shall be grouped into 24 discrete
strata, per the following detail.
Universe:
Region
Population
Density
per sq.mile
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Total
5000+
1500-4999
500-1499
150-499
50-149
<50
12,377,896
13,365,889
14,014,006
10,658,602
4,680,322
2,279,704
1,596,882
19,249,834
32,843,691
30,700,118
19,753,164
10,412,055
5,513,969
12,556,115
13,966,385
14,542,934
11,423,220
8,924,378
805,235
17,402,147
13,600,629
19,174,202
10,993,491
7,910,670
20,293,982
62,573,985
74,424,711
75,075,856
46,850,197
29,526,807
Total
57,376,419
19%
114,555,744
38%
66,927,001
21%
69,886,374
23%
308,745,538
100%
%
7%
20%
24%
24%
15%
10%
Source: Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2010 - United States - County ID: GCT-PH1
U.S. Census Bureau - 2010 Decennial Census. Source: Quanttitudes LLC
Sample:
Population
Density
per sq.mile
Region
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
Total
600
650
680
520
220
100
150
950
1,600
1,500
950
500
250
600
680
700
500
440
100
850
660
900
500
400
1,100
3,050
3,620
3,620
2,170
1,440
2,788
19%
5,650
38%
3,170
21%
3,410
23%
15,000
100%
5000+
1500-4999
500-1499
150-499
50-149
<50
Total
%
7%
20%
24%
24%
15%
10%
Source: Quanttitudes LLC
Margin of Sampling Error:
The margin of sampling error associated to a sample of n=15,000 is +/- 1.1% at the 99% confidence level.
10
Sample Distribution including selection with certainty of top 25 U.S. cities (plus Atlanta):
Population
Density
per sq.mile
5,000+
Region
Cities / Counties
New York City
New York County
King County
Bronx County
Queens County
Richmond County
Philadelphia
Philadelphia County
Boston
Suffolk County
All Other Counties in the Stratum
Washington DC
District of Columbia
All Other Counties in the Stratum
Chicago
Cook County
All Other Counties in the Stratum
San Francisco
San Francisco County
Subtotal
1,500 - 4,999
All Counties in the Stratum
Houston
Harris County
Dallas / Fort Worth
Dallas County
Tarrant County
Charlotte
Macklenburg County
Atlanta
Fulton County
All Other Counties in the Stratum
Detroit
Wayne County
Indianapolis
Marion County
Columbus
Franklin County
All Other Counties in the Stratum
Los Angeles
Los Angeles County
Denver
Denver County
All Other Counties in the Stratum
Subtotal
500 - 1,500
All Counties in the Stratum
San Antonio
Bexar County
Austin
Travis County
Jacksonville
Duval County
El Paso
El Paso County
Memphis
Shelby County
Nashville
Davison County
All Other Counties in the Stratum
All Counties in the Stratum
San Diego
San Diego County
San Jose
Santa Clara County
Seattle
King County
All Other Counties in the Stratum
Subtotal
150 - 499
All Counties in the Stratum
Phoenix
Maricopa County
All Other Counties in the Stratum
Subtotal
50 - 149
<50
All Counties in the Stratum
Subtotal
All Counties in the Stratum
Subtotal
Total
Source: Quanttitudes LLC
11
Northeast
n=
South
n=
Midwest
n=
West
n=
300
150
Total
n=
300
150
100
100
100
100
100
600
650
100
100
100
100
50
150
680
200
200
50
250
50
200
100
100
100
950
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1,000
50
100
1,100
650
150
150
150
150
150
100
100
100
100
450
650
100
100
150
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
300
600
450
100
100
100
300
300
100
100
450
850
300
300
100
450
3,050
680
100
100
100
100
100
100
680
680
1,600
680
520
1,500
700
520
1,500
220
220
150
150
100
100
100
100
310
660
1,000
680
150
100
100
310
3,620
2,720
200
700
200
200
700
900
700
3,620
950
950
500
500
500
500
2,170
100
100
500
500
440
440
400
400
1,440
2,770
5,650
3,170
3,410
15,000
5.4.5.Interviewing Procedures
All the interviews shall be conducted using a Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system,
which ensures that questions are asked in the proper sequence with appropriate skip patterns.
For the landline sample, when interviewers have a potential respondent on the line they must request a
list of all eligible household members (persons age 18 and older who live in the household permanently).
Then, as a randomization method, interviewers must ask to speak with the eligible person whose birthday
is coming next. If the selected person is not present in the household, the interviewer must make an
appointment to call back. The interviewer must call back up to 7 times before considering the piece of
sample resolved. For the cell phone sample, the interviews must be conducted with the person who
answers the phone; interviewers must verify that the person is an adult age 18+ and can complete the
call safely.
Interviewers must attempt calls at varied times of day and days of the week (including at least one
daytime call) to maximize the chances of making contact with a potential respondent.
In order to maximize the number of interviews with respondents who primarily speak Spanish, phone
numbers with exchanges or 100-blocks with concentrations of at least 20% of Hispanics must be assigned
to interviewers who can conduct the call with equal proficiency in English and Spanish.
5.4.6.Ensuring Reliability and Controlling for Undesired Effects
Given the high accuracy demands placed on this survey, the following controls will be put in place in
order to maximize survey reliability and quality, and to minimize undesired effects:
• The sample will be randomly split into 3 subsamples of n=5,000 each. Each subsample will be assigned
to an independent data collection vendor. All three data collection vendors must be established survey
research or survey fieldwork organizations with a minimum of 5-year membership in at least one of
the following professional associations:
]
]
]
Council of American Survey Research Organizations (CASRO)
American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR)
World Association for Public Opinion Research (WAPOR)
• The data collection vendors must digitally record the audio for all interviews. They must also allow for
remote client listen-in of live interviews.
• Twenty percent of the interviewers of each data collection vendor must be fluent bilingual (EnglishSpanish) speakers. Interviews falling in exchanges or zip codes with at least 25% concentration of
U.S. Hispanics must be assigned to bilingual interviewers. Interviews falling in exchanges or zip
codes with U.S. Hispanic concentrations greater than 60% must be initiated in Spanish and switched
to English if/when the respondent so desires.
• In order to minimize the effect of historic events on the perception of kindness, the fieldwork will be
conducted in a period of three months (90 days).
5.4.7.Weighting
12
Given the complexity of the sample design, several statistical adjustments, or weighting, will need
to be utilized. Sample weighting corrects for several random distortions including: a) the different,
disproportionate probabilities of selection respondents in each strata, b) the overlap of the landline and
cell RDD sample frames, and c) different nonresponse rates associated with sample demographics.
Weighting will be required to align the sample demographic composition to census parameters, namely,
age, gender and education. As mentioned, weighting will also be needed to account for the overlapping
of landline and cell RDD sample frames. Due to the fact that some of the 26 cities/counties that are being
selected with certainty (the U.S. Top 25 plus Atlanta) will be oversampled to hit n=100 minimums, these
disproportions will also need to be corrected within each sample stratum.
5.4.8.Questionnaire
Good morning/afternoon/evening. My name is [INTERVIEWER’S NAME] and I’m calling from [SURVEY
COMPANY NAME], a polling company. Today we’re conducting an interesting survey about general aspects
of life in the U.S. and your phone number has been randomly selected to participate in it. Your participation
in the survey is completely voluntary and I can assure you that your answers will be kept confidential. We
will not attempt to sell you anything at any time. May I have a few minutes of your time? Thank you.
[Apply all age and permanent household resident screeners per script. If landline sample, continue with
“next birthday” randomization procedure]
1. Some people believe a kind person is someone who cares deeply about the well-being of other
human beings and consistently demonstrates empathy and compassion toward them, even if they are
strangers or people they don’t like much.
Based on this definition of kindness (which may or may not be the same as yours), how kind would
you say people in the U.S. are in general? To respond, please use a 1 to 5 scale where 1 means “Not
Kind at All” and 5 means “Extremely Kind.” You may choose any number: 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.
5 Extremely Kind
4
3
2
1 Not Kind at All
98 (Don’t know)
99(Refused)
2. Compared to 10 years ago, how kind would you say people in the U.S. are nowadays? Would you say
they are: (READ 5 to 1)
5 Much Kinder
4 Somewhat Kinder
3 About the Same
2 Somewhat Less Kind
1 Much Less Kind
98 (Don’t know)
99(Refused)
3. Again, some people believe a kind person is someone who cares deeply about the well-being of other
human beings and consistently demonstrates empathy and compassion toward them, even if they are
strangers or people they don’t like much.
Based on this definition of kindness (which may or may not be the same as yours), how kind do
you consider yourself? To respond, please use a 1 to 5 scale where 1 means “Not Kind at All” and 5
means “Extremely Kind.” You may choose any number: 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.
13
5 Extremely Kind
4
3
2
1 Not Kind at All
98 (Don’t know)
99(Refused)
4. Now, thinking about the city or area where you live, how kind would you say the following people are?
To respond, please use a 1 to 5 scale where 1 means “Not Kind at All” and 5 means “Extremely Kind.”
You may choose any number: 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. (READ A–I)
5 Extremely Kind
4
3
2
1 Not Kind at All
98(DK)
99(Refused)
Programmer: Randomize List.
A. Your neighbors
B. Police officers
C. Political leaders
D. Corporate executives
E. Teachers
F. Healthcare workers (i.e., doctors, nurses, etc.)
G. Religious leaders
H. General service workers (i.e., postal workers, trash collectors, yard workers, etc.)
I. Small business owners
5. Again, thinking about the city or area where you live, I’d like to ask you how kindly or unkindly certain
groups of people treat each other. For each group that I mention, please tell me on a 1 to 5 scale, how
you think they treat each other. One means they do not treat each other kindly at all and 5 means they
treat each other with “extreme kindness.” You may choose any number: 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. How kindly or
unkindly would you say (READ A–J) treat each other?
5 With Extreme Kindness
4
3
2
1 Not Kindly at All
98(DK)
99(Refused)
Programmer: Randomize List. Prompt once for response then continue.
A. People with different income levels or socioeconomic status
B. People with different religions
C. People with different political ideologies
D. People from different racial or ethnic groups
E. People with different sexual orientation
F. Men and women
G. Adults and children
H. Adults and teenagers
I. Adults and the elderly
J. Nationals and immigrants from other countries
14
6. About MacLean | Schecter & Quanttitudes LLC
MacLean | Schecter is an organization founded with the belief that “Anything a Society Truly Wants Can
Be Financed and Achieved.” As such, it is committed to creating a better world through the custom design,
engineering and production of DreamFutures contracts, securities and markets. MacLean | Schecter seeks
to innovate in an area where people lack empowerment to help shape the world they truly want to live in. It
seeks to develop powerful simplicities, like the Kindness USA 2027 DreamFuture, so that individuals and
organizations will find it very simple to unleash a powerful force in realizing the dreams that are meaningful to
them, while eliminating the risk that the capital they channel toward their desired socially impactful goal can be
lost if such goal is not achieved (in accordance with the terms of a particular DreamFuture). We believe this
powerful force will come from new awareness of positive, non-partisan, common goals for society; innovative
frameworks for collaboration on such goals; and the deployment of new capital in America’s communities
toward such goals.
Quanttitudes LLC is an organization focused on helping companies measure and manage the whole spectrum
of human variables that affect their business performance in a holistic and integrated fashion. Jesús Rios, its
founder and CEO, has 20 years of experience at Gallup, Inc. Jesús is currently responsible for overseeing
Gallup’s research and consulting practices in Latin America, including the design, execution and analysis of the
Gallup Poll in 25 countries in the region.
15