Skip to main content

Identifying Social Withdrawal (Hikikomori) Factors in Adolescents: Understanding the Hikikomori Spectrum

Abstract

Hikikomori is a Japanese term for social withdrawal, ranging from complete inability to venture outdoors to preferring to stay inside. The prevalence of hikikomori is high, up to 1.2% of the Japanese population, but only few studies have examined its emergence in adolescents. Therefore, we sought to identify environmental and psycho-behavioral characteristics related to hikikomori during adolescence. Parents of middle school students who underwent psychiatric outpatient treatment for hikikomori (n = 20) and control group parents (n = 88) completed the Child Behavior Checklist to evaluate their child’s psycho-behavioral characteristics and novel scales to evaluate environmental characteristics and hikikomori severity. Scores for all eight Child Behavior Checklist subscales were significantly higher in the experimental group. Multiple regression analysis revealed that “anxious/depressed,” “somatic complaints,” “lack of communication between parents” and “overuse of the Internet” were significant predictors of hikikomori severity. These findings can help identify individuals who are at risk of developing hikikomori.

Introduction

Since the 1990s, social withdrawal (hereinafter referred to as hikikomori) emerged as a serious psychosocial problem in Japan [1,2,3,4,5]. Beginning in 2000, the number of studies on hikikomori grew, mainly in the field of sociology [6,7,8]; however, in psychiatric journals, the concept was first mentioned in 2010 [1, 2, 9, 10]. The term hikikomori is often translated as “social withdrawal” internationally, but in Japanese, the term refers to both the phenomenon and to the socially withdrawn person.

In recent systematic reviews, hikikomori has been defined as a 6-month or longer period of living at home and avoiding social situations and relationships, along with significant distress and impairment [1, 9]. According to epidemiological surveys, the lifetime prevalence of hikikomori among young adults is approximately 1.2% in Japan [10]. Onset typically occurs during adolescence or early adulthood and, on an average, it takes 4 years before symptoms are addressed clinically; the treatment often involves circadian rhythm correction, cognitive behavioral therapy, and symptomatic drug therapy [3, 11].

Almost half of the patients with hikikomori who visit health centers are diagnosed with mood and anxiety disorders, personality disorders, sleep loss disorders, pervasive developmental disorders, or schizophrenia [10,11,12,13,14]. The question of whether we can distinguish hikikomori from other psychiatric disorders, particularly social anxiety disorders, is pertinent and some research has attempted to delineate the differences of interest. Reports from the Japanese Cabinet Office; Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare; and numerous articles since 2010 show that social anxiety disorders and agoraphobia only apply to a subcategory of hikikomori cases [4, 15,16,17,18,19]. About 19% of social anxiety disorder patients can also be classified as hikikomori [20] and about 18% of hikikomori patients are also diagnosable with social anxiety disorder [21]. Hence, it is epidemiologically clear that there is duplication but the two conditions are not identical. However, specific features unique to hikikomori are yet to be elucidated; therefore, hikikomori is not yet included in the DSM-5.

Hikikomori was thought of as a concept that refers to both distress and to a cultural syndrome unique to Japan [3, 9, 19, 22], however, recent international surveys have shown that hikikomori is also found among different populations of the world, including South Korea, India, Australia, Bangladesh, Iran, Taiwan, Thailand, and the United States [2, 9, 19]. Additional cases have been subsequently reported in Oman [23], France [12, 22, 24, 25], Brazil [26], Hong Kong [27], Spain [13, 28, 29], China [30], and Canada [31, 32]. The phenomenon of hikikomori is considered to be a boundless and global syndrome found across many cultures [3, 33], but notably, is more common in urban areas [19] and high-income, developed countries [2].

Compared to studies of hikikomori in adults, fewer studies have been conducted with adolescents, although a strong relationship between hikikomori and refusal to attend school has been established [34,35,36]. Adolescence is a developmental period that has a significant influence on later socio-academic achievement and often marks the onset of psychiatric symptoms [37]. Understanding what triggers hikikomori is critical for secondary prevention, early intervention, and for minimizing the risk of chronicity [10]. Considering that hikikomori tends to persist once it develops [15, 16], it greatly affects the national health, welfare, and workforce [14]. Therefore, it is imperative to elucidate the etiology of hikikomori to establish prevention and treatment methods for this worldwide phenomenon.

Given that epidemiological studies on hikikomori are still scarce, many of the related factors remain unknown. The Cabinet Office of Japan conducted several well-designed studies on young people’s attitudes (Fact-finding Survey on Social Withdrawal, SYPA) that contained valuable information about socio-demographic and mental health factors within this population; although, the data were not fully analyzed for correlations [15, 16, 38, 39]. Hence, factors associated with the etiology of hikikomori were not investigated, and no intervention methods were discussed. The SYPA data also included a wide age range (15–39 years) making it difficult to gain a clearer understanding of the characteristics associated with hikikomori during adolescence.

In the SYPA surveys, refusal to attend school was mentioned as the most frequent trigger of hikikomori [16, 38, 39]. Similarly, a recent secondary analysis study using the SYPA data reported that the history of dropping out of school was an important factor associated with hikikomori [14]. Notably, school refusal, along with mental health problems, increases significantly in middle school students [40, 41]. A recent systematic review identified maladaptive parenting and family dysfunction as critical factors in the development of hikikomori, specifically among adolescents [42]. Therefore, middle-school age should be considered as a “critical period” (also from a neurodevelopmental perspective) [37], which is vital for early detection and intervention.

Therefore, in the present study, we focused on observing middle school students and investigated the relationship between individual psycho-behavioral characteristics and the degree of severity of hikikomori. We also assessed the environmental situations with the purpose of identifying the factors related to the occurrence and severity of hikikomori during adolescence.

Methods

Participants

Our study targeted psychiatric outpatients, aged 12–15 years (seventh to ninth graders), who visited an adolescent outpatient clinic between December 2014 and November 2015. These participants were being primarily treated for hikikomori (n = 20; 10 of each sex; mean age ± standard deviation (SD) = 14.1 ± 1.1). We also recruited a healthy control group (n = 88; 56 boys; mean age ± SD = 14.0 ± 0.9). Among the clinical patients visiting the hospital chiefly for hikikomori, we targeted those who met the Cabinet Office’s definition; at least 6 months of a person exhibiting either “quasi-hikikomori” (i.e., going out only to engage in hobbies) or hikikomori in the narrow sense (i.e., from almost never going out of one’s room to going out to nearby convenience stores) [16]. Additionally, this definition excludes those diagnosed with schizophrenia and/or physical illness. We only included participants who, according to the DSM-IV-TR, did not meet the criteria for either Axis I or Axis II mental disorders.

For the healthy control group, we primarily recruited the siblings of student volunteers at Kyoto Women’s University, using a snowball sampling method (where respondents recommend additional eligible participants) and matched them with members of the patient group according to gender and age. No significant statistical differences were observed between the groups based on these characteristics (Supplemental Table 1). The exclusion criteria for healthy volunteers were the same as above, namely no diagnosis of schizophrenia, physical illness or Axis I or II mental disorders. All participants in the patient and healthy control groups received information regarding the survey and all parents and children provided consent to participate. Parents signed written consent forms for the participation of minors. Our study was carried out following a review, and permission was granted by the Clinical Study Ethical Review Board of Kyoto Women’s University.

Assessing the Severity of Hikikomori

Patients for the hikikomori group were pre-selected (on the basis of the treatment for the condition at an outpatient clinic). Since no DSM criteria currently exist and no formal diagnosis could be issued, the severity of each case needed to be established. We created a novel scale for evaluation (included in the “Appendix 1”), which was administered to the parents of both groups.

Based on the target age (school age) and the definition of hikikomori proposed in the report released by the Cabinet Office [15, 16, 38, 39], we designed our evaluation scale to comprise two items: (a) absenteeism from school and (b) going out; the latter is defined as: “the child went out either alone or with friends (but unaccompanied by family members) to shop, engage in sports, and/or socialized with friends.” The Cabinet Office’s report also identifies people who relate with individuals with hikikomori and also prefer to stay inside their homes and defines them as the “hikikomori affinity group” (Definition of hikikomori. 2016: 9–11) [16]. The survey did not recognize hikikomori as an independent clinical category, but rather as a continuous spectrum that included both the healthy and the affinity groups. This view set the tone for subsequent research on hikikomori. Therefore, in the present study, we attempted to follow the spectrum concept and evaluated our participants, who ranged from healthy to severe, using the same hikikomori scale.

Evaluations were conducted by asking parents to consider the most frequent occurrence of (a) and (b) during the past 6 months. Responses were provided on a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 (“Not at all”) to 4 (“Always”). For item (b), the numerical values were reverse scored and then combined with the scores for item (a). The total score represented the degree of severity of hikikomori, with a higher score indicating more severity. We calculated Cronbach’s α as 0.703 upon conducting a reliability analysis.

Measuring Environmental Factors

To investigate which environmental factors could be related to the occurrence and severity of hikikomori during adolescence, we created another novel evaluation scale to measure the following: (1) parental mental health, (2) parental physical conditions, (3) communication between parents and child, (4) communication between parents, (5) conflict between parent and child, (6) conflict between parents, (7) financial status, (8) communication with the community, (9) overuse of the Internet. Evaluations were conducted by asking parents of both groups to consider the circumstances over the past 6 months. Responses were provided on a 5-point scale (included in the “Appendix 1”).

Measuring Psycho-Behavioral Characteristics

The parents of participants in the hikikomori and control groups answered all questions in the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL4-18) [43, 44] to evaluate their child’s psycho-behavioral characteristics. The CBCL was developed by Achenbach and colleagues to comprehensively evaluate children’s emotional and behavioral problems [45]. Based on the raw scores from 118 problem-behavior questions featured in the CBCL4-18, the scores of 11 scales were calculated: eight syndrome subscales (i.e., withdrawn, somatic complaints, anxious/depressed, social problems, thought problems, attention problems, delinquent behavior, and aggressive behavior), an internalizing scale, an externalizing scale, and a total score scale. The scores of these 11 scales were converted into standardized t-scores based on country-specific standard values [46,47,48,49,50]. The CBCL has become a major research tool widely used in retrospective, cohort, and meta-analysis studies [51,52,53,54,55]. In the present study, we chose to use the CBCL to identify in detail the subclinical characteristics and symptoms related to hikikomori.

Statistical Analysis

We produced descriptive statistics and t-tests to determine between-group differences on the hikikomori severity scale, nine environmental scales, eight CBCL syndrome subscale t-scores, and the total CBCL t-score. Effect size (Cohen’s d) was calculated to ensure that the sample size was sufficient. We considered d > 0.5 as medium effect size and d > 0.8 as large effect size [56]. The dependent variables were approximately normally distributed within each group.

To identify factors related to hikikomori severity, we conducted multiple regression analysis with the severity of hikikomori as the dependent variable and demographic variables (gender, age), CBCL subscale t-scores, and the nine environmental factors as the predictor variables (n = 108). Two models were calculated: the first model (Model 1) was adjusted for all explanatory variables, and multicollinearity verification was performed using variance inflation factor (VIF) statistics. We then conducted a second multiple regression analysis (Model 2) excluding variables exhibiting VIF > 2.0 and variables with a low contribution (β < 0.01) to the first model. All analyses were performed using SPSS (v22) software for Windows and the significance level was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Comparisons of Hikikomori Severity, Environmental Factors, and CBCL Scores

The results of descriptive statistics are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Hikikomori severity was, as expected, significantly higher in the hikikomori patient group (p < 0.001, d > 0.8). With regard to environmental factors, in the hikikomori patient group, “parental psychiatric disorders” (p < 0.05, d > 0.8), “conflict between parent and child” (p < 0.001, d > 0.8), and “overuse of the Internet” (p < 0.05, d > 0.5) were all significantly higher than the control group, while “communication between parents” (p < 0.01, d > 0.8) was significantly lower. In the hikikomori patient group, mean values for the total CBCL score and syndrome subscales were significantly higher than those of the control group. In the hikikomori patient group, the total CBCL score was in the clinical range, while all syndrome subscale scores were in the subclinical range.

Table 1 Comparisons of severity of hikikomori and environmental factors scores (original scales) between hikikomori and control groups
Table 2 Descriptive statistics and comparisons of CBCL t-scores

Associations Between Hikikomori Severity and Demographic Variables, Environmental Factors, and CBCL Subscale Scores

To identify factors related to hikikomori severity, a multiple regression analysis was conducted using “severity of hikikomori” as the dependent variable and demographic variables (gender and age), the eight CBCL syndrome subscale scores, and the nine environmental factors as the independent variables (Model 1, Supplemental Table 2). The variable that most contributed to the severity of hikikomori was the CBCL syndrome subscale “withdrawn.” However, after estimating VIF, “withdrawn” was removed as an independent variable as it exhibited multicollinearity.

Therefore, we attempted to use variables with VIF < 2.0 and identified “independent” factors related to hikikomori severity with multiple regression analysis. The following items were excluded from our explanatory variables: withdrawn, social problems, thought problems, attention problems, delinquent behaviors, aggressive behaviors, and conflict between parent and child. Furthermore, variables with a low contribution (β < 0.01) were also omitted, resulting in conflict between parents also being excluded from the explanatory variables. See Table 3 for Model 2 results. Among the selected independent variables, “somatic complaints,” “anxious/depressed,” “overuse of the Internet,” and “lack of communication between parents” were significantly associated with hikikomori severity.

Table 3 Multiple linear regression analyses with demographic variables, CBCL subscales, and environmental factors to predict hikikomori severity (Model 2)

Discussion

There are limited studies pertaining to the etiology of hikikomori. Our study aimed to identify factors associated with the occurrence and severity of hikikomori during early adolescence, which is a critical period in the development of the disorder.

First, we developed a novel scale that could measure the severity of hikikomori and accurately identify those suffering from it, by comparing the results with those of control participants. This scale was based upon the findings of other research that identified school absenteeism and being house bound as two critical symptoms. We believe this scale can be useful but will require further validation by other studies, especially to improve upon its specificity as there may be some crossovers with mood disorders and agoraphobia.

Factors Associated with the Occurrence of Hikikomori

Previous research has found that individuals who exhibit hikikomori are more likely to be male [12, 14], however, gender was not significantly related to hikikomori severity in our study.

Our investigation of environmental factors that may be associated with the occurrence of hikikomori found that the prevalence of psychiatric disorders among parents was significantly higher in the hikikomori group. This indicated that there may be some genetic predisposition; perhaps related to stress tolerance, coping ability, or resilience; preventing adolescents with hikikomori from adequately coping with stressors such as interpersonal problems at school or poor academic performance. A recent preliminary study has shown blood biomarkers uric acid and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol as possibly correlated with an underlying biological pathology of hikikomori [57]. Individual psychological factors including interpersonal problems [14], coping difficulties, conflicting demands, reduced autonomy [58], low self-esteem [34], and a predisposed introverted personality [31] have been shown to play some role in hikikomori propensity. However, the extent to which these underlying vulnerabilities depend on a biological foundation requires further research. The novel scale we designed to measure the environmental factors also requires further testing and validation.

We also found that the hikikomori group had significantly lower scores for communication between parents and significantly higher scores for conflict between parent and child. Overuse of the Internet was also significantly higher in the clinical group. These could be important risk factors for hikikomori but could also be a result of the hikikomori itself. When personal stress and a negative family environment are added to a nonspecific vulnerability, signs of hikikomori could emerge along with adaptation issues. Similarly, maladaptation (in the form of hikikomori) may increase conflicts between parent and child and perhaps eventually lead to decreased communication between parents should they become overwhelmed. Familial factors, including an absent father, overdependence between mother and child [3], highly educated parents, and maternal panic disorder [59] have all been associated with hikikomori.

Overuse of the Internet may merely be a product of the limited available things to do when confined to the home, and more investigation is needed to uncover the relationship between Internet use and hikikomori, specifically to ascertain whether Internet use actively worsens symptoms or whether it is purely a recreational activity replacing social interaction.

Our CBCL results showed that middle school hikikomori patients had significantly higher mean scores for all the syndrome subscales and the total score, as compared to the control group. Although the total mean CBCL score for the hikikomori group was in the clinical range, all eight syndrome subscales were subclinical. This may be interpreted as follows: each of these psychiatric signs associated with hikikomori may not be considered clinically serious when considered alone; however, the combination may warrant psychiatric consultation. Given that there is no distinctive psychiatric sign that is specific to “clinical” hikikomori, as compared to other psychiatric conditions, there may be no single strong predictor that could be used for early detection. Rather, its occurrence will need to be judged by analyzing a combination of features that will change along a spectrum that has “severe hikikomori” at its one extreme [15, 16, 38, 39]. Based on our findings, it is unlikely that a specific vulnerability is the foundation of this condition and it is unclear whether the comorbidities reported thus far [10,11,12,13] may be secondary to the development of hikikomori.

Factors Associated with the Severity of Hikikomori

We used multiple regression analyses to investigate environmental factors and psychological characteristics that may be associated with hikikomori severity. The CBCL syndrome subscale “withdrawn” was found to contribute the most to hikikomori. This subscale evaluates the psychological tendencies of hikikomori and is one way to quantify “affinity for hikikomori,” as mentioned in the Cabinet Office reports [15, 16]. However, since we tried to investigate psychological factors that may have played a role in social withdrawal (hikikomori affinity) the “withdrawn” phenotype was too centrally involved to be useful and thus could not function as an independent variable in our model due to multicollinearity issues.

The results from our cross-sectional multiple regression analysis revealed that the following independent variables were correlated with hikikomori severity: “somatic complaints,” “anxious/depressed,” “overuse of the Internet,” and “lack of communication between parents”. It is interesting to note that “lack of communication between parents” was a correlate but “conflict between parents” was not. Could this indicate that regardless of whether parents frequently quarreled, more communication between parents could be a protective factor for adolescents with a tendency toward hikikomori? A more sensitive measure of the quality of the communication, such as the Family Assessment Device [60], would be useful to interrogate this further.

It is also not easy to tell whether anxiety and depression are triggers for hikikomori or simply co-occur. They have been identified as factors in other studies, but the exact relationship remains unclear [11, 12].

The relationship between somatic complaints and hikikomori is also unclear. Somatization could be related to nonspecific genetic vulnerabilities mentioned above (e.g. low stress tolerance). As a result of somatization, those with early hikikomori may frequently visit pediatricians about undefined complaints, which presents an opportunity for early detection. Although early screening for hikikomori may be difficult, the symptom of “school refusal” seems to be highly indicative [34,35,36]. One must also consider others on the hikikomori spectrum, who may have no problems attending school but communicate very little with people other than the members of their own families (the “hikikomori affinity group”).

Therapeutic Interventions

Parents should be encouraged to control Internet use in hikikomori children. These recommendations should be emphasized in support programs for hikikomori that target middle school students. One example is an administrative intervention program in French schools that has reduced the number of adolescent drop outs, by making the school staff focus intensely on any student who is absent for 10 half-days in a month. If absenteeism persists, the case is referred to a public prosecutor, unless the situation is handled medically or socially [61]. Unfortunately, hikikomori sufferers are often concealed by families, stopping judiciary and administrator bodies from intervening, thereby greatly impeding prevention and intervention programs. Such situations could even be viewed as “social neglect.” Social welfare services that encourage parents to address difficulties together with their child, especially through home-visit programs, may be effective for decreasing hikikomori severity and duration [21, 36, 62, 63]. Pre-school developmental-behavioral screening and consecutive support programs may also help prevent early hikikomori [64] but adolescence is a critical period for intervention.

Limitations and Future Work

This research is novel in that only middle school hikikomori patients, without any psychiatric disorders, were included in the study. Most previous studies did not distinguish between hikikomori co-occurring with or without other psychiatric disorders. One limitation of the present study was the small number of clinical hikikomori cases (n = 20), likely due to exclusion of all patients with additional psychiatric diagnoses. In this regard, larger sample sizes are needed to ensure the scientific validity of our results. In addition, CBCL assessment may have been affected by parental factors, such as psychopathological difficulties, which were more common in the hikikomori group. Furthermore, our participants’ ages (13–15 years) were not fully representative of the adolescence period (10–19 years), so differences may be cited in patients who are younger or older than those in our study. A study including a more heterogeneous sample in terms of age may bring some new insights. Moreover, the environmental factors were evaluated through a novel measurement scale that has not been psychometrically validated.

Despite these limitations, our results revealed some interesting avenues for further research, particularly exploring the role of communication between parents. In future studies, it would be interesting to include a standardized evaluation of family functioning to explore this association more precisely and to identify specific therapeutic goals.

In addition, sociocultural influences cannot be overlooked from our analysis, as only Japanese hikikomori cases were examined. However, hikikomori is increasingly being acknowledged as a global phenomenon and, as such, comparative cultural studies will be needed to identify universal risk factors. Hikikomori cases outside of Japan have been documented consistently with dozens of articles in the last 15 years referring to cases in South Korea, China, India, Australia, Bangladesh, Iran, Taiwan, Thailand, Oman, France, Brazil, Hong Kong, Spain, China, Canada and the United States [2, 9, 12, 13, 21, 23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. In fact, Teo and Gaw’s proposal to include hikikomori as a culture-bound Japanese syndrome in the DSM-5 in 2010 was not accepted [65], and several 2019 publications describe hikikomori as a global health problem that is “no longer culture-bound” [66, 67].

Our findings can therefore likely be extended to international cases as many similar features of hikikomori have consistently been reported. For instance, circadian rhythm correction is a common method of treatment in Japan, and a study of adolescent hikikomori sufferers in France found that many of them suffered from sleep–wake schedule disorders (73%) [12]. Many were also diagnosed with schizophrenia (37%) or mood disorders (23%), commonly seen in Japanese hikikomori patients as well [11, 12].

In order to ascertain which of the characteristics we have identified could be causally linked to hikikomori, a longitudinal study is necessary. It would be interesting to note whether increasing parent to parent communication and limiting use of the Internet might confer protection against the development or worsening of hikikomori.

Ultimately, to develop effective prevention and intervention systems that are adapted to hikikomori severity, it is necessary to better understand the dynamic mechanisms at play, including understanding the conditions that result in hikikomori compared to co-morbid conditions. It is estimated that 30% of hikikomori cases last more than 3 years and 15% more than 7 years [16]. This has a severe impact, not only in the lives of adolescents and their families, but also on the nation’s health, labor force, welfare, and economy. The importance of research into this debilitating condition cannot be overstated.

Summary

This study examined characteristics surrounding the phenomenon of hikikomori in adolescents, since only few studies have examined this age group. We sought to identify environmental and psycho-behavioral characteristics related to hikikomori to better understand the etiology. Middle school students who underwent psychiatric outpatient treatment for hikikomori were recruited for the patient group and age and sex matched controls were recruited for the control group. Parents of both groups completed the Child Behavior Checklist to evaluate their child’s psycho-behavioral characteristics. Novel scales, also completed by the parents, were used to evaluate environmental characteristics and hikikomori severity. Scores for all eight Child Behavior Checklist subscales were significantly higher in the patient group. Multiple regression analysis revealed that “anxious/depressed,” “somatic complaints,” “lack of communication between parents” and “overuse of the Internet” were significant predictors of hikikomori severity. These findings can help identify individuals who are at risk of developing hikikomori.

References

  1. Teo AR (2010) A new form of social withdrawal in Japan: a review of hikikomori. Int J Soc Psychiatry 56:178–185

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kato TA, Shinfuku N, Sartorius N, Kanba S (2011) Are Japan’s hikikomori and depression in young people spreading abroad? Lancet 378:1070

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Kato TA, Kanba S, Teo AR (2016) A 39-year-old “adultolescent”: understanding social withdrawal in Japan. Am J Psychiat 173:112–114

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kato TA, Kanba S, Teo AR (2018) Hikikomori: experience in Japan and international relevance. World Psychiatry 17:105–106

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Harding C (2018) Hikikomori. Lancet Psychiat 5:28–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ogino T (2004) Managing categorization and social withdrawal in Japan: rehabilitation process in a private support group for hikikomorians. Int J Jpn Sociol 13:120–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaneko S (2006) Japan’s ‘socially withdrawn youths’ and time constraints in Japanese society: management and conceptualization of time in a support group for hikikomori. Time Soc 15:233–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Borovoy A (2008) Japan’s hidden youths: mainstreaming the emotionally distressed in Japan. Cult Med Psychiat 32:52–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Teo AR, Fetters MD, Stufflebam K, Tateno M, Balhara Y, Choi TY et al (2015) Identification of the hikikomori syndrome of social withdrawal: psychosocial features and treatment preferences in four countries. Int J Soc Psychiatry 61:64–72

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Koyama A, Miyake Y, Kawakami N, Tsuchiya M, Tachimori H, Takeshima T et al (2010) Lifetime prevalence, psychiatric comorbidity, and demographic correlates of “hikikomori” in a community population in Japan. Psychiatry Res 176:69–74

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kondo N, Sakai M, Kuroda Y, Kiyota Y, Kitabata Y, Kurosawa M (2013) General condition of hikikomori (prolonged social withdrawal) in Japan: psychiatric diagnosis and outcome in mental health welfare centres. Int J Soc Psychiatry 59:79–86

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Chauliac N, Couillet A, Faivre S, Brochard N, Terra JL (2017) Characteristics of socially withdrawn youth in France: a retrospective study. Int J Soc Psychiatry 63:339–344

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Malagón-Amor Á, Córcoles-Martínez D, Martín-López LM, Pérez-Solà V (2015) Hikikomori in Spain: a descriptive study. Int J Soc Psychiatry 61:475–483

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Yong R, Nomura K (2019) Hikikomori is most associated with interpersonal relationships, followed by suicide risks: a secondary analysis of a national cross-sectional study. Front Psychiatry 10:247

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cabinet Office of the Government of Japan (2010) Director-General for Policy on Cohesive Society National Young Adults Attitude Survey. Available from https://www8.cao.go.jp/youth/kenkyu/hikikomori/pdf/gaiyo.pdf. Accessed on 13 June, 2019. (in Japanese)

  16. Cabinet Office of the Government of Japan (2016) Director-General for Policy on Cohesive Society National Young Adults Attitude Survey. Available from https://www8.cao.go.jp/youth/kenkyu/hikikomori/h27/pdf-index.html. Accessed on 13 June, 2019. (in Japanese)

  17. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (2010) Guidelines for Support and Evaluation of Hikikomori. Available from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/houdou/2r98520000006i6f.html. Accessed on 9 Aug, 2020. (in Japanese)

  18. Teo A, Stufflebam K, Saha S, Fetters M, Tateno M, Kanba S et al (2015) Psychopathology associated with social withdrawal: idiopathic and comorbid presentations. Psychiatry Res 228:182–183

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kato TA, Tateno M, Shinfuku T, Fujisawa D, Teo A, Sartorius N et al (2012) Does the hikikomori syndrome of social withdrawal exist outside Japan? A preliminary international investigation. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 47:1061–1075

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Nagata T, Yamada H, Teo A, Yoshimura C, Nakajima T, Van Vielt I (2013) Comorbid Social Withdrawal (hikikomori) in Outpatients with Social Anxiety Disorder: clinical characteristics and treatment response in a case series. Int J Soc Psychiatry 59:73–78

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Guedj-Bourdiau M-J (2011) Claustration à domicile de l’adolescent hikikomori. Ann Méd Psychol 169:668–673

    Google Scholar 

  22. Colman AM (2015) A dictionary of psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sakamoto N, Martin RG, Kumano H (2005) Hikikomori, is it a culture-reactive or culture-bound syndrome? Nidotherapy and a clinical vignette from Oman. Int J Psychiatry Med 35:191–198

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Fansten M, Figueiredo C, Vellut N, Pionnié-Dax N (2014) Hikikomori, ces adolescents en retrait. Armand Colin, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  25. Furuhashi T, Figueiredo C, Pionnié-Dax N, Fansten M, Vellut N, Castel PH (2012) Pathology seen in French” Hikikomori”. Shin Shinkeigaku Zasshi 114:1173–1179

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gondim FAA, Aragão AP, Holanda FJG (2017) Hikikomori in Brazil: 29 years of voluntary social withdrawal. Asian J Psychiatr 30:163–164

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Wong PW, Li TM, Chan M, Law Y, Chau M, Cheng C et al (2014) The prevalence and correlates of severe social withdrawal (hikikomori) in Hong Kong: a cross-sectional telephone-based survey study. Int J Soc Psychiatry 61:330–342

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Garcia-Campayo J, Alda M, Sobradiel N, Abos BS (2007) A case report of hikikomori in Spain. Med Clin 129:318–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ovejero S, Caro-Cañizares I, de León-Martínez V, Baca-Garcia E (2014) Prolonged social withdrawal disorder: a hikikomori case in Spain. Int J Soc Psychiatry 60:562–565

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Wong PWC, Liu LL, Li TMH, Kato TA (2017) Does hikikomori (severe social withdrawal) exist among young people in urban areas of China? Asian J Psychiatr 30:175–176

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Chong S, Chan K (2012) A case study of a Chinese ‘hikikomorian’ in Canada: theorizing the process of hikikomorization. J Spec Educ Rehab 13:99–114

    Google Scholar 

  32. Stip E, Thibault A, Beauchamp-Chatel A, Kisely S (2016) Internet addiction, hikikomori syndrome, and the prodomal phase of psychosis. Front Psychiatry 7:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kato TA, Kanba S (2016) Boundless syndromes in modern society: an interconnected world producing novel psychopathology in the 21st century. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 70:1–2

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Ranieri F, Andreoli M, Bellagamba E, Franchi E, Mancini F, Pitti L et al (2015) Extreme social withdrawal in early adolescence: epidemiological data on Italian hikikomori. Eur Psychiatry 30:1199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lee YS, Lee JY, Choi TY, Choi JT (2013) Home visitation program for detecting, evaluating and treating socially withdrawn youth in Korea. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 67:193–202

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Pionnié-Dax N (2014) Expériences de retrait au Japon: réflexions et regards croisés sur le phénomène hikikomori. L’Autre 15:64–74

    Google Scholar 

  37. Drabick DAG, Steinberg L (2011) Developmental psychopathology. Encyclopedia adolescence. Elsevier, London

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tajan N, Hamasaki Y, Pionnié-Dax N (2017) Hikikomori: the Japanese Cabinet Office’s 2016 survey of acute social withdrawal. Asia Pac J 15:1

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hamasaki Y, Pionnié-Dax N, Taja N (2017) Research report on hikikomori: summary of the results published in September 2016 by the Office of the Japanese Cabinet. L’information Psychiatr 93:289–296

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kearney CA (2008) School absenteeism and school refusal behavior in youth: a contemporary review. Clin Psychol Rev 28:451–471

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Epstein S, Roberts E, Sedgwick R, Polling C, Finning K, Ford T et al (2019) School absenteeism as a risk factor for self-harm and suicidal ideation in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-019-01327-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Li TM, Wong PW (2015) Youth social withdrawal behavior (hikikomori): a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 49:595–609

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Achenbach TM (1991) Manual for the child behavior checklist and 1991 profile. University of Vermont, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  44. Achenbach TM, Ruffle TM (2000) The Child Behavior Checklist and related forms for assessing behavioral/emotional problems and competencies. Pediatr Rev 21:265–271

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. The Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA; 2020). Available from https://aseba.org/. Accessed on 24 Jan, 2020

  46. De Groot A, Koot HM, Verhulst FC (1994) Cross-cultural generalizability of the Child Behavior Checklist cross-informant syndromes. Psychol Assess 6:225–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Verhulst FC, Achenbach TM (1995) Empirically based assessment and taxonomy of psychopathology: cross-cultural applications. A review. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 4:61–76

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Bilenberg N (1990) The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and related material: standardization and validation in Danish population based and clinically based samples. Acta Psychiatr Scand 100:2–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Nøvik TS (1999) Validity of the Child Behaviour Checklist in a Norwegian sample. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 8:247–254

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Steinhausen HC, Metzke CW, Meier M (1997) Behavioral and emotional problems reported by parents for ages 6 to 17 in a Swiss epidemiological study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 6:136–141

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Rossi A, Pollice R, Daneluzzo E, Marinangeli MG, Stratta P (2000) Behavioral neurodevelopment abnormalities and schizophrenic disorder: a retrospective evaluation with the Childhood Behavior Checklist (CBCL). Schizophr Res 44:121–128

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Miller PM, Byrne M, Hodges A, Lawrie SM, Johnstone EC (2002) Childhood behavior, psychotic symptoms and psychosis onset in young people at high risk of schizophrenia: early findings from the Edinburgh high risk study. Psychol Med 32:173–179

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Muratori F, Salvadori F, Arcangelo GD, Viglione V, Picchi L (2005) Childhood psychopathological antecedents in early onset schizophrenia. Eur Psychiatry 20:309–314

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Welham J, Scott J, Williams G, Najman J, Bor W, O’Callaghan M et al (2009) Emotional and behavioral antecedents of young adults who screen positive for non-affective psychosis: a 21-year birth cohort study. Psychol Med 39:625–634

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Matheson SL, Vijayan H, Dickson H, Shepherd AM, Carr VJ, Laurens KR (2013) Systematic meta-analysis of childhood social withdrawal in schizophrenia, and comparison with data from at-risk children aged 9–14 years. J Psychiatry Res 47:1061–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Cohen J (1992) Power primer. Psychol Bull 112:155–159

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Hayakawa K, Kato TA, Watabe M, Teo AR, Horikawa H, Kuwano N et al (2018) Blood biomarkers of hikikomori, a severe social withdrawal syndrome. Sci Rep 8:2884

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Yong R, Kaneko Y (2016) Hikikomori, a phenomenon of social withdrawal and isolation in young adults marked by an anomic response to coping difficulties: a qualitative study exploring individual experiences from first- and second-person perspectives. Open J Prev Med 6:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Umeda M, Kawakami N (2012) Association of childhood family environments with the risk of social withdrawal (‘hikikomori’) in the community population in Japan. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 66:121–129

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Epstein NB, Baldwin LM, Bishop DS (1983) The McMaster family assessment device. J Marital Fam Ther 9:171–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ministère de l’Education Nationale (2015) Circulaire interministérielle relative à la prévention de l’absentéisme scolaire. Available from https://www.education.gouv.fr/pid25535/bulletin_officiel.html?cid_bo=84375. Accessed on 13 June, 2019

  62. Jaschinski J, Lachal J, Pionnié-Dax N (2018) Parental experience of home visiting service in French adolescent with school refusal and social withdrawal: a qualitative study. Université Paris Sud, Doctoral Dissertation. Identifiant IdRef: 224771205

  63. Guedj MJ, Gallois E (2006) La visite à domicile comme réponse à la réclusion de l’adolescent. Enfances & Psy 1:43–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Korematsu S, Takano T, Izumi T (2016) Pre-school development and behavior screening with a consecutive support programs for 5-year-olds reduces the rate of school refusal. Brain Dev 38:373–376

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Teo A, Gaw A (2010) Hikikomori, a Japanese culture-bound syndrome of social withdrawal? A proposal for DSM-5. J Nerv 198:444–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Bommersbach T, Millard H (2019) No longer culture-bound: hikikomori outside of Japan. Int J Soc Psychiatry 65:539–540

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Wu A, Ooi J, Wong P, Catmur C, Lau J (2019) Evidence of pathological social withdrawal in non-Asian countries: a global health problem? Lancet Psychiatry 6:195–196

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all the parents who participated in this study. We would also like to thank the members of the Research Support Desk at Kyoto Women’s University for their dedication, hard work, and valuable insights. We would also like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

Funding

This study was supported by JSPS Kakenhi (grant numbers 18H00999 and 18KK0068). Additional support was provided by a research grant from Kyoto Women’s University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

YH and NPD conceived and designed the study. YH obtained funding and recruited participants. YH, NPD, GD, and TH acquired and analyzed the data. YH, under the supervision of TH, with NPD, GD, and NT contributed to data interpretation and final manuscript preparation. All authors reviewed the content of the manuscript and approved its final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yukiko Hamasaki.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 39 kb)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 41 kb)

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Assessment Scales of Hikikomori Severity

  1. (1)

    During the past 6 months, your child has been absent from school:

    Responses were provided on a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 (“Never”) and 2 (“Sometimes”) to 4 (“Completely”).

  2. (2)

    During the last 6 months, your child went out, either alone or with friends (i.e., unaccompanied by family members) to shop, engage in sports, and/or socialize with friends:

Responses were provided on a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 (“Never”) and 2 (“Sometimes”) to 4 (“Regularly”).

Assessment Scales of Environmental Factors

Responses were provided on a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 (“Not at all”) to 4 (“Always”), except for item #7, which was evaluated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 to 4, representing “Extremely difficult” to “Very favorable.”

  1. (1)

    Parental mental health: “Both or either of the parents have been treated by a psychological counselor or a psychiatrist.”

  2. (2)

    Parental physical conditions: “Both or either of the parents have health problems (chronic illness, surgical treatment, and/or other problems).”

  3. (3)

    Communication between parents and child: “There is communication between the parents and their child.”

  4. (4)

    Communication between parents: “There is communication between the parents.”

  5. (5)

    Conflict between parent and child: “There are conflicts between a parent and their child.”

  6. (6)

    Conflict between parents: “There are conflicts between the parents.”

  7. (7)

    Financial status: “The family’s financial status can be considered as…”.

  8. (8)

    Communication with the community: “You, as a family, are in close contact with your neighbors and the people in your community.”

  9. (9)

    Overuse of the Internet: “Your child spends too much time using the Internet (computers, smartphones, games consoles, and tablets, among others.)”.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hamasaki, Y., Pionnié-Dax, N., Dorard, G. et al. Identifying Social Withdrawal (Hikikomori) Factors in Adolescents: Understanding the Hikikomori Spectrum. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 52, 808–817 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-020-01064-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-020-01064-8

Keywords

  • Hikikomori
  • Social withdrawal
  • Adolescence
  • Early intervention
  • Mental health