A national survey of 1,012 Japanese adults found far higher desire for social distance from people with depression than in the United States — and a sense of mattering to others tracked willingness to seek help.

Anti-stigma campaigns tend to travel. A framing developed in one country — mental illness is an illness like any other, people with mental illness are not dangerous, treatment works — gets adapted and exported, on the assumption that the stigma being addressed is broadly the same everywhere.

A study in the International Journal for Equity in Health, from the University of California, Riverside and the University of Tsukuba, suggests the assumption does not hold. Surveying 1,012 Japanese adults in a geographically representative national online sample and comparing the results with nationally representative United States data from the 2018 General Social Survey, the researchers found stigma in the two countries differing not just in degree but in kind.

The numbers that do not fit the usual story

The headline contrast is striking. About 84 per cent of Japanese participants wanted social distance from people with depression, against 28 per cent of American participants — a threefold difference, and a very high absolute figure.

Yet Japanese participants were less likely than American participants to view people with mental disorders as dangerous. That combination cuts against the model that underpins much anti-stigma work, in which perceived dangerousness is the engine driving avoidance. In this data the avoidance is far higher and the fear of danger is lower. Whatever is producing the desire for distance, it does not appear to be fear of violence.

The treatment-related figures follow the same pattern. About 54 per cent of Japanese participants said they would be willing to seek treatment for serious emotional problems, against about 70 per cent of American participants. For major depression specifically, about 78 per cent of Japanese participants believed treatment would help, compared with about 95 per cent of Americans.

That last gap is worth noting on its own. A seventeen-point difference in belief that treatment works is a difference in expectations about the healthcare system and the evidence base, not only in attitudes toward people who are ill.

What predicted willingness to seek help

Within the Japanese sample, several factors tracked greater willingness to seek treatment: previous experience of treatment, belief that treatment would help, and a stronger sense of what the researchers call mattering — the feeling that one is significant to other people.

Two factors tracked lower willingness: a greater desire for social distance from people with mental illness, and the belief that mental disorders improve without treatment.

The mattering result surprised the researchers. “We weren’t expecting mattering to have such a strong connection with treatment seeking,” said Andrew Subica, a professor of social medicine, population and public health at the UC Riverside School of Medicine. “But even in a highly stigmatizing environment, people who feel that they matter to others appear to be more willing to seek treatment for their mental health problems.”

He was also careful to mark what the finding cannot support: it does not show that increasing a person’s sense of mattering would cause them to seek treatment. That caution is the correct one and it is easily lost. This is a cross-sectional survey, measuring both variables at a single moment. People who feel they matter to others may differ in many ways from those who do not — in social connection, in employment, in family circumstances — and any of those could drive both the sense of mattering and the willingness to seek care.

Why the pattern might differ

Subica offers one interpretive thread. “In some cultures, mental illness isn’t seen simply as something that affects one person,” he said.

The implication he leaves implicit is that where illness is understood as reflecting on a family rather than an individual, the social consequences of disclosure fall on more people, and avoidance may be about managing collective reputation rather than personal fear. That would be consistent with high desire for distance alongside low perceived dangerousness — and it would mean an anti-stigma message built around “people with mental illness are not dangerous” addresses a belief that is not the obstacle.

This remains interpretation rather than finding. The study measures attitudes; it does not test why they take the shape they do.

The transferability problem

Subica’s conclusion is methodological as much as substantive. “These findings show that mental health stigma can take different forms across cultures and nations,” he said. “You can’t simply take an intervention that works in one country and assume it will work for people somewhere else.”

“The biggest lesson is that culture matters,” he said.

That is a modest-sounding statement with real consequences for how global mental health programs are designed. An intervention validated on American samples and shown to reduce perceived dangerousness might register as effective on its own measures while leaving the dominant form of stigma in another country untouched.

What the comparison can and cannot bear

The study’s design has one feature that deserves scrutiny. The Japanese data come from a 2026 online survey; the American comparison comes from the 2018 General Social Survey. Those are eight years apart, and they were collected by different methods — an online panel against an established in-person survey programme.

Both differences cut in ways that are hard to sign. Attitudes toward mental illness have shifted in most high-income countries over the past decade, so some of the gap may be temporal rather than cultural. Online panels and interviewer-administered surveys also produce different response patterns on sensitive questions, often with less social-desirability pressure online. Neither consideration undoes a threefold difference in desire for social distance, which is large, but both argue for treating the precise percentages as approximate.

The release reports no confidence intervals and no effect sizes for the predictors of treatment-seeking willingness, which limits how firmly the mattering result can be assessed.

Funding came from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, and the authors declare no competing interests. The release names Subica and Shinichi Nagata of the University of Tsukuba without designating a first or corresponding author, so the endnote below carries the paper title alone; it describes the work as UC Riverside-led without saying who led it. Nagata is not quoted.

The practical upshot is not that Japan has more stigma than the United States, though on these measures it does. It is that the stigma has a different anatomy, and that a campaign built for one anatomy may not fit the other.

If you are struggling with your mental health, support is available, and the willingness of people around you to help is often greater than it feels. Speaking to a doctor or a trusted person is a reasonable first step.

---

Notes

1. “Mental illness stigma and treatment-seeking willingness in Japan: a national survey study.” International Journal for Equity in Health, 1 October 2026. DOI: 10.1186/s12939-026-03007-6.
2. University of California – Riverside. “Mental health stigma in Japan may deter care.” EurekAlert!, 5 October 2026. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1146512.