Content uploaded by Nicolas Tajan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nicolas Tajan on Mar 14, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 15 | Issue 5 | Number 1 | Mar 2017
1
Hikikomori: The Japanese Cabinet Office’s 2016 Survey of Acute Social
Withdrawal
Nicolas Tajan, Hamasaki Yukiko, Nancy Pionnié-Dax
Abstract
In September 2016, the Cabinet Office of Japan
published the results of an epidemiological
survey focusing on acute social withdrawal
(hikikomori). This article summarizes and
assesses the major features of the survey. It aims
at facilitating research and international
exchanges on a mental health and social problem
affecting at least 541,000 people in Japan that
seems to have spread to industrialized societies.
Introduction
Hikikomori designates a phenomenon of social
withdrawal in which individuals remain locked
in their room for several months or years without
social relationships. Saitō Tamaki’s book (Saitō
1998, 2013) played an important role in the
understanding of the phenomenon, which
became the subject of numerous TV reports and
newspaper articles. An increasing number of
articles were published in Japanese, and some in
English peer-reviewed journals (see for instance
Ogino 2004; Kaneko 2006; Borovoy 2008). It
includes important articles published in The
Asia-Pacific Journal such as Tuukka Toivonen’s
and Aaron Miller’s insights on contemporary
NPO and NGO supporting distressed youths
(Miller and Toivonen 2010), and the interview of
a well-known figure in the hikikomori-NEET
community Futagami Nōki (Futagami and Asano
2006). Scientific discussion of the issue struggled
with the legitimacy of using the term hikikomori
in psychiatry (Tateno et al 2012); the prevalence
of multiple mental disorders among the
hikikomori population (Kondo et al. 2013;
Hamasaki 2015; Ryder 2015); the appropriateness
of considering hikikomori as a culture bound
syndrome or a cultural concept of distress (Teo
and Gaw 2010; Tajan 2015b); its relationship with
school non-attendance (Tajan 2015a) and subject
formation (Tajan 2015c). First reviews of the
literature were published in 2015 (Tajan 2015b; Li
and Wong 2015).
First reports from the Ministry of Health Labor
and Welfare were published in 2001 and 2003,
whereas the 2010 report is considered as a
milestone in hikikomori studies (Kōsei rōdō shō
2001, 2003, 2010). Also, in 2010, a shorter survey
was published by the Cabinet Office of Japan
(Nihon Naikakufu 2010). We discuss this survey
below, which estimates the hikikomori
population.
Here, we present for the first time in English, a
synthesis of the youths’ life survey published by
the Cabinet Office of Japan in September 2016.
We include details concerning questions such as
“What applies to me?” (III-8) and “daily life
habits” (III-9). This 169-page survey is
descriptive. It presents data about the
phenomenon while never discussing, providing
statistical analysis, or interpreting the results. In
the present synthesis, we present the survey
while remaining faithful to this descriptive spirit
before comprehensively assessing it in the
conclusion.
2016 hikikomori survey
The survey was published in September 2016 and
is entitled “Wakamono no seikatsu ni kansuru
chōsa hōkokusho”—in English, “Research survey
of youth’s life” (Nihon Naikakufu 2016).
APJ | JF 15 | 5 | 1
2
Although the survey is dedicated to hikikomori,
the term hikikomori is surprisingly not
mentioned in the title.
It starts by describing the results of the first
investigation in 2010. At the time, the Cabinet
Office formed a team of psychiatrists and clinical
psychologists to produce a report entitled
“Investigation on Youths’ Consciousness
(Investigation on Hikikomori) (Nihon Naikakufu
2010). The target of the investigation was a cohort
of 5000 individuals between 15 and 39 years old,
nationwide. In Japan, individuals in this age
range are classified as “wakamono” meaning
“youth”: in Western industrialized countries, it
would encompass emerging adulthood and
young adulthood (Arnett, Žukauskienė and
Sugimura 2014). Questionnaires were distributed
(randomized distribution) and collected at home.
In total, valid questionnaires completed by 3287
individuals (65.7%) were collected. Among them,
the hikikomori group was composed of 59
individuals (1.79%). Based on demographic
estimates of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and
Communications (2008), the hikikomori
corresponded to 696,000 individuals nationwide.
In addition, the investigation included items such
as “I understand the feeling of being
hikikomori,” and those who responded
affirmatively were numerous, representing what
was then considered the affinity group, estimated
at 1.55 million individuals nationwide.
Individuals belonging to the affinity group are
not hikikomori themselves.
Following the 2010 results, a similar investigation
was conducted by the Cabinet Office to research
the actual conditions of withdrawal. We present
the principal results, which were made public in
September 2016. The report explains the necessity
of actively supporting youth who are struggling
in their social life and researching their actual
condition. The survey underlines the difficulty of
understanding the relational mechanisms that are
so challenging for troubled youth, especially
those who are hikikomori.
Overview of the survey
Materials and methods
The purpose of the investigation is to determine
the number of individuals experiencing
hikikomori, to identify the nature of appropriate
assistance, to understand the onset and character
of the youths’ difficulties, and to promote the
implementation of an assistance network, in
every region, nationwide.
The target of the investigation is 15- to 39-year-
old individuals and their families living in 198
municipalities nationwide. Auto-questionnaires
were distributed (randomized distribution) to
5000 individuals (90.3% live with one or several
members of their family).
The investigators distributed and collected the
questionnaire at home from December 11, 2015 to
December 23, 2015.
Group definitions
A first portion of the investigation allowed the
identification of a group of “hikikomori in the
broad sense” (Kōgi no hikikomori gun), based on
precise inclusion and exclusion criteria. The aim
was to focus on whether autonomy was acquired,
an important issue in terms of Japanese youth
policy (Toivonen 2008).
Individuals who responded to questions Q20 and
Q22 with the following responses were included
in the group of hikikomori:
Q20: “In what circumstances do you
go out?” (Fudan dono kurai
gaishutsu shimasu ka)
5. I only go out for my hobbies.
6. I go out in the neighborhood, to
the convenience store, etc.
APJ | JF 15 | 5 | 1
3
7. I leave my room, but not the
house.
8. I rarely leave the house.
Q22: “How long have you
experienced this condition?”
Those who responded “more than six months”
were included as hikikomori.
Individuals who responded as follows to Q23,
Q13, and Q18 were excluded: Q23: “What
triggered your current state?” Those who
selected “disease” and responded schizophrenia,
or gave the name of a physical disease;
“pregnant”; “other” or wrote that they work at
home, gave birth, or take care of their children’s
education, were excluded.
Q13: “Are you currently working?”
Each individual among those who
stayed home and who responded
“housewife/husband” or “cleaner”
was excluded.
Q18: “State what you often do when
you are at home.” Individuals who
responded doing domestic tasks or
helping with their children’s
education were excluded.
Consequently, those who gave responses 6, 7,
and 8 to Q20 above are defined as “hikikomori in
the strict sense” (Kyōgi no hikikomori). Those
who responded 5 (I only go out for my hobbies)
to Q20 are defined as “quasi-hikikomori” (jun
hikikomori). The group defined as hikikomori in
the broad sense is composed of the sum of
individuals defined as hikikomori in the
strict sense and quasi-hikikomori. Among the
3104 valid questionnaires (62.0%) collected, 49
(1.57%) satisfy the definition of hikikomori in the
broad sense. According to demographic
estimates of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and
Communications (2015), the population aged 15
to 39 is comprised of 34.45 million people, while
the estimated number of individuals with
hikikomori in the broad sense, is estimated,
based on the present survey, as 541,000.
Additionally, individuals who feel sympathy for,
or those who understand hikikomori, and those
who think they might want to withdraw, are
extracted and defined as an affinity group
(shinwa gun), as follows. Those who responded
to Q32 (“what applied to me”) “agree” or “rather
agree” (at least one time to the four items) with
13 to 16 below, comprise the affinity group.
(13) I understand the feelings of
those who shut themselves in at
home or in their room and don’t go
out.
(14) I already thought about
shutting myself in at home or in my
room.
(15) If there’s an unpleasant event, I
don’t want to go out.
(16) If there’s a reason, I think it’s
normal to shut myself in at home or
in my room. Individuals in the
group hikikomori in the broad sense
are excluded from the affinity
group. According to the
representative sample of the present
survey, the estimated number of
individuals in the affinity group is
1.656 million nationwide. The
general group identified as
hikikomori is composed of the total
number of respondents (3104) minus
the group with hikikomori in the
broad sense (49 individuals), and
the affinity group (150 individuals),
i.e., 2,905 individuals.
APJ | JF 15 | 5 | 1
4
Results
1. Gender
The group with hikikomori in the broad sense is
comprised of 63.3% men and 36.7% women. In
the affinity group, 40.7% are men and 59.3% are
women. In the general group, 48.0% are men and
52.0 % are women. See Chart 1. Note: Graphs and
tables were prepared by the authors. They were
not included in the survey of the Cabinet Office
but were designed to present the data
comprehensively.
Chart 1: Gender (hikikomori, affinity group,
general group)
2. Age
The group classified as hikikomori in the broad
sense was comprised of individuals aged 15–19
(10.2%), 20–24 (24.5%), 25–29 (24.5%), 30–34
(20.4%), and 35–39 (20.4%). The affinity group
was comprised of individuals aged 15 to 19
(27.3%), 20–24 (24.7%), 25–29 (21.3%), 30–34
(18.0%), and 35–39 (8.7%). The general group was
comprised of individuals aged 15–19 (18.1%),
20–24 (16.8%), 25–29 (17.2%), 30–34 (22.0%), and
35–39 (25.8%). See Chart 2.
Chart 2: Age (hikikomori, affinity group,
general group)
3. Education
The percentage of those who responded “I am
currently studying” was 24.4% in the general
group, 33.3% in the affinity group, and 10.2% in
the group with hikikomori in the broad sense.
The percentage of those who responded “I
already graduated” was 71.7% in the general
group, 62.0% in the affinity group, and 63.3% in
the group with hikikomori in the broad sense.
The percentage of those who responded “I
dropped out” was 3.4% in the general group,
4.0% in the affinity group, and 24.5% in the
group with hikikomori in the broad sense. The
percentage of those who responded “I am
temporarily not attending school” was 2.0% in
the group with hikikomori in the broad sense.
See Chart 3.
Chart 3: Education (hikikomori, affinity group,
general group)
APJ | JF 15 | 5 | 1
5
4. Current professional situation When asked
about their current employment situation, 43.2%
of those in the general group responded “I am
working.” The percentage of those who
responded “housewife/husband” or “assistance
in domestic tasks” was 7.4% in the general group.
The percentage of those who responded
“student” was 32.0% in the affinity group; the
percentage of those who responded “I am
registered in a part-time work agency, etc., but I
don’t work at the moment” was 8.2% in the
group with hikikomori in the broad sense. The
percentage of those who responded “currently
unemployed” in the group with hikikomori in
the broad sense was 67.3%, and it was 9.3% in the
affinity group.
5. The age when hikikomori begins When asked
about the approximate age when their current
situation started, for those in the group with
hikikomori in the broad sense, 12.2% responded
“before 14,” 30.6% “between 15 and 19,” 34.7%
“between 20 and 24,” 8.2% “between 25 and 29,”
4.1% “between 30 and 34,” and 10.2% “between
35 and 39.” See Chart 4.
Chart 4: The age when hikikomori begins
6. The duration of hikikomori When asked about
the duration of withdrawal, for those in the
group with hikikomori in the broad sense,
12.2% reported “from six months to one year,”
28.6% “3 to 5 years,” 12.2% “5 to 7 years,” and
34.7% “more than 7 years.” See Chart 5.
Chart 5: The duration of hikikomori
7. The trigger of hikikomori The 49 individuals
in the group with hikikomori in the broad sense
were asked what triggered their current state: 9
individuals responded “school non-attendance”
or “I did not adapt to the workplace,” 8 reported
that “my job-seeking activities failed” or “my
human relationships were bad,” 7 said “illness,”
3 said “I failed the exam,” and 2 responded “I did
not adapt to the university.” Among the 15
individuals who responded “other,” were the
following responses: “apathy,” “no specific
reason,” “because I am inside,” “I never really
thought about it,” “the company moved its
services,” and “I wanted to do what I wanted.”
Many did not give a specific response. See Chart
6.
Chart 6: The trigger of hikikomori
8. About Q32, “What applies to me?” and Q34,
“Habits of daily life”
Results are detailed in Table 1.
APJ | JF 15 | 5 | 1
6
Regarding question Q34-3 “In the morning, I
wake up at a fixed time.” 44.9% in the group
hikikomori in the broad sense; 39.3% in the
affinity group; 22.7% in the general group
disagreed with the statement.
Concluding remarks
In the 2010 survey, the estimate of the hikikomori
population was 696,000 and the 2016 survey
estimated their number at 541,000. The estimated
total number of hikikomori individuals seems to
have decreased. However, according to the 2010
survey, 23.7% of those belonging to the category
hikikomori were between 35 and 39 years old. As
this group was older than 39 in 2015, they
represent an aging hikikomori population that
was not included in the 2016 survey.
Nevertheless, the aging of this population is a
great problem in contemporary Japanese society.
Regarding the duration of the withdrawal, the
comparison of the two surveys’ results shows a
lengthening of the withdrawal: 34.7% were
hikikomori for more than 7 years in 2016, while
only 16.7% were in 2010. The phenomenon thus
accelerated during the last six years.
Again, the 2016 survey does not include those
who are above 39 for reasons of age. In this
respect, it would be necessary to take into
account the hikikomori population between 40
and 50 years old. In fact, researchers, clinical
practitioners, social workers, and parents have
been concerned for many years about the aging
of the hikikomori population.
The absence of consideration of individuals
above 39 is one of the reasons we conclude, along
with other experts (Kato et al. 2017), that 541,000
is an under-estimation of the phenomenon. Other
reasons might be cited as well. For instance, 38%
of the questionnaires were considered invalid. It
is highly unlikely that current hikikomori
individuals would not be in this group. As some
of them are distressed, their responses could
easily become invalid.
In addition, the criteria defining the affinity
group seem questionable. We understand why it
is interesting to distinguish an affinity group
from the hikikomori group, but some members of
the affinity group may themselves be hikikomori.
One approach could be to consider the affinity
group as an “at-risk group.”
The affinity group represented 1.55 million
individuals in 2010, and would be composed of
1.65 million individuals today. In fact, the group
at risk of becoming hikikomori, those who are
struggling at school or work, never stops
increasing. This group is highly visible in Q32
where one observes hypersensitivity and
communication problems in interpersonal
APJ | JF 15 | 5 | 1
7
relation settings. It would be possible, and
important, to better support these individuals in
school, work, and medical settings. In fact, no
one previously paid attention to the affinity
group. Since the survey showed that it was a
hypersensitive population, measures should be
taken to support this suffering population.
Alternatively, nothing indicates that this affinity
group is a real “at-risk group.” We would rather
consider that, although they cognitively feel close
to hikikomori individuals, or share the same
ideas, the very fact they have not developed this
behavior should lead us to question the
“protecting” factors they might benefit from,
environmental factors such as family.
Sociological, anthropological, and psychological
further research could focus on why they are not
hikikomori and what kind of strategies they
developed to cope with their problems.
Additionally, men represented 66.1% of
hikikomori individuals in the 2010 survey, and
63.3% in the 2016 survey, which is a slight
decrease. Given that women in the affinity group
of the 2016 survey represent 59.3%, one could not
reasonably claim that hikikomori is essentially a
problem among men.
In terms of the daily life of hikikomori, responses
to Q34 show that the level of autonomy is low,
and the rhythm of daily life is disturbed. This is a
consequence of social withdrawal and,
simultaneously, one could think that it is also a
risk factor. In a society where the birthrate is
constantly declining, strong parental intervention
might cause problems in terms of youth
autonomy. In the future, it would be important to
focus on developmental mechanisms of
hikikomori and to facilitate autonomy from
childhood to prevent co-dependency (child-
parent). Here, a few remarks are necessary to
explain why and how the declining birthrate is
related to co-dependency.
When several children are present in the family,
like earlier Japanese families, the time spent by a
parent with each child, individually, is lower
compared with families in which there is only
one child. With the decline of natality and the
increase of families with a single child, certain
expressions appeared such as boshi kapuseru
(mother child capsule) and mama tomo (mother
friend).
Boshi kapuseru designate a phenomenon in
which the mother is isolated from her own family
and the local community, alone with her child. In
this situation, Japanese psychiatrists, nurses, and
social and clinical practitioners found that it
became difficult for mothers to separate from
their child. For instance, they might tend to do
many things for the child. This problem of co-
dependency could be explained in various ways.
The model of the housewife raising the child and
the father as the breadwinner (Lock 1995) is
weakening in Japan, because increasing numbers
of mothers work part-time. However, this does
not mean that they are financially autonomous
(in this sense the model might just have adapted
while not fundamentally changing the structure
of gender inequality). Also, the model of the
mother housewife / father breadwinner remains
very strong compared to other countries, and
women are still expected to quit work during
pregnancy (while maternity leave opportunities
it is an open secret that women are strongly
discouraged from asking their employers for it,
with exceptions such as civil servants). Notably,
there is a generation of mothers who received
university education, and who stay at home to
raise their children. For those with university
education who might work part-time, salary
inequality with their husband is important and
women experience the failure to fulfill their
professional goals. In this context, co-dependency
appears. In extreme cases, the “mother-child
capsule” is combined with strong gender
inequality, sometimes contributing to child
neglect and abuse.
APJ | JF 15 | 5 | 1
8
Another phenomenon known as “mama tomo”
(mother-friend) describes mothers constantly
comparing their child to other children, and
comparing children among themselves. The
spread of this competitive mindset, which aims
at reinforcing social and academic success, may
also contribute to the creation of co-dependence.
Overall, the survey is highly informative.
However, statistical analysis and qualitative
analysis remain to be conducted. The increasing
number of articles on the topic from diverse
epistemological background with diverse
methodologies have created confusion
concerning the definition, the epidemiological
scope, and the severity of designated behavioral
disorders. The present article seeks to better
define the problem and the characteristics
associated with social withdrawal and to
facilitate investigations and international
exchanges on a phenomenon that seems to
extend to other industrialized societies.
Acknowledgements
Nicolas Tajan thanks the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science (Postdoctoral Fellowship
for Foreign Researcher [standard, 2015]);
Hamasaki Yukiko thanks Kyoto Women’s
University.
Related articles
Futagami, Nōki, and Shirō Asano. 2006. “The
‘Integrated Community’: Toward the
Transformation of the Hikikomori Archipelago
Japan. A Dialogue between Asano Shirō and
Futagami Nōki (translation John Junkerman). (/-
Asano-Shirou/2239)” The Asia-Pacific Journal:
Japan Focus.
Miller, Aaron L., and Tuukka Toivonen. 2010.
“To Discipline or Accommodate ? On the
Rehabilitation of Japanese ‘Problem Youth.’ (/-
aaron-miller/3368)” The Asia-Pacific Journal:
Japan Focus.
Yoneyama, Shoko. 2008. “The Era of Bullying:
Japan Under Neoliberalism. (/-Shoko-
YONEYAMA/3001/article.html)” The Asia-
Pacific Journal: Japan Focus 1-3-09.
Bibliography
Arnett, Jeffrey, Rita Žukauskienė, Kazumi
Sugimura. 2014. “The new life stage of emerging
adulthood at ages 18–29 years: implications for
mental health.” Lancet Psychiatry 2014(1):
569–576
Borovoy, Amy. 2008. “Japan’s Hidden Youths:
Mainstreaming the Emotionally Distressed in
Japan.” Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 32:
52–56.
Futagami, Nōki, and Shirō Asano. 2006. “The
‘Integrated Community’: Toward the
Transformation of the Hikikomori Archipelago
Japan. A Dialogue between Asano Shirō and
Futagami Nōki (translation John Junkerman). (/-
Asano-Shirou/2239)” The Asia-Pacific Journal:
Japan Focus.
Hamasaki Yukiko 2015. Appearance of Caseness
- Social withdrawal and the development of
schizophrenia, Japanese Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry 44(5):655-662
Kaneko, Sachiko. 2006. “Japan’s ‘Socially
Withdrawn Youths’ and Time Constraints in
Japanese Society: Management and
Conceptualization of Time in a Support Group
for Hikikomori.” Time & Society 15 (2/3):
233–249.
Kato, T. A., Teo, A. R., Tateno, M., Watabe, M.,
Kubo, H. and Kanba, S. (2017), Can Pokémon GO
rescue shut-ins (hikikomori) from their isolated
world? Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences, 71:
75–76. doi:10.1111/pcn.12481
Kondo, Naoji, Motohiro Sakai, Yasukazu Kuroda,
Yoshikazu Kiyota, Yuji Kitabata, and Mie
Kurosawa. 2013. “General Condition of
APJ | JF 15 | 5 | 1
9
Hikikomori (prolonged Social Withdrawal) in
Japan: Psychiatric Diagnosis and Outcome in
Mental Healths Welfare Centres.” International
Journal of Social Psychiatry.” 67: 193–202.
Kōsei rōdō shō (Ministry of Health Labor and
Welfare). 2001. Jūdai/nijūdai wo chūshin toshita
shakaiteki hikikomori wo meguru chiiki seishin
hoken katsudō no gaidorain 十代二十代を中心と
した社会的ひきこもりをめぐるちいき精神保健
活動のガイドライン (Guidelines for Intervention
in Local Mental Health Activities for ‘Shakaiteki
Hikikomori’, Mainly among those 10-years-old
and over up to their 20s).
———. 2003. Jūdai/nijūdai wo chūshin toshita
shakaiteki hikikomori wo meguru chiiki-seishin
hoken katsudō no gaidorain 十代二十代を中心と
した社会的ひきこもりをめぐるちいき精神保健
活動のガイドライン (Guidelines for Intervention
in Local Mental Health Activities for ‘Shakaiteki
Hikikomori’, Mainly among those 10-years-old
and over up to their 20s - Complete Version).
Tōkyō: Kokuritsu Seishin/shinkei Centre.
———.2010. Hikikomori no hyōka / shien ni
kansuru gaidorain ひきこもりの評価ー支援に関
するガイドラン (Guideline for evaluation and
assistance of hikikomori).
Li, Tim MH and Paul WC Wong. 2015. “Youth
social withdrawal behavior (hikikomori): A
systematic review of qualitative and quantitative
studies.
(http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/houdou/2r985200
00006i6f.html)” Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Psychiatry 49(7): 595–609. doi:
10.1177/0004867415581179
Lock, Margaret. 1995. Encounters with Aging.
Mythologies of Menopause in Japan and North
America. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Miller, Aaron L., and Tuukka Toivonen. 2010.
“To Discipline or Accommodate ? On the
Rehabilitation of Japanese ‘Problem Youth.’ (/-
aaron-miller/3368)” The Asia-Pacific Journal:
Japan Focus.
Nihon Naikakufu (Cabinet Office of
Japan).2010. Wakamono no ishiki ni kansuru
chōsa –Hikikomori ni
(http://www8.cao.go.jp/youth/kenkyu/hikiko
mori/pdf_gaiyo_index.html)kansuru jittai chōsa
若者の意識に関する調査・ひきこもりに関する
実態調査 (Survey on youth consciousness –
Survey on hikikomori)
(http://www8.cao.go.jp/youth/kenkyu/hikiko
mori/pdf_gaiyo_index.html).
———. 2016. Wakamono no seikatsu ni kansuru
chōsa hōkokusho 若者の生活に関する調査 報
告書 (Survey report on youth’s life)
(http://www8.cao.go.jp/youth/kenkyu/hikiko
mori/h27/pdf-index.html).
Ogino, Tatsushi. 2004. “Managing Categorization
and Social Withdrawal in Japan: Rehabilitation
Process in a Private Support Group for
Hikikomorians.” International Journal of
Japanese Sociology (13): 120–133.
Ryder Andrew G, Momoka Sunohara, and
Lawrence J. Kirmayer. 2015. “Culture and
personality disorder: from a fragmented
literature to a contextually grounded
alternative.” Current Opinion in Psychiatry 28(1):
40–5.
Saitō, Tamaki. 1998. Shakaiteki hikikomori ―
owaranai shishunki 社会的ひきこもり―終わら
ない思春期. Tōkyō: PHP Shinsho.
———. 2013. Hikikomori: Adolescence without
End (American translation of Shakaiteki
hikikomori ― owaranai shishunki). Minnesota
University Press.
Tajan, Nicolas. 2015a. “Adolescents’ School Non-
Attendance and the Spread of Psychological
Counselling in Japan.
(doi:10.1080/21507686.2015.1029502)” Asia
Pacific Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy
APJ | JF 15 | 5 | 1
10
6(1/2): 58–69.
———. 2015b. Social Withdrawal and Psychiatry:
A Comprehensive Review of Hikikomori,
Neuropsychiatrie de l’Enfance et de
l’Adolescence
(doi:10.1016/j.neurenf.2015.03.008), 63(5):
324-331.
———. 2015c. Japanese post-modern social
renouncers: An exploratory study of the
narratives of Hikikomori subjects, Subjectivity
(doi:10.1057/sub.2015.11) 8: 283-304 (September
2015).
Tateno, Masaru, Woo Park Tae, Takahiro Kato,
Wakako Umene-Nakano, and Toshikazu Saito.
2012. “Hikikomori as a Possible Clinical Term in
Psychiatry.” BMC Psychiatry (12): 169.
Teo, Alan R., and Albert R. Gaw. 2010.
“Hikikomori, a Japanese Culture-Bound
Syndrome of Social Withdrawal? A Proposal for
DSM-5.” The Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease 198 (6): 444–449.
Toivonen, Tuukka. 2008. “Introducing the Youth
Independence Camp. How a New Social Policy Is
Reconfiguring the Public-Private Boundaries of
Social Provision in Japan.” Sociologos (32): 42–57.
Toyama Kagehiro 2016. 大都市における子育て家
族の社会的孤立要因 : SSP2015を用いた地域信頼
度の分析よりThe isolation of child-rearing
families in urban
(http://doi.org/10.14943/rjgsl.16.l209)area :
From the analysis of trust in local communities
using SSP2015
(http://doi.org/10.14943/rjgsl.16.l209), 北海道
大学大学院文学研究科研究論集 Research
Journal of Graduate Students of Letters,
16:209-230
Nicolas Tajan (/authors/view/14688)
Nicolas Tajan, Ph.D.
JSPS postdoctoral researcher
Kyoto University Institute for Research in Humanities
Yoshidahonmachi, Sakyo-ku, 605-8501 Kyoto, Japan
Hamasaki Yukiko (/authors/view/14689)
Hamasaki Yukiko, M.D., Ph.D.
Professor, Psychiatrist
Kyoto Women’s University, Faculty for the Study of Contemporary Society
35, Kitahiyoshi-cho, Imakumano, Higashiyama-ku, 605-8501 Kyoto, Japan
Nancy Pionnié-Dax (/authors/view/14690)
Nancy Pionnié-Dax, M.D.
APJ | JF 15 | 5 | 1
11
Psychiatrist, Department Director
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Department, EPS ERASME
143 avenue Armand Guillebaud, 92160 Antony, France
