Neighborhood socializing, trust and support in America

The conversations that make a neighborhood familiar

In 2025, 40 percent of American adults said they talked with neighbors at least a few times a week. In the 2012 survey used for comparison, 59 percent reported that frequency. In 2025, 17 percent reported no conversation with neighbors at all.

The change was especially pronounced among young adults. In 2012, 51 percent talked with neighbors at least a few times a week. By 2025, that figure was 25 percent. Among seniors, frequent conversation remained more common, declining from 63 percent to 56 percent. The figures compare age groups in two separate surveys.

Housing arrangements showed little relationship with the frequency of conversation. Renters and homeowners reported talking with neighbors about equally often. So did people living in apartments and detached houses.

Marriage showed a different pattern. Forty-five percent of married adults reported speaking with neighbors at least a few times a week, compared with 30 percent of those who had never married.

Sharing time and working on local problems

Neighbors also met through social occasions, messages and shared concerns. About half of adults had spent an evening socializing with someone in their neighborhood during the previous year. Fifty-three percent had communicated with neighbors by text or email, and 40 percent had worked with others to solve a local problem or improve their community.

These measures describe different ways of participating. A social evening makes room for company. A message provides a way to reach someone between encounters. Working on a neighborhood problem gives people something to address together. The annual figures record whether these activities happened at all, so they include both occasional participation and more regular involvement.

Education was associated with differences across these activities. Fifty-eight percent of college graduates had spent a social evening with a neighbor during the previous year, compared with 46 percent of adults with a high school education or less. Forty-six percent of graduates had worked with neighbors on a local problem, compared with 34 percent of those with no college education. The difference was larger for electronic contact. Sixty-five percent of adults with a degree had exchanged texts or emails with neighbors, compared with 45 percent of adults with a high school education or less.

The educational divide appeared across urban, suburban and rural communities. Adults without a degree reported similar levels of socializing and working with neighbors across those settings. A place's designation as a city, suburb or rural community gave only a partial account of the social life available within it.

Feeling able to ask for help

The kind of request mattered when people considered relying on a neighbor. Sixty-four percent felt comfortable asking for help moving furniture, 56 percent with leaving a spare set of keys, and 49 percent with asking someone to care for a pet for a few days. The survey measured comfort making these requests, a different question from whether someone had asked and received help.

Emergency childcare showed how uneven that comfort could be among the parents asked about this request. Among those with college degrees, 56 percent felt comfortable asking a neighbor to watch their children briefly in an emergency. Among parents without degrees, 39 percent did. Mothers were less comfortable than fathers. Only 32 percent of mothers without a college degree felt able to make this request, compared with 51 percent of college-educated mothers and 62 percent of college-educated fathers. Having other adults close by did not mean that parents felt equally able to turn to them.

Housing differences also appeared here, even though they had been largely absent from the conversation findings. Sixty-three percent of people in detached houses felt comfortable leaving spare keys with a neighbor, compared with 41 percent of apartment residents. Age mattered too. Thirty-six percent of young adults felt comfortable sharing keys, compared with 60 percent of adults over 30. Someone can speak with a neighbor regularly while remaining hesitant about giving them access to a home.

Trust followed a related pattern. Overall, 72 percent trusted people in their neighborhood a fair amount or a great deal to do what was right. That figure was 81 percent among college graduates and 64 percent among adults with a high school education or less. Homeowners also reported more trust than renters, 79 percent compared with 56 percent. These differences give the frequency of conversation an important context. Regular contact and confidence in another person are separate qualities to understand within a neighborhood relationship.

Privacy and the meaning of being a good neighbor

When asked to choose what being a good neighbor meant, 65 percent favored staying out of neighbors' personal affairs. About a third favored offering help and support without waiting to be asked. Young adults were more likely than seniors to choose the privacy-oriented answer, 70 percent compared with 57 percent.

That choice can be read alongside the widely shared wish for neighbors who look out for one another. Wanting care nearby and wanting discretion are compatible preferences. Choosing between privacy and unsolicited help also leaves many forms of ordinary conversation and invited assistance unexplored. The responses leave an important distinction between being available to someone and becoming involved in their life without an invitation.

The report's accounts of disputes give privacy and consideration a concrete setting. Twenty-six percent of adults had experienced a dispute with a neighbor, although only 9 percent reported one during the previous year. Among those who had experienced conflict, noise was the most common issue, reported by 23 percent. Pet behavior and property boundaries each accounted for 19 percent. Other accounts concerned harassment, upkeep and parking.

These were disagreements about how people could live alongside one another, including the use of shared surroundings and the effects of activity in one home on another. The survey found no differences in the likelihood of disputes across the demographic characteristics it examined, including education, age, gender and housing type.

Living alongside people with different views

The survey also asked how comfortable people would feel if particular people moved next door. These were questions about possible neighbors. Seventy-four percent of liberals said they would be uncomfortable with a neighbor who strongly supported Donald Trump. Among conservatives, 52 percent would be uncomfortable with a neighbor who strongly opposed him. In a separate question about a transgender neighbor, 88 percent of liberals said they would be comfortable, compared with 41 percent of conservatives.

Those responses varied with the political surroundings people described. Among liberals living in communities with many Trump voters, 33 percent felt comfortable with the prospect of a strongly pro-Trump neighbor. Among liberals in communities with many Harris voters, 14 percent did. Conservatives in communities with many Harris supporters were more comfortable with the prospect of a transgender neighbor than those living among many Trump supporters, 50 percent compared with 36 percent.

The survey cannot establish whether living among people with different views changed these expectations or whether people already more comfortable with difference were more likely to live there. It does show that a political label alone did not describe everyone's response.

Actual disputes showed a further distinction. Liberals in largely Trump-supporting communities were no more likely to report a neighborhood dispute than liberals in largely Harris-supporting communities. The pattern among conservatives was similar, and the neighborhood's political character was not associated with how much people trusted their neighbors. Anticipating discomfort about a possible neighbor and reporting conflict with an actual one were different experiences.

Where neighbors spend time

The survey examined access to places within a 20-minute walk of home, including grocery stores, parks, schools, cafés, libraries and places of worship. Ten percent of adults reported none of the listed amenities nearby, while 20 percent had only one or two. Forty-four percent had six or more.

Having somewhere to go was associated with being out in the neighborhood. Among adults with no nearby amenities, 18 percent walked through their neighborhood at least weekly. Among those with six or more, 45 percent did. Conversation differed too. Twenty-seven percent of those with no nearby amenities spoke with neighbors at least a few times a week, compared with 43 percent of those with six or more.

Access was unevenly distributed. Adults with less formal education reported fewer nearby gathering places, with larger differences for commercial destinations than for public amenities. For example, 43 percent of adults with a high school education or less had a café or coffee shop nearby, compared with 57 percent of college graduates. The gaps were smaller for libraries, community centers and places of worship. The settings available for ordinary encounters were part of the educational divide the report described.

Routines within those settings also mattered. Fifty-five percent of people who walked around their neighborhood at least weekly reported talking with neighbors at least a few times a week. Dog ownership offered a more specific comparison. Half of dog owners who regularly walked their dogs reported conversations that often, compared with a third of dog owners who did not walk them. The difference concerned what people did in the neighborhood as well as whether they owned a pet.

These associations bring the practical setting of neighborhood life into view. Local destinations and regular outings provide occasions to be around the people who live nearby. People who already enjoy neighborhood relationships may also be more inclined to take those outings. A useful destination and the interest in returning to it can develop together, rather than one necessarily causing the other.

Participation that extends beyond the congregation

Religious participation was associated with neighborhood interaction beyond attendance itself. The report found differences in conversation, shared evenings and cooperation, giving several perspectives on the relationship between congregational participation and neighborhood life.

The difference was especially pronounced among young adults. Forty percent of weekly attendees aged 18 to 29 reported weekly conversations with neighbors, compared with 20 percent of those who seldom or never attended. Among older adults, the corresponding figures were 59 percent and 52 percent. The overall age divide therefore contained substantial differences in how young adults participated in community life.

Frequent attendees also reported more shared activity. Forty-three percent spent a social evening with neighbors at least several times a year, compared with 32 percent of those who seldom or never attended. They were less likely to report never working with neighbors to address a local problem, 51 percent compared with 67 percent. Religious participation was connected with several forms of local involvement, including conversation, social occasions and cooperation.

Expectations differed as well. Among people attending services more than once a week, 45 percent said being a good neighbor involved offering help without waiting to be asked. Religious adults were more likely than religiously unaffiliated adults to value living near extended family and among people with traditional values. Unaffiliated adults placed more importance on racial and ethnic diversity. A strong sense of community mattered to both groups, although a larger share of religious adults prioritized it, 77 percent compared with 63 percent.

On looking out for one another, the groups were much closer. Ninety percent of religious adults and 86 percent of unaffiliated adults wanted this quality in their community. People whose expectations differed in other respects shared a wish to have neighbors who cared about one another.