Between Oct. 14, 2014, and May 21, 2015, Pew Research Center, with generous funding from The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Neubauer Family Foundation, completed 5,601 face-to-face interviews with non-institutionalized adults ages 18 and older living in Israel.

The survey sampling plan was based on six districts defined in the 2008 Israeli census. In addition, Jewish residents of West Bank (Judea and Samaria) were included.

The sample includes interviews with 3,789 respondents defined as Jews, 871 Muslims, 468 Christians and 439 Druze. An additional 34 respondents belong to other religions or are religiously unaffiliated. Five groups were oversampled as part of the survey design: Jews living in the West Bank, Haredim, Christian Arabs, Arabs living in East Jerusalem and Druze.

Interviews were conducted under the direction of Public Opinion and Marketing Research of Israel (PORI). Surveys were administered through face-to-face, paper and pencil interviews conducted at the respondent's place of residence. Sampling was conducted through a multi-stage stratified area probability sampling design based on national population data available through the Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics' 2008 census.

The questionnaire was designed by Pew Research Center staff in consultation with subject matter experts and advisers to the project. The questionnaire was translated into Hebrew, Russian and Arabic, independently verified by professional linguists conversant in regional dialects and pretested prior to fieldwork.

The questionnaire was divided into four sections. All respondents who took the survey in Russian or Hebrew were branched into the Jewish questionnaire (Questionnaire A). Arabic-speaking respondents were branched into the Muslim (Questionnaire B), Christian (Questionnaire C) or Druze questionnaire (D) based on their response to the religious identification question. For the full question wording and exact order of questions, please see the questionnaire.

Note that not all respondents who took the questionnaire in Hebrew or Russian are classified as Jews in this study. For further details on how respondents were classified as Jews, Muslims, Christians and Druze in the study, please see sidebar in the report titled "http://www.pewforum.org/2016/03/08/israels-religiously-divided-society/" Target="_blank">"How Religious are Defined".

Following fieldwork, survey performance was assessed by comparing the results for key demographic variables with population statistics available through the census. Data were weighted to account for different probabilities of selection among respondents. Where appropriate, data also were weighted through an iterative procedure to more closely align the samples with official population figures for gender, age and education. The reported margins of sampling error and the statistical tests of significance used in the analysis take into account the design effects due to weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error and other practical difficulties, one should bear in mind that question wording also can have an impact on the findings of opinion polls.

Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism (ISCA) at Indiana University Dataset on bias against Asians, Blacks, Jews, Latines, and Muslims

The ISCA project compiled this dataset using an annotation portal, which was used to label tweets as either biased or non-biased, among other labels. Note that the annotation was done on live data, including images and context, such as threads. The original data comes from annotationportal.com. They include representative samples of live tweets from the years 2020 and 2021 with the keywords "Asians, Blacks, Jews, Latinos, and Muslims". A random sample of 600 tweets per year was drawn for each of the keywords. This includes retweets. Due to a sampling error, the sample for the year 2021 for the keyword "Jews" has only 453 tweets from 2021 and 147 from the first eight months of 2022 and it includes some tweets from the query with the keyword "Israel." The tweets were divided into six samples of 100 tweets, which were then annotated by three to seven students in the class "Researching White Supremacism and Antisemitism on Social Media" taught by Gunther Jikeli, Elisha S. Breton, and Seth Moller at Indiana University in the fall of 2022, see this report. Annotators used a scale from 1 to 5 (confident not biased, probably not biased, don't know, probably biased, confident biased). The definitions of bias against each minority group used for annotation are also included in the report. If a tweet called out or denounced bias against the minority in question, it was labeled as "calling out bias." The labels of whether a tweet is biased or calls out bias are based on a 75% majority vote. We considered "probably biased" and "confident biased" as biased and "confident not biased," "probably not biased," and "don't know" as not biased.
The types of stereotypes vary widely across the different categories of prejudice. While about a third of all biased tweets were classified as "hate" against the minority, the stereotypes in the tweets often matched common stereotypes about the minority. Asians were blamed for the Covid pandemic. Blacks were seen as inferior and associated with crime. Jews were seen as powerful and held collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel. Some tweets denied the Holocaust. Hispanics/Latines were portrayed as being in the country illegally and as "invaders," in addition to stereotypical accusations of being lazy, stupid, or having too many children. Muslims, on the other hand, were often collectively blamed for terrorism and violence, though often in conversations about Muslims in India.

Content:

This dataset contains 5880 tweets that cover a wide range of topics common in conversations about Asians, Blacks, Jews, Latines, and Muslims. 357 tweets (6.1 %) are labeled as biased and 5523 (93.9 %) are labeled as not biased. 1365 tweets (23.2 %) are labeled as calling out or denouncing bias. 1180 out of 5880 tweets (20.1 %) contain the keyword "Asians," 590 were posted in 2020 and 590 in 2021. 39 tweets (3.3 %) are biased against Asian people. 370 tweets (31,4 %) call out bias against Asians. 1160 out of 5880 tweets (19.7%) contain the keyword "Blacks," 578 were posted in 2020 and 582 in 2021. 101 tweets (8.7 %) are biased against Black people. 334 tweets (28.8 %) call out bias against Blacks. 1189 out of 5880 tweets (20.2 %) contain the keyword "Jews," 592 were posted in 2020, 451 in 2021, and ––as mentioned above––146 tweets from 2022. 83 tweets (7 %) are biased against Jewish people. 220 tweets (18.5 %) call out bias against Jews. 1169 out of 5880 tweets (19.9 %) contain the keyword "Latinos," 584 were posted in 2020 and 585 in 2021. 29 tweets (2.5 %) are biased against Latines. 181 tweets (15.5 %) call out bias against Latines. 1182 out of 5880 tweets (20.1 %) contain the keyword "Muslims," 593 were posted in 2020 and 589 in 2021. 105 tweets (8.9 %) are biased against Muslims. 260 tweets (22 %) call out bias against Muslims.

File Description:

The dataset is provided in a csv file format, with each row representing a single message, including replies, quotes, and retweets. The file contains the following columns:
'TweetID': Represents the tweet ID.
'Username': Represents the username who published the tweet (if it is a retweet, it will be the user who retweetet the original tweet.
'Text': Represents the full text of the tweet (not pre-processed). 'CreateDate': Represents the date the tweet was created.
'Biased': Represents the labeled by our annotators if the tweet is biased (1) or not (0). 'Calling_Out': Represents the label by our annotators if the tweet is calling out bias against minority groups (1) or not (0). 'Keyword': Represents the keyword that was used in the query. The keyword can be in the text, including mentioned names, or the username.

Licences

Data is published under the terms of the "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International" licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the technical collaboration with Indiana University's Observatory on Social Media (OSoMe). We thank all class participants for the annotations and contributions, including Kate Baba, Eleni Ballis, Garrett Banuelos, Savannah Benjamin, Luke Bianco, Zoe Bogan, Elisha S. Breton, Aidan Calderaro, Anaye Caldron, Olivia Cozzi, Daj Crisler, Jenna Eidson, Ella Fanning, Victoria Ford, Jess Gruettner, Ronan Hancock, Isabel Hawes, Brennan Hensler, Kyra Horton, Maxwell Idczak, Sanjana Iyer, Jacob Joffe, Katie Johnson, Allison Jones, Kassidy Keltner, Sophia Knoll, Jillian Kolesky, Emily Lowrey, Rachael Morara, Benjamin Nadolne, Rachel Neglia, Seungmin Oh, Kirsten Pecsenye, Sophia Perkovich, Joey Philpott, Katelin Ray, Kaleb Samuels, Chloe Sherman, Rachel Weber, Molly Winkeljohn, Ally Wolfgang, Rowan Wolke, Michael Wong, Jane Woods, Kaleb Woodworth, and Aurora Young. This work used Jetstream2 at Indiana University through allocation HUM200003 from the Advanced Cyberinfrastructure Coordination Ecosystem: Services & Support (ACCESS) program, which is supported by National Science Foundation grants #2138259, #2138286, #2138307, #2137603, and #2138296.