Content uploaded by Gene L. Theodori
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gene L. Theodori on Mar 05, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Urban Texas Residents’ Perceptions of Rural People and Places:
A Summary of Findings from a 2021 Survey
FINAL REPORT
Gene L. Theodori
Sam Houston State University
Fern K. Willits
The Pennsylvania State University
Michael W-P Fortunato
Creative Insight Community Development
Everything is bigger in Texas—or so the saying goes. In terms of size of U.S. states and
territories, Texas ranks second with a total area of 268,596 square miles (land area: 261,232
square miles; water area: 7,365 square miles) (Texas State Historical Association 2021). In terms
of resident population, Texas also ranks second. According to the United States Census Bureau
(2021), the estimated population of Texas in 2020 was 29,145,505.1
The 29 million-plus residents of Texas are scattered across its 254 counties, the largest number
of counties of any U.S. state. The distribution of the number of residents per county, though, is
extremely uneven. In 2020, twelve counties had resident population counts in excess of 500,000
(see Table 1). Taken together, these twelve counties accounted for 63.5% (n = 18,514,400) of the
state’s population.
Table 1. The Twelve Most Populated Counties in Texas
County 2020 population
Texas rank
(2020)
2010-2020 percent
change
a
Harris
4,731,145
1
15.6
Dallas
2,613,539
2
10.4
Tarrant
2,110,640
3
16.7
Bexar
2,009,324
4
17.2
Travis
1,290,188
5
26.0
Collin
1,064,465
6
36.1
Denton
906,422
7
36.8
Hidalgo
870,781
8
12.4
El Paso
865,657
9
8.1
Fort Bend
822,779
10
40.6
Montgomery
620,443
11
36.1
Williamson
609,017
12
44.1
a Percentages are based on the April 1 population estimates base for the respective years.
1 The population count corresponds to the April 1, 2020 population estimates base.
FINAL REPORT
2
Purpose of the Study
Little is known about how urban Texans view rural people and places in general or, more
specifically, how they view and/or interact with rural people and places within the Lone Star
State (cf. Theodori, Hudec, and Ellis 2012). To explore these issues, a sample of individuals
living in six of the twelve counties listed in Table 1 was contacted in May and June of 2021 and
asked to participate in an online survey titled “Urban Texas Residents’ Perceptions of Rural
People and Places.” This brief report summarizes the general findings from that study.
The Survey Data
An online survey conducted between May 6 and June 14, 2021, provided the data for this
analysis. Following a predetermined research design, OpinionAmerica Group, LLC, a
professional survey organization based in Morristown, New Jersey, was contracted to collect 400
completed online surveys from individuals 18 years of age or older currently residing in each of
the following six counties: Harris County (which includes the City of Houston and smaller
surrounding cities); Dallas County (which includes the City of Dallas and smaller surrounding
cities); Tarrant County (which includes the City of Fort Worth and smaller surrounding cities);
Bexar County (which includes the City of San Antonio and smaller surrounding cities); Travis
County (which includes the City of Austin and smaller surrounding cities); and, El Paso County
(which includes the City of El Paso and smaller surrounding cities).
Targeted emails, text messages, in-app messages, and offerwalls were sent to approximately
127,700 potential respondents believed to meet the screening criteria. All potentially eligible
respondents were identified using the LUCID platform (LUCID 2021) and contacted one time. In
total, 6,388 individuals visited the web survey site. Of these: 1,170 individuals viewed the
“Welcome” page but did not proceed further; 1,995 individuals began completing the online
survey but were terminated because they did not meet the age or residency requirement; and, 725
individuals met the age and residency requirement but were terminated because they lived in a
county where the quota was met (or exceeded slightly) and the survey had closed. Overall, 2,498
individuals completed the online survey and received a $1.00 credit to their account. Initial
examination of the data file, though, resulted in the removal of 89 surveys due to pre-established
quality control measures. Thus, the final sample size was reduced to 2,409.
Findings
Urban Respondents’ Perceptions of Rurality—Endorsement of the Rural Mystique
Included in the survey was a series of 16 attitudinal-items developed and used in previous
research to measure what has been referred to in American academic discourse as the rural
mystique—the tendency for individuals, regardless of residential location, to endorse positive
imageries of rurality and reject negative representations (Theodori and Hudec 2013; Theodori
and Willits 2019; Willits 1993; Willits, Bealer, and Timbers 1990, 1992; Willits and Luloff
1995; Willits, Luloff, and Fortunato 2010; Willits, Theodori, and Fortunato 2016). A principal
components factor analysis with oblique rotation of the 16 items using data from the current
study supported the presence of two factors. Nine items loaded on factor 1 (“positive images of
rurality”) and seven items loaded on factor 2 (“negative images of rurality”).2 Although the two
factors reflect conceptually distinct components and are treated separately, they are not
completely unrelated.
2 Results of the factor analysis are available upon request from the lead author.
FINAL REPORT
3
To determine the nature of the perceptions that urban respondents held about rural people and
places, frequency distributions of the responses to these items were compiled (Table 2). To
simplify presentation of the results, we combined the five answer categories ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree into three groupings— “agree,” “undecided,” and “disagree.”
Table 2. Responses to Items Dealing with the Rural Mystique
Items
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
----------------percentc---------------
Positive Images of Ruralitya
Rural areas have more peace and quiet than do other areas.
(n=2,376)
75.5 17.8 6.7
Because rural life is closer to nature, it is more wholesome.
(n=2,394)
61.2 24.6 14.2
Rural families are more close-knit and enduring than are other
families. (n=2,399)
60.8 26.0 13.3
Neighborliness and friendliness are more characteristic of
rural communities than other areas. (n=2,389)
58.9 24.3 16.8
Rural life brings out the best in people. (n=2,405)
56.6
33.5
9.9
There is less crime and violence in rural areas than in other
areas. (n=2,379)
54.0 29.2 16.8
Life in rural communities is less stressful than life elsewhere.
(n=2,383)
52.1 27.2 20.7
Rural people are more likely than other people to accept you
as you are. (n=2,393)
45.5 29.0 25.5
Rural communities are the most satisfying of all places to live,
work, and play. (n=2,393)
42.6 32.1 25.4
Negative Images of Ruralityb
Rural people are crude and uncultured in their talk, actions,
and dress. (n=2,388)
19.5 23.4 57.1
Rural life is monotonous and boring. (n=2,392)
24.5
23.1
52.3
Living in rural areas means doing without the good things in
modern society. (n=2,396)
30.3 23.0 46.8
Rural people are suspicious and prejudiced toward anyone not
like themselves. (n=2,387)
29.5 27.6 42.9
Rural people are closed-minded in their thinking. (n=2,387)
33.9
27.5
38.6
Rural communities provide few opportunities for the
individual to get ahead in life. (n=2,392)
36.4 27.4 36.2
Rural communities provide few opportunities for new
experiences. (n=2,394)
45.0 23.4 31.5
a Items are listed in descending order by the percentage of respondents who agreed.
b Items are listed in descending order by the percentage of respondents who disagreed.
c Percentages for responses to some items in this table and subsequent tables/analyses in this report may not sum to 100 due to rounding error.
Urban Texas survey respondents were more likely to agree than to disagree or be undecided with
seven of the nine statements focused on positive images of rurality. Roughly three in four sample
members agreed that rural areas have more peace and quiet than other areas. Approximately six
in every ten respondents agreed that rural life is closer to nature and more wholesome, and that
rural families are more close-knit and enduring than other families. Nearly the same proportion
of respondents agreed that neighborliness and friendliness are more characteristic of rural
communities than other areas. Slightly more than half of the respondents agreed that rural life
brings out the best in people, that there is less crime and violence in rural areas than in other
areas, and that life in rural communities is less stressful than life elsewhere. For two of the
positively-worded statements—“rural people are more likely than other people to accept you are
FINAL REPORT
4
you are” and “rural communities are the most satisfying of all places to live, work, and play”—
just under half agreed; about a quarter disagreed, with the remainder undecided.
Respondents in the current study were more than twice as likely to disagree as to agree that rural
people are crude and uncultured in their talk, actions, and dress and that rural life is monotonous
and boring. They were also more likely to disagree than agree that rural people are
suspicious/prejudiced and that rural living means doing without the good thing in modern
society. However, a third of the respondents agreed that rural people are closed-minded in their
thinking, and even greater percentages agreed rural communities provided few opportunities to
provide for new experiences (36.4%) or to get ahead in life (45.0%).3
Perceived Depictions of Rurality in the Media
In addition to the items included on the rural mystique, two survey questions measured how
urban respondents believed rural people and places tended to be presented in print and electronic
media.
When respondents were asked how rural people and places are portrayed in books, blogs, and
magazines in American society:
• 38.6% (n=929) reported “favorably”
• 18.3% (n=439) reported “unfavorably”
• 43.1% (n=1,037) reported “neither favorably nor unfavorably”
When asked how rural people and places are portrayed in television and online videos in
American society:
• 34.9% (n=803) reported “favorably”
• 26.1% (n=600) reported “unfavorably”
• 39.1% (n=900) reported “neither favorably nor unfavorably”
KEY TAKE-AWAYS
Overall, the urban residents in this sample tended to endorse positive images of rural people and
places, especially the ideas that rural areas are peaceful and quiet, closer to nature, with close-
knit families and friendly neighbors.
A sizable percentage of urban respondents believed that living in rural areas might limit
individuals’ opportunities for new experiences and/or their chances to get ahead in life.
Most survey respondents declared that both the print and electronic media were either
favorable or at least equivocal in representing rural people and places.
3 To put the urban Texas respondents’ perceptions of rurality in perspective, the results of a 2012 survey of rural and
small-town Texas residents concerning their perceptions of rurality are included in the Appendix. We recognize the
inherent temporal limitations of comparing these two data sets. However, the 2012 data gathered from persons living
in small and rural places in Texas are the most recent data on such residents. For more information on the data and
the 2012 Texas Rural Survey, see Theodori and Hudec (2013), Theodori and Robinson (2019), or Theodori and
Willits (2019).
FINAL REPORT
5
Urban Respondents’ Perceptions of the People and Places in Rural Texas
The survey also assessed urban respondents’ perceptions about the people and places in rural
Texas with two additional batteries of items. First, subjects were asked how they believed rural
Texans compared with people who live in other areas of the State regarding 12 descriptions.
Respondents were asked to indicate whether each description was “MORE typical of rural
people than of others,” “LESS typical of rural people than of others,” or that “Rural people are
the SAME as other people.” A “don’t know” option was also provided. Frequency distributions
for the 12 descriptions are reported in Table 3.
Table 3. Responses to Items Dealing with Perceptions of People in Rural Texas
Descriptionsa More Less Same
Don’t
know
-----------------------percent---------------------
Old-fashioned/reluctant to change (n=2,403)
42.2
16.7
30.1
10.9
Suspicious/distrustful (n=2,396)
20.6
31.1
34.3
14.0
Frugal/thrifty (n=2,397)
39.4
15.5
30.8
14.3
Friendly/outgoing (n=2,395)
46.5
14.2
30.9
8.4
Skilled workers/craftsmen (n=2,401)
47.9
10.9
31.1
10.0
Resourceful/creative (n=2,399)
49.9
11.0
30.7
8.3
Hard-working/industrious (n=2,395)
50.6
8.4
33.4
7.6
Happy/satisfied (n=2,398)
40.5
10.1
37.0
12.5
Independent/self-sufficient (n=2,397)
54.4
10.1
27.2
8.4
Knowledgeable/informed (n=2,399)
22.9
26.4
39.8
10.9
Provincial/limited world view (n=2,391)
28.2
21.2
32.6
17.9
Environmentalist/green (n=2,390)
39.6
17.4
29.0
14.1
a Descriptions are listed in the order in which they appeared in the online survey.
Although roughly 40% of the urban respondents indicated they either (a) did not know how rural
people in Texas compared with other people across the State or (b) viewed rural Texans as the
same as other Texans with respect to most of the characteristics, respondents’ perceptions to
certain descriptions are worth noting. A majority reported that rural people were more
independent/self-sufficient (54.4%) and more hard-working/industrious (50.6%) than others.
Nearly half also regarded rural people as more resourceful/creative (49.9%), skilled
workers/craftsmen (47.9%), and friendly/outgoing (46.5%).
FINAL REPORT
6
Next, respondents were asked how they believed the places in rural Texas compared with other
places across the State in regard to 18 descriptions. Respondents were asked to indicate whether
each description was “MORE characteristic of rural places than other places,” “LESS
characteristic of rural places than other places,” or that “rural places are the SAME as other
places.” A “don’t know” option was also provided. Frequency distributions for the 18
descriptions are reported in Table 4.
Table 4. Responses to Items Dealing with Perceptions of Places in Rural Texas
Descriptionsa More Less Same
Don’t
know
-----------------------percent------------------
Dependent on natural resources (n=2,399)
53.9
12.0
24.9
9.2
Small, local businesses (n=2,393)
55.4
13.5
22.9
8.2
High rates of unemployment (n=2,395)
23.3
25.2
30.7
20.8
Poverty (n=2,395)
26.3
23.8
31.1
18.7
Close-knit communities (n=2,394)
58.6
10.9
20.3
10.2
Traditional values (n=2,393)
62.1
7.7
21.2
9.0
Availability of medical and healthcare services (n=2,397)
12.7
51.8
24.0
11.6
Air pollution (n=2 ,395)
12.2
58.0
18.4
11.4
Desirable places to live (n=2,394)
39.1
20.2
29.1
11.6
Desirable places to work (n=2,396)
19.5
43.0
24.2
13.2
Desirable places for recreation (n=2,393)
36.8
24.2
26.0
13.0
Desirable places to own/operate a business (n=2,394)
23.4
35.3
26.6
14.8
Quality medical and healthcare services (n=2,395)
12.7
48.2
25.2
13.9
Affordable housing (n=2,396)
44.9
17.8
23.5
13.9
Quality public schools (n=2,391)
20.5
33.7
31.1
14.8
Cultural diversity (n=2,391)
17.2
44.9
25.0
12.9
Noise pollution (n= 2,392)
11.6
63.7
15.2
9.5
High crime rates (n=2,388)
10.8
57.0
19.3
13.0
a Descriptions are listed in the order in which they appeared in the online survey.
A sizable percentage of respondents indicated they either (a) did not know how rural places
differed from other places across Texas or (b) believed rural places in Texas did not differ from
other places in Texas with respect to the many of the characteristics. A majority did view rural
places across the State as being more dependent on natural resources (53.9%) and having more
small and local businesses (55.4%), close-knit communities (58.6%), and traditional values
(62.1%). Most respondents also viewed rural places in Texas as having less air and noise
pollution (58.0% and 63.7%, respectively) and lower crime rates (57.0%) than other places in
Texas. Just over half of the respondents (51.8%) believed that medical and healthcare services
were not as widely available in rural Texas as in other parts of the State, and almost half (48.2%)
viewed the quality of medical and healthcare services in rural Texas as inferior to the quality
such services in non-rural Texas places. About four of every nine respondents (44.9%)
proclaimed that rural Texas places were less culturally diverse than other places in Texas.
FINAL REPORT
7
KEY TAKE-AWAYS
Many urban respondents indicated that they either did not know how rural people and places
compared with other people and places across the State in regard to many of the attributes or
they believed rural people and places did not differ from non-rural people and places.
Large percentages of respondents did perceive rural people as independent/self-sufficient,
hard-working/industrious, and resourceful/creative—all popular images embedded in the rural
mystique. However, these descriptions were paired with urban respondents’ perceptions of
rural people as being old-fashioned/reluctant to change.
There was a clear perception that rural areas lack the pollution and crime of non-rural areas, but
also a sense that there are far less economic and employment opportunities in rural areas.
Likewise noted was lack of availability and quality of medical and healthcare services, as well as
cultural diversity.
Taken together, these findings present a bifurcated view of rural areas as being both rather
desirable places to live and play, but potentially difficult places in which to make a living and
maintain access to quality education, medical and healthcare services, and job opportunities.
Participation in Selected Activities in Rural Texas
The survey assessed urban respondents’ participation in selected activities in rural Texas during
the last five years. Respondents were asked how often during the last five years they had gone to
rural Texas to: vacation; shop; visit family; visit friends; visit historic or natural sites; work or
find employment; or participate in outdoor recreation activities. Response categories included:
“frequently,” “occasionally,” “seldom,” “never,” and “don’t recall.” Frequency distributions are
reported in Table 5.
As shown in Table 5, slightly more than half of the respondents reported that they never or only
seldom have gone to rural Texas to vacation (51.6%), shop (51.2%), visit family (51.8%), or visit
friends (52.9%) during the last five years. Almost the same percentage reported they never or
only seldom have gone to rural Texas to visit historic or natural sites (48.8%) or participate in
outdoor recreation activities (48.5%) during the last five years. More than seven of every ten
respondents reported that they never or only seldom have gone to rural Texas to work or find
employment (72.7%) during the last five years. Concomitantly, fewer than half of the
respondents indicated that they had visited rural Texas at least occasionally during the last five
years to participate in any of the seven selected activities. The largest percentage of respondents
who traveled to rural Texas at least occasionally during this time period did so to engage in
outdoor recreation activities (46.9%). Just over one in five respondents (22.0%) traveled to rural
Texas to work of find employment.
FINAL REPORT
8
Table 5. Responses to Items Dealing with Participation in Selected Activities in Rural Texas
Activitiesa
Frequently
Occasionally
Seldom
Never
Don’t recall
---------------------------------------percent-------------------------------------------
Gone to rural Texas to vacation
(n=2,404)
13.4 29.8 26.7 24.9 5.3
Gone to rural Texas to shop
(n=2,397)
11.7 31.5 29.0 22.2 5.6
Gone to rural Texas to visit
family (n=2,398)
17.1 27.1 19.1 32.7 4.0
Gone to rural Texas to visit
friends (n=2,397)
14.8 28.2 21.6 31.3 4.2
Gone to rural Texas to visit
historic or natural sites (n=2,396)
13.7 31.8 28.5 20.3 5.7
Gone to rural Texas to work or
find employment (n=2,390)
9.0 13.0 14.8 57.9 5.3
Gone to rural Texas to participate
in outdoor recreation activities
(n=2,389)
16.5 30.4 24.4 24.1 4.6
a Activities are listed in the order in which they appeared in the online survey.
Two additional survey questions were used to assess urban respondents’ participation in rural
Texas-related activities during the last five years.
When respondents were asked if they have read books, magazines, or blogs dealing with people
or places in rural Texas:
• 13.4% (n=321) reported “frequently”
• 28.3% (n=676) reported “occasionally”
• 26.9% (n=643) reported “seldom”
• 24.8% (n=592) reported “never”
• 6.5% (n=156) reported “don’t recall”
When respondents were asked if they have watched television or online video programs dealing
with people or places in rural Texas:
• 16.1% (n=384) reported “frequently”
• 31.7% (n=755) reported “occasionally”
• 26.6% (n=634) reported “seldom”
• 18.0% (n=428) reported “never”
• 7.5% (n=178) reported “don’t recall”
FINAL REPORT
9
KEY TAKE-AWAYS
Fewer than half of the urban subjects reported that they had visited rural Texas at least
occasionally during the last five years to participate in any of seven selected activities.
Approximately half of the urban respondents reported that they never or only seldom traveled to
rural Texas to vacation, shop, visit family, visit friends, visit historic or natural sites, or
participate in outdoor recreation activities.
Most urban respondents (more than 7 out of 10) have never or only seldom worked or sought
employment in rural Texas during the same time period.
Roughly four in ten urban respondents claimed to have at least occasionally read books,
magazines, or blogs dealing with people or places in rural Texas.
Almost half of the urban respondents watched television or online programs dealing with people
or places in rural Texas.
Length of Residence and Residential Preferences
The survey assessed respondents’ length of residence in their current city/town as well as their
residential preferences.
Length of residence in current city/town
Respondents were asked to report the number of years they have lived in their current city/town.
Respondents who have lived in their current city/town for less than one year were instructed to
enter a zero in the space provided. Overall, 2,275 respondents answered this question. Of those,
96 (4.2%) reported living in their current city/town for less than one year. The number of years
the remaining respondents lived in their current city/town ranged from 1 (n=118) to 78 (n=1).
The median number of years respondent lived in their current city/town was 15; the modal value
was 2 years.
FINAL REPORT
10
Residential preferences
Respondents were asked where in the United States they would live if they had the option to
choose the place. Roughly four in ten respondents (39.1%; n=942) reported that they would live
in the same city in Texas in which they currently reside. Further,
• 7.8% (n=188) would choose to live in a different big city or metropolis in Texas
• 8.4% (n=202) would choose to live in a medium-sized city in Texas
• 6.8% (n=165) would choose to live in a small city in Texas
• 6.9% (n=167) would choose to live in the suburbs of a big Texas city
• 4.3% (n=104) would choose to live in a small Texas town
• 11.5% (n=277) would choose to live in rural Texas (in the countryside outside of town)
• 15.1% (n=364) would choose to live in another state
Respondents who reported they would choose to live in another state were asked to specify
which state. The four states topping the list included: California, Colorado, Florida, and New
York.
Respondents were asked where in the United States they would least like to live. Approximately
one sixth of the respondents (16.5%; n=397) reported that they would least like to live in the
same city in Texas in which they currently reside. Additionally,
• 21.1% (n=509) would least like to live in a different big city or metropolis in Texas
• 4.0% (n=96) would least like to live in a medium-sized city in Texas
• 7.2% (n=173) would least like to live in a small city in Texas
• 5.6% (n=135) would least like to live in the suburbs of a big Texas city
• 10.8% (n=259) would least like to live in a small Texas town
• 12.5% (n=302) would least like to live in rural Texas (in the countryside outside of town)
• 22.3% (n=538) would least like to live in another state
Respondents who reported they would least like to live in another state were asked to specify
which state. The four states topping the list included: California, New York, Florida, and
Mississippi.
KEY TAKE-AWAYS
Roughly half of the respondents have resided in their current city/town for 15 years or less.
Given a choice, almost half of the respondents would choose to live in a big city or metropolis in
Texas (whether that be the current city in which they reside or a different city/metropolis within
the State).
Approximately 16 in every 100 respondents would choose to live in either a small Texas town or
in a rural area.
Nearly one in every four respondents avowed they would least like to live in either a small town
or rural area in Texas.
FINAL REPORT
11
Sociodemographic Characteristics of Urban Survey Respondents
Near the end of the survey, respondents were asked to provide some information about
themselves and their households. The sociodemographic traits of the urban survey respondents
are summarized below.
Gender
• 2,406 respondents reported their gender
o 38.9% identified as Male
o 60.2% identified as Female
o 0.9% identified as Other
Age
• 2,399 respondents reported their age.
o Ages ranged from 18 to 98
o Mean age was 42.09 (with a standard deviation of 18.55)
o Median age was 38
o Mode was 21
Race
• 2,407 respondents reported their race
o 1.4% identified as American Indian
o 4.3% identified as Asian
o 15.7% identified as Black or African American
o 27.0% identified as Hispanic
o 48.9% identified as White (non-Hispanic)
o 2.6% identified as Other
Political party identity
• 2,399 respondents reported their political party identity
o 38.4% identified with the Democratic Party
o 25.0% identified with the Republican Party
o 25.4% identified as an Independent
o 11.2% identified as Other
Educational attainment
• 2,406 respondents reported their educational attainment
o 3.0% did not complete high school
o 21.4% completed high school or equivalent
o 25.1% completed some college or post-high school training
o 13.1% completed an associate’s or 2-year vocational degree
o 23.4% completed a bachelor’s degree
o 14.1% completed a graduate or professional degree
FINAL REPORT
12
Household income in 2020 (from all sources before taxes)
• 2,394 respondents reported their 2020 household income
o 9.6% reported their household income to be under $9,999
o 10.0% reported their household income to be between $10,000 and $19,999
o 12.2% reported their household income to be between $20,000 and $29,999
o 10.7% reported their household income to be between $30,000 and $39,999
o 9.1% reported their household income to be between $40,000 and $49,999
o 8.9% reported their household income to be between $50,000 and $59,999
o 6.9% reported their household income to be between $60,000 and $69,999
o 7.4% reported their household income to be between $70,000 and $79,999
o 4.2% reported their household income to be between $80,000 and $89,999
o 3.6% reported their household income to be between $90,000 and $99,999
o 4.0% reported their household income to be between $100,000 and $109,999
o 1.8% reported their household income to be between $110,000 and $119,999
o 2.3% reported their household income to be between $120,000 and $129,999
o 9.4% reported their household income to be $130,000 or more
KEY TAKE-AWAYS
The sample displayed diversity in terms of age, income, political party identity, educational
attainment, and household income.
As is commonly found in survey research, the sample contained slightly more females than
males and more white than non-white individuals.
Concluding Comments
Overall, the findings from this online survey demonstrate that, to a substantial degree, urban
Texas residents hold mostly favorable attitudes about rural people and places in general and
toward those within the Lone Star State. Despite embracing these mostly positive views, a
relatively small percentage of respondents reported that, given the opportunity, they would move
to a small town or rural area in Texas. Simultaneously, a slightly larger percentage of
respondents avowed that they would least like to live in small-town or rural Texas. A sizeable
number of respondents also perceived certain difficulties associated with everyday life in rural
Texas, most notably the lack in the quantity and quality of medical and healthcare services.
Respondents also considered places in rural Texas to be less culturally diverse than non-rural
Texas places. It should be noted that many of the respondents commenting on rural Texas people
and places have never been, or only rarely have been, to rural Texas during the last five years. It
may be the case that many of these individuals have formed their opinions based on portrayals of
rurality in the media or by beliefs passed along by family members, friends, and/or
acquaintances.
FINAL REPORT
13
References
LUCID. 2021. “Research Technology for Sampling and Media Measurement.” Retrieved June
22, 2021 (https://luc.id).
Texas State Historical Association. 2021. Texas Almanac: 2020-2021. Retrieved June 22, 2021
(https://texasalmanac.com/).
Theodori, Gene L. and Cheryl L. Hudec. 2013. The 2012 Texas Rural Survey: Perceptions of
Rural and Urban Living. Huntsville, TX: Center for Rural Studies, Sam Houston State
University. Retrieved June 22, 2021 (http://www.shsu.edu/centers/rural-
studies/TRS/TRS%202012%20Perceptions%20of%20Rural%20and%20Urban%20Livin
g.pdf).
Theodori, Gene L., Cheryl L. Hudec, and Colter Ellis. 2012. “Perceptions of Current and Future
Economic Development Efforts in Rural Texas.” Texas Town & City 99(8):6-7, 42-43.
Theodori, Gene L. and Chothiakadavil S. Robinson. 2019. “A Note on Religious Participation
and Community Involvement.” Community Development 50(4):484-493.
Theodori, Gene L. and Fern K. Willits. 2019. “Rural and Small Town Residents and the Rural
Mystique: Data from Texas.” Rural Sociology 84(1):168-181.
United States Census Bureau. 2021. “QuickFacts, Texas.” Retrieved February 28, 2022
(https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/TX,US/PST045219).
Willits, Fern K. 1993. “The Rural Mystique and Tourism Development: Data from
Pennsylvania.” Journal of the Community Development Society 24(2):159-174.
Willits, Fern K., Robert C. Bealer, and Vincent L. Timbers. 1990. “Popular Images of ‘Rurality’:
Data from a Pennsylvania Survey.” Rural Sociology 55(4):559-578.
Willits, Fern K., Robert C. Bealer, and Vincent L. Timbers. 1992. The Rural Mystique: Some
Implications for Rural Development. Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station
Bulletin 870. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
Willits, Fern K. and A.E. Luloff. 1995. “Urban Residents’ View of Rurality and Contacts with
Rural Places.” Rural Sociology 60(3):454-466.
Willits, Fern K. A.E. Luloff, and Michael W-P Fortunato. 2010. Rural Pennsylvanians’
Attitudes: Continuity and Change. University Park, PA: Department of Agricultural
Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University.
Willits, Fern K., Gene L. Theodori, and Michael W-P Fortunato. 2016. “The Rural Mystique in
American Society.” Pp. 33-55 in Reinventing Rural: New Realities in an Urbanizing
World, edited by A.R. Thomas and G.M. Fulkerson. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
FINAL REPORT
14
Appendix
The attitudinal items used in this study to assess acceptance of the rural mystique have been
used, with minor variation, for more than three decades in empirical research studies conducted
in Pennsylvania and Texas (see pertinent articles and book chapters listed in References). As in
the present study, factor analyses have consistently supported the presence of two conceptually
distinct, yet related, components—one component focused on positive rural images and a second
component focused on negative images of rurality. To the best of our knowledge, the current
study is the first investigation to explicitly measure the views of rurality using a sample drawn
from the general population residing in urban Texas. As such, it provides a new perspective on
the perceptions of rurality and the endorsement of the rural mystique in American society.
Although current data are not available to compare the views of these urban residents with their
rural contemporaries, a comparison of the current urban sample data with the most recent data
collected on rural and small-town residents in Texas may be instructive (see Table A).
FINAL REPORT
15
Table A. Rural and Small-Town Texas Residents’ Responses to Items Dealing with the Rural Mystique
Itemsa
Agree Undecided Disagree
Chi-
square
c
--------------percentb----------------
Positive Images of Rurality
Rural areas have more peace and quiet than do other areas.
(n=662)
88.4 5.7 5.9 61.10d
Because rural life is closer to nature, it is more wholesome.
(n=665)
70.2 17.4 12.3 19.43d
Rural families are more close-knit and enduring than are
other families. (n=663)
73.5 16.1 10.4 37.54d
Neighborliness and friendliness are more characteristic of
rural communities than other areas. (n=660)
71.7 13.5 14.8 42.22d
Rural life brings out the best in people. (n=663)
78.6
17.0
4.4
105.89d
There is less crime and violence in rural areas than in other
areas. (n=663)
60.9 16.3 22.8 47.28d
Life in rural communities is less stressful than life elsewhere.
(n=657)
69.6 14.3 16.1 68.81d
Rural people are more likely than other people to accept you
as you are. (n=662)
50.2 24.9 24.9 5.64
Rural communities are the most satisfying of all places to
live, work, and play. (n=663)
71.3 16.6 12.1 172.04d
Negative Images of Rurality
Rural people are crude and uncultured in their talk, actions,
and dress. (n=656)
5.0 8.1 86.9 197.57d
Rural life is monotonous and boring. (n=662)
9.4
10.6
80.1
164.46d
Living in rural areas means doing without the good things in
modern society. (n=659)
15.8 12.1 72.1 132.53d
Rural people are suspicious and prejudiced toward anyone
not like themselves. (n=663)
16.7 23.5 59.7 66.13d
Rural people are closed-minded in their thinking. (n=654)
31.3
20.8
47.9
20.73d
Rural communities provide few opportunities for the
individual to get ahead in life. (n=662)
26.7 22.5 50.8 46.43d
Rural communities provide few opportunities for new
experiences. (n=663)
38.2 17.6 44.2 37.72d
a Items are listed in the order in which they appear in Table 2.
b Percentages (which may not sum to 100 due to rounding error) coincide with those reported by Theodori and Hudec (2013). Theodori and
Willits (2019) analyzed data on a subset of the 2012 sample; hence, the percentages of respondents who agreed, disagreed, or were undecided
differed slightly in their paper than those reported here.
c Statistical significance of the differences in responses between the rural/small-town Texas residents and the urban Texas respondents (as shown
in Table 2) was tested using chi-square analyses.
d Significant at the .001 level.
FINAL REPORT
16
KEY TAKE-AWAYS
The percentages of respondents who agreed with each of the nine positively-worded items were
greater among the rural/small-town residents than the urban residents.
The percentages of respondents who disagreed with each of the seven negatively-worded items
were greater among the rural/small-town residents than the urban residents.
The differences in responses between the rural/small-town Texas residents and the urban
residents were statistically significant (
p
< .001) for eight of the nine positive images of rurality
items and all seven of the negative images of rurality items.
Statistically, urban residents were as likely as rural/small-town residents to agree (as well as to
disagree or be undecided) that “rural people are more likely than other people to accept you as
you are.”
NOTE Support for this research was provided by the Department of Sociology at Sam Houston State University.
The information in this publication may be reproduced without permission of the authors. However, a credit line
would be appreciated. A suggested citation is: Theodori, Gene L., Fern K. Willits, and Michael W-P Fortunato.
2022. Urban Texas Residents’ Perceptions of Rural People and Places: A Summary of Findings from a 2021 Survey.
Huntsville, TX: Department of Sociology, Sam Houston State University.
CONTACT Gene L. Theodori, Sam Houston State University, Box 2446, Huntsville, TX 77341-2446;
gtheodori@shsu.edu
