Ipsos Global Trustworthiness Index 2026
Source: Ipsos · 2026-09
Method. These are the results of a 31-country survey conducted by Ipsos on its Global Advisor online platform, between Friday, June 19, and Friday, July 3, 2026. For this survey, Ipsos interviewed a total of 23,537 adults aged 18 years and older in India, 18-74 in Canada, Republic of Ireland, Malaysia, New Zealand, South Africa, Türkiye, and the United States, 20-74 in Thailand, 21-74 in Indonesia and Singapore, and 16-74 in all other countries.
Limitations. Samples in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Poland, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the U.S. can be considered representative of their general adult populations under the age of 75.
Samples in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, Romania, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, and Türkiye are more urban, more educated, and/or more affluent than the general population. The survey results for these countries should be viewed as reflecting the views of the more “connected” segment of their population.
The data is weighted so that the composition of each country’s sample best reflects the demographic profile of the adult population according to the most recent census data. In Great Britain, the data was weighted by age, gender, and education. “The Global Country Average” reflects the average result for all the countries and markets in which the survey was conducted. It has not been adjusted to the population size of each country or market and is not intended to suggest a total result.
When percentages do not sum up to 100 or the ‘difference’ appears to be +/-1 percentage point more/less than the actual result, this may be due to rounding, multiple responses, or the exclusion of “don't know” or not stated responses.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
How can AI systems reliably guide voters without introducing political bias?- Is ChatGPT adoption concentrated among already-advantaged, highly-paid workers?
- Does ChatGPT displace search engines or question-and-answer platforms?
- Why does writing dominate work-related ChatGPT use compared to other tasks?
- What earnings or employment changes follow ChatGPT adoption in real datasets?
- Why did Upwork freelancers lose earnings after ChatGPT's release?
- How much referral traffic do ChatGPT and Google each send to publishers?
- How do ingroup disagreement and outgroup agreement differ in their depolarizing mechanisms?
- Does designing chatbots to satisfy partisan users prevent them from reducing polarization?
- Do chatbots actually give consistent voting recommendations regardless of user input?
- Can chatbots that offer open-ended advice avoid the same polarizing collapse?
- Should election regulators require chatbots to refuse voting advice entirely?
- Why do chatbots trained on internet data show consistent political bias?
- Do AI systems mirror user political views when they choose to engage?
- How did imperfect AI representations still correct partisan misperceptions effectively?
- Are other Google SERP features like Featured Snippets also reducing organic clicks?
- Can researchers isolate AI Overviews from other confounds affecting CTR trends?
- What happens to publisher revenue when search referral traffic collapses?
- Do smaller ad-dependent publishers face larger traffic losses from AI summaries?
- Which search queries trigger AI summaries most often on Google?
- Do users click links within AI summaries or end sessions instead?
- Do searchers prefer clarity about AI involvement when viewing search overviews?
- How much do AI Overviews currently appear in Google search results?