You’ve probably heard the assumption more than once: small towns are close-knit, cities are lonely and disconnected, everyone’s online instead of actually together. A new survey just put real numbers behind that assumption. The picture that comes back is more specific, and more interesting, than the stereotype.
What the survey actually measured
Pew Research surveyed 5,195 U.S. adults between September 8 and 14, 2025. It sorted respondents into four civic-engagement groups based on 19 questions covering political activity, civic involvement and social participation, according to the Pew Research Center’s report published September 28, 2026.
Overall civic engagement levels came out similar across community types. Rural, suburban and urban Americans aren’t that different in how engaged they are, broadly speaking. The real differences show up in how that engagement actually happens.
Where rural Americans pulled ahead
Rural respondents’ community groups meet in person 63% of the time, compared with 47% for urban residents, according to the same report. Rural Americans were also more likely to display political signs or bumper stickers — 19%, versus 14% in cities.
Have you ever assumed rural life means more isolation? This is the part that pushes back directly. The groups rural Americans belong to are the ones most likely to actually be sitting in the same room together.
Where city life pulled ahead instead
Urban Americans weren’t less engaged. They were engaged differently. City residents were more likely to have groups that meet mostly online, and significantly more likely to attend a protest: 12%, compared with 6% in rural areas. Pew’s researchers note that difference tracks partly with political makeup — cities lean more Democratic, and Democratic-identifying respondents protested more during the survey period regardless of where they lived.
So the gap isn’t really “cities don’t show up.” It’s that showing up looks different depending on what you’re showing up for: a protest versus a standing weekly group, a screen versus a room.
Why “in person” keeps winning in rural areas
Part of the answer is almost mechanical. In a smaller town, the people in your group are more likely to already be within a short drive. There are fewer competing in-person options pulling attention in different directions. In a city, a group can recruit from a much bigger radius, which makes meeting online a practical trade-off rather than a preference for distance over closeness.
That’s worth sitting with if you’ve ever felt a little embarrassed that your own group only meets on a screen. It isn’t necessarily a sign of less commitment. It’s often just geography doing what geography does.
What this means for your own group
Is your group one that’s been meaning to meet in person more often, and keeps defaulting to video calls instead? This survey is a nudge, not a verdict. In-person contact is measurably more common where it’s logistically easier — not necessarily where people care more. You’re not failing at friendship if your book club lives on a group chat. You’re just working with a different map than someone whose group lives three streets away from each other.
If you do have the option to meet in person, and keep choosing the screen out of habit rather than necessity, this might be the push to actually use it. The survey doesn’t say online groups are worse. It says in-person ones are simply more available in some places than others — which is a geography problem you might actually be able to solve.
Either way, the stereotype doesn’t hold up cleanly. Rural life isn’t automatically lonelier, and city life isn’t automatically more disconnected. Both are engaged, just engaged on different terms — shaped less by how much people in each place care, and more by what’s actually within reach.
This article was produced with the assistance of AI and reviewed by Womens Overview editors prior to publication.