The Stanford Japan Barometer (henceforth SJB), a public opinion survey on various topics including Japanese society, politics, and economy, is led by Stanford sociologist Kiyoteru Tsutsui, the deputy director of Shorenstein APARC and director of the Center’s Japan Program, and political scientist Charles Crabtree of Dartmouth College. SJB is one of the largest online surveys of its kind in Japan.

In fall 2024, SJB conducted a survey on gender and sexuality, including on the topic of optional separate surnames for married couples, as the LDP presidential election reignited the debate about this issue in Japanese society. SJB previously conducted a similar survey on the topic in 2022. Surname selection has also reemerged as a policy issue due to the growth of the opposition to the ruling LDP in the October 2024 subsequent general election for the Lower House of the National Diet (Japan's Parliament).

Below is an English translation of a recent GLOBE+ feature story on SJB's latest survey that sheds light on Japanese voters' views on this issue. This is the fifth installment in a series GLOBE+, an international news outlet run by the Asahi Shimbun, is publishing jointly with APARc’s Japan Program on SJB's work. You can read an English translation of parts 1-3 and part 4 in the series. The translation was initially generated via DeepL. The following translation was edited for accuracy and style.

Sign up for APARC's newsletters to receive our scholars' research updates >

Views on a Dual-Surname Option for Spouses

The issue came into renewed focus when former Environment Minister Shinjiro Koizumi, one of the candidates in the LDP presidential election held in September 2024, pledged to implement a selective married couple surname system. SJB therefore conducted another survey from September 25 to October 2, 2024, on the same themes as those used in the November 2022 survey on selective surname system, same-sex marriage, female Diet members, and outside directors. There were 9769 respondents, a little more than 1,000 more than in the previous survey.

The Japanese government has regularly been surveying this issue but as a result of changing the survey questions and the way they were asked between 2017 and 2021, support for the selective surname system dropped from a record high of 42.5% in the 2017 survey to record low of only 28.9% in 2021. For that reason, in SJB’s November 2022 survey and fall 2024 survey, respondents were randomly assigned to either of the two methods of asking questions from the government's 2017 and 2021 surveys.

The results showed that, among respondents assigned to the 2021 method, 26% preferred to “maintain the current system of married couples with the same family name,” 38% preferred to “maintain the current system of married couples with the same family name and establish a legal system for the use of the maiden name as a common name,” and 36% preferred to “introduce an optional system of married couples with different family names.”

On the other hand, among those assigned to the 2017 system, 21% said that “married couples should always take the same surname as long as they are married, and there is no need to change the current law,” 59% said that “if a married couple wishes to take the surname they had before their marriage, it would be acceptable if the law is changed to allow each couple to take the surname they had before their marriage,” and 20% and 20% said "Even if married couples wish to keep their maiden surnames, they should always have the same surname, but I don't mind changing the law to allow people who change their surnames due to marriage to use their maiden surnames as aliases.” In other words, 59% favored optional separate surnames for married couples.

Thus, the 2021 method of asking the question was more likely to result in fewer people supporting selective married couples. This is similar to Japan Barometer's previous 2022 survey, and it can be said that the government's 2021 survey showed less support for selective surnames because of the change in the framing of the survey questions.

As in the 2022 survey, SJB asked about optional separate surnames for married couples under certain assumptions, so as to reveal under what conditions public opinion would be swayed toward selective surnames. In SJB’s 2022 survey, respondents’ opposition was strongest when the precondition suggested separate surnames could weaken family ties or harm children and society. In the latest survey of fall 2024, however, no statistically significant causal relationship was observed, suggesting that public opinion on this issue has matured and no longer changes even when preconditions are added.

Furthermore, the 2024 survey introduced a new question about whether individuals would prefer to retain their maiden name if a dual-surname option for spouses was allowed. Among female respondents, 21.3% said they would “likely choose to do so,” 23.5% were “undecided,” and 55.2% said they “would not likely choose to do so.”

Commenting on these findings, Professor Tsutsui said: “Many older individuals and already-married women are accustomed to the current system, making it unlikely they would opt for separate surnames. The fact that only about 20% of the respondents would choose to change their surname could be a basis for some kind of legislation, since 20% of women feel inconvenienced. Furthermore, since the majority of women do not choose to have separate surnames, it is unlikely that the family system will collapse rapidly, as some conservatives worry. This may be a result that encourages the implementation of legal reform.”

Attitudes Toward Gender Equality

The survey also explored attitudes toward women’s advancement in society. As in the 2022 survey, respondents evaluated hypothetical political candidates for the Diet based on six attributes: age (from 32 to 82 in 10-year increments), gender, marital status, number of children, level of education, and professional background (10 types, including Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs bureaucrats, corporate executives, governors, and local assembly members).

Two “candidate images” were created by randomly combining six attributes, and the respondents were asked to choose one in a two-choice format. The same question was repeated 10 times with different choices, and the responses obtained from all survey targets were tabulated and analyzed. The reason for the complexity of the method is that, from a statistical point of view, this allows the researchers to get closer to the “true feelings” (public opinion) of the respondents.

The combination of attributes that received the most responses, i.e., the “ideal candidate image” in respondents' minds, was the same as in 2022: female gender, ages 32 and 42, and occupation as governor or corporate executive. This aligns with the findings from the 2022 survey, indicating strong expectations for female leaders in their 30s and 40s. Indeed, Japan’s October 2024 Diet election mirrored these results, with a record 15.7% of women elected.

Views on Same-Sex Marriage

In addition, support for same-sex marriage remained high overall, with 43.7% in favor, 38.9% neutral, and 17.3% opposed. Support for same-sex marriage increased most when the following preconditions were added: "From the standpoint of human rights and gender equality, it is unfair to not recognize same-sex marriage," and "For gay people, not having their marital relationship recognized causes various inconveniences, such as inconveniences and disadvantages in their professional and daily lives, and a sense of denial of their identity."

On the other hand, when members of Parliament and outside directors were asked about their preferred combination of attributes, the least supported of the attributes of marriage was “people in homosexual relationships.”

“Married” was the most popular, as were “never married” and “divorced,” with the least support for those in a homosexual relationship.

“While there is a growing understanding of same-sex marriage in the private sphere, there seems to be a tendency for people to choose those who are within the traditional family system for roles holding public responsibility,” said Tsutsui.

‘A Moral Eclipse’

In his introduction of Sandberg, Amichai Magen, the inaugural Visiting Fellow in Israel Studies at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), explained the film’s title.

“There is the obvious meaning, capturing the silence of death after the acts of violence. But there is also the silence of the international community, the complete shock experienced by Jewish communities all around the world, that on Oct. 8, some people denied this ever happened … After the screams, we experienced a moral silence, a moral eclipse. And then there is the silence of the invisible wounds, the broken minds, the broken souls, the broken families,” Magen said.

After leaving Meta a few years ago, Sandberg said she was completely committed to being private and not public anymore. “I'd had it, and it was done.” And then, Oct. 7 took place, and subsequent reports about sexual violence seemed to be met with an eerie silence.

Why the silence? Sandberg offered that people are so politically polarized today that they want every fact to fit into their particular narrative. And for some, sexual violence may not fit into their narrative.

“What is happening is that politics — polarization and extreme politics — are blinding us to something that should be completely obvious. I shouldn't even have to say this. Rape is not resistance. Never. Under any circumstances. Rape is not resistance. It never has been, it never will be,” she said.
 

Anyone who has a mother, a sister, a daughter, a wife, or a friend should join together to unite against rape in war or elsewhere, she added.

“It threatens all of our values,” Sandberg said about Hamas’ massacres of Israelis.

In one interview that Sandberg conducted, she spoke with Ayelet Levy Sachar, the mother of 19-year-old Naama Levy, whose kidnapping that morning was filmed by Hamas. The horrific sight of her pajama bottoms, drenched in blood at the back, was a clear indicator that sexual brutality was carried out by Hamas.

‘He’s just a hero’

After the film concluded, Sandberg joined Ayelet Gundar-Goshen, and Rabbi Idit Solomon for a conversation and question-and-answer session with the audience. Gundar-Goshen is a clinical psychologist who has personally treated Nova survivors. This quarter she is lecturer and artist-in-residence at Stanford’s Taube Center for Jewish Studies. Rabbi Idit Solomon is the interim associate director at Hillel at Stanford.

Sandberg expressed heartache over the current situation in Gaza and said she is a supporter of a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians.

“War is a terrible thing. Terror is a terrible thing. Oct. 7 is a terrible thing. What happened after that is a terrible thing. None of this should happen. We have to believe in peace. We have to get to peace. But in order to have peace, you need two people who are willing to let the other side live in peace,” she said.

In the film, she spoke with Rami Davidson, who heroically saved over 100 lives at the Nova Music Festival.

“He's just a hero,” Sandberg said about her interview with Davidson near the spot of the Nova festival. They stood close to the trees where he recalled seeing naked and mutilated bodies tied to them on Oct. 7.

“And he starts crying. He said, ‘I could have saved them. He rescued over 100 people, mostly from the Nova … For 10 hours, he went in and out in his little car, rescuing people, risking his own life. And he was just crying about the ones he didn't get to.”
 

‘A threat to our values’

Sandberg urged the audience to embrace the point that such terror will never have a place in a civilized world.

“It may take time and it may take a lot of work by people like you and all the brave people who are here today. But we are going to persuade people that this is terror. We are going to get to a world where people don't tolerate this terror and recognize the threat to our values that this is,” she said.

The documentary was released for private and public use without any licensing fees. “We're trying to get everyone we can to see it,” she said. It can be viewed for free on YouTube.

Sandberg recalled a discussion with Denis Mukwege, a Congolese physician who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict. Mukwege said the most horrible aspect of sexual violence as a war tool is that it's incredibly effective and free.

“It doesn't just take real lives, but it destroys communities in many places around the world. When a woman is raped, in some cultures, she's then outcast from her society. It systematically destroys the fabric of communities. You have the single most effective tool of war, and it is available for free. You don't have to buy a bomb or a gun. That is so devastating because you realize what we're up against,” Sandberg said.

She concluded, “We will come through this. Not everyone will come through this. These people, some of these people will not. But we will come through this. And so, this event gives me hope.”

What policy options does the Japanese public prefer, and what might shift its attitudes? These are some questions the Stanford Japan Barometer (SJB) sets out to answer. SJB is a large-scale public opinion survey on political, economic, and social issues in Japan. Co-developed and led by Stanford sociologist Kiyoteru Tsutsui, the deputy director of APARC and director of the Center’s Japan Program, and Dartmouth College political scientist Charles Crabtree, a former visiting assistant professor with the Japan Program, SJB has so far published the results from its first two waves.

Wave 1 focused on issues related to gender and sexuality in Japanese politics, while Wave 2 focused on issues related to foreign policy and national defense. SJB findings fielded in these two waves indicate that most Japanese support recognizing same-sex unions, legalizing a dual-surname option for married couples, promoting women’s leadership in society, and that, in a Taiwan contingency, ​​Japanese people would be hesitant to fight China but would respond to a request from the U.S. military for logistical support.

Jointly with the Japan Program, GLOBE+, an international news outlet operated by the esteemed Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun, is publishing a series highlighting SJB findings. Here, we provide an English translation of the first three pieces in this series. Additional articles in the series will be published sequentially.

PART I

How Question Framing Changes the Results of Public Opinion Polls: Japan Barometer's Attempt to Get at the "True Feelings” of Survey Respondents

View the original article at Asahi Shimbun GLOBE+ >

Asahi Shimbun GLOBE+ sat down with Tsutsui to learn more about the findings of SJB, its goals, and how it differs from other public opinion polls.

Asahi Shimbun GLOBE+: Why did you come up with the idea to start the Stanford Japan Barometer?

Area studies have been in decline within the social sciences. Although China research is developing, there has been a significant shift away from Japan studies. In 2019, the Asia Society of North America held a session titled “The Death of Japanese Studies.” It made me think that conducting large-scale research experiments with Japan as the theme could spark new developments in the field. The idea was that this effort would draw attention to Japanese studies and foster young researchers interested in Japan.

Asahi Shimbun GLOBE+: What makes SJB different from other public opinion polls?

First, we routinely administer the SJB to an extensive national sample comprising 8,000 Japanese residents. Another unique point is our focus on the type of questions asked to “sway” people's opinions. That is why we call it an experiment. Thus, one of the characteristics of SJB is that we create questions with different preconditions for a given problem and then compare the answers and see how these preconditions affect respondents’ attitudes.

For example, in the first wave of the survey, the theme was gender and sexuality in Japanese politics, and we asked respondents about the pros and cons of same-sex marriage, looking into what kind of influence the preconditions of the survey questions would have on the responses. We created eight types of such preconditions and randomly assigned them to respondents.

We presented some respondents with prompts about tradition and history, such as “In Japanese society, it is a tradition that marriage is between people of the opposite sex” and “Japanese society has tolerated romantic relationships between people of the same sex since the Middle Ages and the Warring States period.” We presented other respondents with preconditions about the fairness of same-sex marriages from the point of view of constitutional rights and human rights principles. We found that respondents tend to become more supportive of same-sex marriage when presented with an argument that not allowing same-sex marriage is unfair from the point of view of human rights and gender equality.

Asahi Shimbun GLOBE+: Generally, in public opinion polls, we take care to ask neutral questions, but you are intentionally doing the opposite.

That's right. By doing so, we can understand what kind of efforts are effective in moving people’s attitudes. As a sociologist, my research focuses on social movements, and I am very interested in the slow pace of change in Japanese society. Therefore, I want to understand why it hasn't changed much and how we can affect change.

In addition to opinions about same-sex marriage, we asked about respondents’ views of desirable attributes of a candidate for the House of Representatives in categories such as gender, age, and occupation. We also examined how the responses changed depending on a candidate’s political party and other factors.

By asking about desirable attributes of a candidate from multiple perspectives, you can elicit answers closer to the respondents’ true feelings. In the future, we plan to continue conducting experiments to see how the results change depending on these preconditions and the characteristics of the respondents.

Asahi Shimbun GLOBE+: What research themes do you have in mind for the future?

I want to research various fields and have already completed research on Japan’s defense spending tax increase and the Taiwan contingency situation. I also want to investigate topics like AI and immigration. In the future, I would like to open a public call for research themes to investigate with SJB.

Part 2
Do Japanese People Envision the Ideal Political Leaders as Females in Their 30s or 40s? Stanford Japan Barometer Finds Out

A recurring issue in Japanese public discussions on gender equality pertains to the underrepresentation of women in leadership roles, particularly in politics and business. To better understand the Japanese public attitudes toward this gender gap, SJB conducted conjoint experiments exploring the preferences of the Japanese public regarding candidates for a Diet seat. In this article, Tsutsui explains the method and results of this survey.

View the original article at Asahi Shimbun GLOBE+ >

This survey asked respondents about the following six attributes regarding candidates they would like to see in the next Diet:

• Age (from 32 years old to 82 years old in 10-year increments)
• Sex
• Marriage
• Number of children
• Academic background
• Occupation (11 options, including finance, business, foreign affairs bureaucrats, corporate managers and officers, governors, local legislators, homemakers, and others)

When asking the question, we created two “candidate images'' by randomly combining six attributes and asked respondents to choose them in a multiple-choice format. We then aggregated and analyzed the respondents’ answers. This complex method statistically allows us to get closer to the respondents’ “true feelings.”

As a result of the analysis, the combinations of attributes that received the most responses, or in other words, the “ideal candidate image'' that respondents thought of, were as follows:

Gender: Female
Age: 32 and 42 years old
Occupation: Governor and corporate manager/officer

These findings indicate that Japanese people wish to see more female leaders in their 30s and 40s become politicians. Additionally, 75% of respondents agreed that “there should be more efforts to increase the number of female members in Japan's Diet.'' Nearly all respondents, regardless of gender, age group, party support, or the strength of their support for the Kishida administration, favored having a female politician over a male one, and even among those who rated Japan as already diverse, many said they would prefer female candidates.

Based on these findings, we assert that a notable portion of the Japanese population sincerely backs women leaders. Furthermore, if a female candidate is nominated, she will likely get elected.

Conversely, the combinations of attributes with weak public support were as follows:
Gender: Male
Age: 72 and 82
Occupation: TV commentator, parliamentary secretary, financial bureaucrat

These results indicate that Japanese public opinion neither favors older male politicians nor desires people in occupations close to national politics.

The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has, in fact, actively supported women in elections in urban areas, including the Tokyo 8th Ward of the House of Representatives, which includes Suginami Ward. The reason is that "experience has shown that women are in demand," according to LDP officials. Interestingly, this sentiment coincides with the image of politicians desired by public opinion (women in their 30s and 40s, not older men), as highlighted by the Stanford Japan Barometer.

There may be an election for the Lower House of Representatives in 2024, and it will be interesting to see how many women will get elected after the supplementary and unified elections.

Part 3
The Liberal Democratic Party's Bold Strategy of Fielding Female Candidates: A "Survival Instinct" Consistent with Voters’ Desires

View the original article at Asahi Shimbun GLOBE+ >

The results of the first wave of the Stanford Japan Barometer match the LDP's policy of supporting women. The LDP, which has approved a string of candidates for the upcoming general election to dissolve the House of Representatives, has been fielding women mainly in urban areas. A typical example is Tokyo's 8th Ward (a large part of Suginami Ward). For a long time, the LDP's Nobuaki Ishihara dominated this seat. Yet he lost the 2021 Lower House election to Harumi Yoshida, a female newcomer to the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan. Ishihara was also unable to regain his seat proportionally.

In 2022, female newcomer Satoko Kishimoto won the Suginami Ward mayor election against the incumbent male candidate. Kishimoto supported mainly women in the 2023 Ward Assembly election, resulting in a female majority. The LDP responded by supporting a 42-year-old woman from the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry in Tokyo's 8th Ward.

In Tokyo's 18th Ward (Musashino, Fuchu, and Koganei), the home district of former Prime Minister Naoto Kan (Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan), who recently announced his retirement, the Tokyo Metropolitan Federation of Trade Unions also held an open recruitment campaign for women only. In addition, there has been a string of female candidates in Tokyo, including Tamayo Marukawa, who switched from the House of Councillors to the upper house of the Diet. That is because LDP officials have learned from experience that "women and young people, especially in urban areas, are the most likely to win now,” according to a senior LDP official.

In the supplementary elections for the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors, women won in the Chiba 5th district of the House of Representatives, the Wakayama 1st District of the House of Representatives, and the Oita Constituency of the House of Councillors. Men previously held all these positions, and the races were considered hotly contested.

Does the LDP have a philosophy that "diversity is important in politics, so let's increase the number of women"? No, not necessarily. When the LDP debated the Candidate Gender Equality Act (enacted in 2018), which calls for political parties to have an equal number of male and female candidates as much as possible, some LDP members protested, saying that forcing an increase in the number of women would lower the quality of politicians, that it was reverse discrimination against men, and that it would also not be a fair assessment of women.

LDP lawmakers were quick to say they were not against increasing the number of women, but it also seemed as if men were afraid of having their status threatened. The LDP's recent nomination of a string of women likely indicates a “survival strategy.”

If the voters prefer women, they will support women. Of course, the LDP is not basing its decision to field women on the results of the Stanford Japan Barometer. Still, the fact that the LDP is fielding candidates who closely match the preferred candidate image yielded in the SJB survey shows how strong the LDP's survival instinct is.

The LDP once even formed a coalition with the Socialist Party, which it continued to oppose as an opposition party. The LDP is tenacious and determined.

When I arrived at Stanford in September 2022, I’d just stepped out of a product manager role at a large government contractor. My career had focused on providing policymakers with the best open-source information possible around a myriad of foreign policy issues. Over the preceding years, that work had become increasingly intertwined with artificial intelligence (AI), not just as a subject of analysis but as a critical tool in the analytic process. In enrolling in the Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Policy (MIP) program, situated in the heart of Silicon Valley, I hoped I could better understand AI and how it would reshape geopolitics. 

My timing was serendipitous. Just as I settled in, OpenAI unveiled ChatGPT, and the world changed. It was a whirlwind period of wild speculation, anxiety, and excitement. To cut through the noise, I sat in on an advanced course on machine learning and enrolled in the Computer Science department’s core course, Programming Abstractions, to build my programming skills. Blending my policy framework development in MIP courses with technical study at Stanford’s renowned Computer Science department was exactly what I hoped Stanford would provide. 

What I didn’t expect, however, was how differently I was starting to think about my future after the program.

The Entrepreneurial Leap

The original plan for MIP was to get smart and then apply what I learned within an established organization, like my former employer or the government. I began to wonder if, rather than providing information to decision-makers as I had previously in my career, I could combine my product management experience and burgeoning CS competency in a different way. Could I attack the same problems I’d been working on for years, but from the bottom up? Could I use technology to empower the broader public to become more resilient to misinformation and polarization?

The approaching summer seemed like the opportunity to test my product ideas and the possibility of starting a business around them. MIP’s summer funding made it feasible to take advantage of that opportunity while still paying my rent. It also added helpful structure to my plan, requiring me to record my hours and find a mentor to oversee my progress.

My former colleague, David, with whom I have a strong relationship built on trust and shared vision, agreed to be my mentor. He had recently launched his own company in a related space and was able to share a wealth of experience and insights.

The Summer of Coding and Discover

Summer came, and I dove headfirst into coding, dedicating countless hours at the corner desk of my Hoskins apartment to building something tangible that embodied my vision. I also began immersing myself in the Bay Area’s tech ecosystem - attending AI seminars, venture capital events, and networking with founders.

The results of those first weeks were encouraging. I prduced a working prototype that used AI to identify misleading information online and, by referencing trusted sources, provide missing context and corrective information to the reader. It was real progress toward a world where we no longer rely on ineffective fact-checking after readers are exposed to misleading information and form their opinions. Instead, AI could help every news reader spot deceptive content in real-time - during the opinion formation process.

Despite my progress, I realized that if I were going to keep up with the pace of the hyper-competitive AI startup field, I would need a partner.

Finding a Co-founder 

With a working prototype of my Critical Reader Google Chrome extension, I felt ready to seek out an experienced partner who could help scale my vision. Y Combinator’s co-founder matching platform was my arena. It was a whirlwind of meetings and ideas, but eventually, I connected with the former CTO of a successful startup, who shared my commitment to revolutionizing digital information sharing.

We hit it off and decided to test our partnership with a 30-day trial. We examined my prototype critically and decided to pivot towards a simpler, more marketable product. In a few weeks, we had a minimum viable product ready and began user testing. As expected, the feedback was a mixture of praise and criticism, but it was energizing to have the critical data we needed to iterate and improve.

Beyond coding, we invested considerable effort into refining a mutual vision and business strategy. We began exploring non-profit frameworks and various hybrid business models that could achieve the scalability of a for-profit enterprise while preserving the principles that motivated us.

Renewed Vision 

In a few short months, my curiosity had evolved into a venture with real users and a business model. I had also changed. The experience developing financial forecasts and strategic plans significantly enhanced my professional toolkit and gave me first-hand experience with the reality of starting a business. 

Now, as I enter my penultimate quarter at Stanford, I am able to develop products and explore partnerships with a newfound clarity of purpose. My summer of entrepreneurship added a new dimension to my MIP experience and has set the stage for what comes after the program ends.