Authoritarian narratives can shape Japanese public opinion, researchers find

An authoritarian regime is a type of government system where power is restricted in the hands of a single leader or a group, limiting the participation of citizens in decision-making. As authoritarian states like China and Russia intensify their global information campaigns, a new study highlights Japan's vulnerability to illiberal narratives.

This research, led by Professor Tetsuro Kobayashi of Waseda University, Research Associate Yuan Zhou of Kobe University, Ph.D. student Lungta Seki of Koç University, and Professor Asako Miura of Osaka University, was published online on March 12, 2025, in the journal Democratization. The study revealed that these narratives are more persuasive than mainstream democratic messaging, revealing potential risks to Japan's political discourse.

Kobayashi and team examined how Japanese citizens respond to narratives propagated by authoritarian regimes compared to those dominant in democratic societies. Using an online survey experiment, they exposed participants to both types of narratives and measured shifts in opinion. The results were striking: Illiberal narratives exerted a stronger influence than mainstream democratic narratives, even when their sources were explicitly identified.

"The results showed that both illiberal and mainstream narratives produced persuasive effects in the intended direction; however, the illiberal narratives tended to have a greater impact than mainstream narratives," writes Kobayashi.

This finding is particularly concerning given the study's second key result: The expected moderating effects of political knowledge, authoritarian tendencies, and belief in conspiracy theories were absent among the participants. Unlike a similar study conducted in Germany, where individuals with low political knowledge and strong authoritarian leanings were more vulnerable, Japanese respondents were broadly susceptible to illiberal narratives regardless of their political profile.

"The persuasive effects of illiberal narratives were not moderated by the political knowledge of the participants. This suggests that it is not only specific segments of the Japanese population that are influenced by illiberal narratives, but rather that Japanese individuals are broadly susceptible," writes Kobayashi.

When both democratic and illiberal narratives were introduced together, their effects largely canceled each other. However, when an illiberal narrative followed a democratic one, it retained its persuasive effect. This means that once an illiberal narrative enters public discourse, it may be more difficult to counteract, even in a country where democratic narratives are dominant. This suggests that mainstream narratives do not effectively inoculate the public against later exposure to illiberal messaging.

The implications extend beyond Japan's domestic politics. As Japan plays a crucial role in the US-led liberal international order, the infiltration of illiberal narratives could have consequences for its foreign policy alignment. If public opinion in Japan shifts in favor of authoritarian states, it could weaken Japan's support for democratic alliances and international norms.

This raises concerns about Japan's resilience against cognitive warfare. As authoritarian states refine their influence operations, Japan may need stronger measures to counteract manipulative narratives. "The study highlights the urgency of strengthening democratic resilience by honing effective counternarratives and increasing public awareness of foreign influence tactics," concludes Kobayashi.

If left unaddressed, the spread of illiberal narratives could undermine trust in democratic institutions and shift public opinion in ways that favor authoritarian interests, underscoring the urgency of fostering media literacy and public awareness to safeguard democratic discourse in an increasingly contested information space.