People · South America

Brazil

Source dates shown with each finding

← Brazil overview
Brazil · People

People Intelligence

Public opinion and socioeconomic subgroup evidence from approved external survey sources. Exact source framing and methodological caveats remain visible.

Brazil · Safety

91.8% worry that violent crime could cause serious harm

More than nine in ten respondents in Brazil said they were very or somewhat worried that violent crime could cause serious harm.

Lloyd's Register Foundation World Risk Poll · Fieldwork 2025

People · Generations · Financial milestones

The “maybe later” economy.

Housing, education, work and family choices increasingly collide with financial pressure. PolisMetric keeps the U.S. Pew benchmark separate from Deloitte’s same-wave Gen Z and millennial country evidence so unlike questions are never forced into one ranking.

Verified 2026 country result

Brazil

#15of 15 verified countries on Gen Z delayed major decisions
Delayed decisions

Delayed major life decisions

Gen Z45%
Millennials36%

Share saying finances caused them to delay major life decisions such as marriage, starting a family or business, or further education.

Home out of reach

Cannot afford to own a home

Gen Z39%
Millennials26%

Share saying they cannot afford to own a home.

Same-question international comparison

Financial pressure is delaying major life decisions.

These 15 country results come from the same Deloitte 2026 survey wave and the same question. Paired dots show published percentages for Gen Z and millennials; the connector shows the gap. This is not a quality ranking. Countries without a verified national value remain outside the ranking.

Thailand65%57%
Philippines64%64%
Argentina59%67%
Mexico57%52%
Italy56%51%
Australia55%45%
India54%44%
Sweden52%49%
Singapore51%50%
Netherlands51%45%
Switzerland46%60%
United Kingdom46%46%
China46%35%
Germany45%39%
Brazil45%36%

Deloitte Global 2026 Gen Z and Millennial Survey · fielded Nov. 24, 2025–Jan. 15, 2026 · online self-complete survey. The global study includes 22,595 respondents in 44 countries; this chart contains only source-verified country cuts in the current PolisMetric evidence pass.

Country source

Deloitte 2026 Gen Z and Millennial Survey — Brazil · N=804. Values are attributed public results and remain source-defined.

Source
Deloitte Global 2026 Gen Z and Millennial Survey
Population
Gen Z and millennials in the source-defined national samples
Fieldwork
2025-11-24/2026-01-15
Sample
22,595 across 44 countries; country sample sizes vary
Uncertainty
Not supplied for these displayed estimates; consult the source methodology.
Question and methods

Share saying finances caused them to delay major life decisions. The separate U.S. Pew anchor uses a different population and question.

Read source methods ↗

Source-defined populations and questions remain separate. Missing observations are not estimated or changed to zero.

People Intelligence · Brazil · Young women

Political divides and mental health — measured as separate evidence streams.

PolisMetric does not assume that the U.S. pattern applies everywhere. For Brazil, political or gender-attitude evidence is shown only when a governed source supports it, and mental-health evidence is kept methodologically separate. An association is never inferred merely because both measures appear on the same page.

CoveragePolitics evidence · Mental-health evidenceNo synthetic national values
Political / values evidence

Feminist self-identification by gender

2026 country result + global Gen Z benchmark
29-country Gen Z benchmark54% women · 36% menMulti-country average — not substituted for Brazil's Gen Z result.
Mental-health evidence

Young-adult mind-health position

Ages 18–34 · 2024–2025

Sapien Labs' Global Mind Project ranks Brazil's internet-enabled 18–34 population at #79 of 84. This is a young-adult country context, not a women-only result and not a depression prevalence estimate.

Global young-adult referenceMHQ 36 · 41% distressed/strugglingGlobal 18–34 reference from the same report; not a national value for Brazil.
Interpretation ruleDo not turn two separate datasets into a causal story.

Political ideology, party affiliation, feminist self-identification, psychological distress and MHQ are different constructs. Cross-country cultural and sampling differences also matter. PolisMetric keeps the measures separate unless a single defensible study directly estimates their relationship in the same population.

POLISMETRICEvidence before narrative
Source & method

Country values are never filled from regional or global averages. Ipsos' Gen Z numbers are shown only as a labeled 29-country benchmark. The Global Mind Project reflects internet-enabled populations and cautions that MHQ differences of up to five points can fall within sampling noise.

Trusted sources · Health & wellness · 2018 baseline

Brazil: who people trusted for health advice.

A directly comparable baseline from the Wellcome Global Monitor. “Most trusted source,” trust in government advice, and trust in medical workers are kept as separate measures. The survey was fielded in 2018; newer country-specific evidence is shown separately when a governed source is available.

Most trusted source65.1%

named doctors or nurses as the person they trusted most for medical or health advice.

2018 national sample n=1,000 · prevalence rank #31 of 35 current PolisMetric countries
Most trusted source · Q20

One question, six answer groups.

Bars use the full weighted country sample denominator, matching Wellcome’s published convention. “Don’t know” and refusals remain in the denominator and are preserved as missing-response metadata.

Doctors & nurses65.1%
Family & friends20.9%
Religious leaders7.2%
None / someone else2.2%
Traditional healers1.7%
Famous people0.6%

Don’t know / refused: 2.2% of the weighted sample.

Source trust · Q2165.4%

Government medical & health advice

Share answering that they trust government medical and health advice a lot or some.

Source trust · Q2270.5%

Medical workers’ advice

Share saying they trust advice from medical workers such as doctors and nurses a lot or some.

35-country comparison

Compare the same question across PolisMetric countries.

Switch measures to inspect directly comparable 2018 values. Bars show response prevalence, not a quality score or PolisMetric ranking.

Doctors or nurses named as the single most trusted sourceQ20: share of the weighted country sample naming a doctor or nurse as the person trusted most for medical or health advice.
Brazil 65.1%Median 79.7%Available 35/35
1Singapore93.5%
2Norway93.2%
3Canada91.1%
4Italy90.7%
5Malaysia90.7%
6United Kingdom90.3%
7Belgium90.2%
8Sweden89.5%
9Australia89.4%
10France88.7%
11Thailand88.7%
12Spain88.1%
13United States88.1%
14Ireland85.2%
15Netherlands84%
16Taiwan83.3%
17Mexico81.4%
18Switzerland79.7%
19Argentina79.1%
20Vietnam78.7%
21India76.8%
22Indonesia76.1%
23Türkiye75.9%
24South Africa74.3%
25Poland71.9%
26Saudi Arabia71.2%
27South Korea71.2%
28Russia69.8%
29Philippines69.6%
30Japan69%
31Brazil65.1%
32Germany63.3%
33Israel63.1%
34China62.4%
35Austria58.7%
Dashed marker = median among countries with a published value for this exact measure. Hover, tap or use Tab to inspect rows.
Source & reuse

Gallup (2019), Wellcome Global Monitor – First Wave Findings. PolisMetric visualization and weighted aggregation from published survey fields. The Wellcome report states that its data and text are distributed under CC BY with attribution; report images are excluded. PolisMetric uses original charts and does not reproduce Wellcome’s graphic design.

Country percentages use the public within-country survey weight (wgt) and the full weighted country sample denominator, matching Wellcome's published country convention. Q21/Q22 combine 'A lot' + 'Some'. Don't know/refused responses remain in the denominator and are preserved as missing-response metadata; unavailable questions remain null and are never converted to zero. Fieldwork: April–December 2018. This supplemental module does not count as five independent People sources.

Source
Wellcome Global Monitor 2018
Population
Nationally representative adult country samples under Gallup World Poll methodology; exact eligible ages and interview modes vary by country.
Fieldwork
April–December 2018
Sample
Brazil: N=1,000
Uncertainty
Not supplied for these displayed estimates; consult the source methodology.
Question and methods

Country percentages use the public within-country survey weight (wgt) and the full weighted country sample denominator, matching Wellcome's published country convention. Q21/Q22 combine 'A lot' + 'Some'. Don't know/refused responses remain in the denominator and are preserved as missing-response metadata; unavailable questions remain null and are never converted to zero.

Read source methods ↗

Source-defined populations and questions remain separate. Missing observations are not estimated or changed to zero.

AI & society · Pew Research Center · 2026

How Brazil sees AI.

Four directly comparable measures from Pew Research Center’s 2026 global AI study. Rankings below describe the prevalence of each response among the 25 PolisMetric countries covered by this release; they are not quality scores.

Future of work42%

of adults say AI will lead to fewer jobs in Brazil over the next 20 years.

Share rank #18 of 25 covered PolisMetric countries · covered-country median 48%
Q57#18 / 25
42%

Expect AI to lead to fewer jobs

Brazil: 42%25-country median: 48%

Share of adults saying AI will lead to fewer jobs in their country over the next 20 years.

Field period: Feb. 8–May 13, 2026
Q56#17 / 25
24%

Expect AI to increase inequality

Brazil: 24%25-country median: 32%

Share saying AI will increase the gap between rich and poor in their country over the next 20 years.

Field period: Feb. 8–May 13, 2026
Q55#2 / 25
52%

More concerned than excited about AI

Brazil: 52%25-country median: 37%

Share saying they are more concerned than excited about the increased use of AI in daily life.

Field period: Feb. 8–May 13, 2026
Q54#17 / 25
31%

Have heard or read a lot about AI

Brazil: 31%25-country median: 41%

Share saying they have heard or read a lot about artificial intelligence.

Field period: Feb. 8–May 13, 2026
Cross-country comparison

See where Brazil sits among all 25 covered countries.

Switch the measure to compare every directly surveyed PolisMetric country on the same 0–100% scale. Brazil is highlighted; the gold marker shows the 25-country median.

Expect AI to lead to fewer jobsShare of adults saying AI will lead to fewer jobs in their country over the next 20 years.
Brazil 42%Median 48%Rank #18/25
1Australia76%
2South Korea76%
3United States71%
4Canada61%
5United Kingdom61%
6France60%
7Poland59%
8Italy55%
9Spain54%
10Germany51%
11Japan49%
12Netherlands48%
13Sweden48%
14Argentina47%
15Singapore46%
16Mexico44%
17South Africa44%
18Brazil42%
19Israel42%
20Malaysia41%
21Indonesia37%
22Thailand32%
23India29%
24Türkiye29%
25Philippines26%
Bars show published Pew toplines. The dashed vertical marker is the median among the 25 covered PolisMetric countries. Hover, tap or use Tab to inspect a row.
Source

Pew Research Center, Globally, More People Expect AI to Cause Job Loss Than Growth, published Sept. 17, 2026. International country results were fielded Feb. 8–May 13, 2026; U.S. measures shown here use the field periods printed on each card.

Pew surveyed 37 places overall. This PolisMetric comparison is restricted to the 25 countries that overlap the canonical 35-country universe. Source results are reproduced as attributed public toplines; PolisMetric does not reinterpret them as an original poll.

Source
Pew Research Center · Globally, More People Expect AI to Cause Job Loss Than Growth
Population
Source-defined national adult samples
Fieldwork
Feb. 8–May 13, 2026
Sample
Country sample sizes: see the linked methodology
Uncertainty
Not supplied for these displayed estimates; consult the source methodology.
Question and methods

The selected measure uses the exact Pew topline question. U.S. fieldwork differs by measure, as printed on each card.

Read source methods ↗

Source-defined populations and questions remain separate. Missing observations are not estimated or changed to zero.

Brazil · People Intelligence

Five sources. Five different stories.

Each finding comes from a different approved source and covers a different part of public life. Open the data view to inspect the measure, sample, evidence note and original source.

Safety2025
Lloyd's Register Foundation World Risk Poll01 / 05

91.8% worry that violent crime could cause serious harm

Key findingMore than nine in ten respondents in Brazil said they were very or somewhat worried that violent crime could cause serious harm.
Explore data
Safety

91.8% worry that violent crime could cause serious harm

2025
Published observations · 2025
Measure / groupPublished value
Married / partner48.2%
Neighbors care57.9%
1+ month buffer70.6%
Mental-health harm worry62.1%
Violent-crime harm worry91.8%
Question / measure

Worried Violent Crime Could Cause Serious Harm: Very or somewhat worried

Sample

996 respondents on highlighted item

Evidence

canonical observation

Use class

OPEN ATTRIBUTION

Finding

More than nine in ten respondents in Brazil said they were very or somewhat worried that violent crime could cause serious harm.

Evidence note

Canonical World Risk Poll 2025 observation lrf-wrp-2025-bra-violent_crime_harm_worry. Weighted national estimate; item base differs from the full survey sample.

Open original source ↗
Source ↗
Life evaluation2023–2025
World Happiness Report / Gallup World Poll02 / 05

Average life evaluation is 6.634 out of 10

Key findingWorld Happiness Report 2026 reports a three-year average life evaluation of 6.634 for Brazil.
Explore data
Life evaluation

Average life evaluation is 6.634 out of 10

2023–2025
Published observations · 2023–2025
Measure / groupPublished value
2023–2025 average6.634 / 10
Question / measure

Cantril Ladder life evaluation, 0 worst possible life to 10 best possible life

Sample

Gallup World Poll national samples; typically about 1,000 respondents per country per year

Evidence

publisher public result

Use class

PUBLIC RESULTS ONLY

Finding

World Happiness Report 2026 reports a three-year average life evaluation of 6.634 for Brazil.

Evidence note

Publisher-released World Happiness Report 2026 Figure 2.1 national aggregate. Three-year average; underlying Gallup respondent microdata are proprietary and are not republished.

Open original source ↗
Source ↗
Values & religionJan–Apr 2025
Pew Research Center03 / 05

74% say belief in God is necessary to be moral

Key findingPew Research Center found 74% of Brazilian adults said belief in God is necessary to be moral and have good values.
Explore data
Values & religion

74% say belief in God is necessary to be moral

Jan–Apr 2025
Published observations · Jan–Apr 2025
Measure / groupPublished value
Necessary74%
Other / not necessary26%
Question / measure

Is belief in God necessary in order to be moral and have good values?

Sample

Nationally representative Brazilian adult survey

Evidence

publisher public result

Use class

PUBLIC RESULTS ONLY

Finding

Pew Research Center found 74% of Brazilian adults said belief in God is necessary to be moral and have good values.

Evidence note

Pew Research Center Spring 2025 Global Attitudes Survey public topline. Publisher-released topline only.

Open original source ↗
Source ↗
Institutional trust2024
Corporación Latinobarómetro04 / 05

28% report much or some confidence in the government

Key findingLatinobarómetro's 2024 public country results put confidence in Brazil's government at 28% when 'much' and 'some' confidence are combined.
Explore data
Institutional trust

28% report much or some confidence in the government

2024
Published observations · 2024
Measure / groupPublished value
Much or some confidence28%
Question / measure

Confidence in the government

Sample

Brazil national sample; see publisher report

Evidence

publisher public result

Use class

PUBLIC RESULTS ONLY

Finding

Latinobarómetro's 2024 public country results put confidence in Brazil's government at 28% when 'much' and 'some' confidence are combined.

Evidence note

Corporación Latinobarómetro public 2024 country result. Only the publisher-issued public result is used; restricted/non-commercial raw data are not redistributed.

Open original source ↗
Source ↗
Democratic satisfaction2022 post-election
Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES)05 / 05

About 28% were fairly or very satisfied with how democracy was working

Key findingCSES Module 6 Brazil 2022 data place roughly 28% of respondents in the fairly or very satisfied categories for how democracy was working.
Explore data
Democratic satisfaction

About 28% were fairly or very satisfied with how democracy was working

2022 post-election
Published observations · 2022 post-election
Measure / groupPublished value
Fairly or very satisfied28%
Question / measure

On the whole, satisfaction with the way democracy works in Brazil

Sample

Brazil 2022 national election-study respondents; see CSES design report

Evidence

publisher public result

Use class

OPEN COMMERCIAL OK

Finding

CSES Module 6 Brazil 2022 data place roughly 28% of respondents in the fairly or very satisfied categories for how democracy was working.

Evidence note

CSES Module 6 Brazil 2022 public election-study data. Rounded combined share from public CSES Module 6 response categories; this is a 2022 post-election benchmark.

Open original source ↗
Source ↗