The consciousness of virtue: uncovering the gaps between educational specialists and the general public in their understanding of virtue in Japan

The paper situates virtue as a normative concept central to moral and social codes in both Western (Greek and Christian traditions) and Eastern (Confucian) contexts. Historically, the notion of virtue waned and was revived mid-20th century through Western virtue ethics and Neo-Confucian revivals. Given this revival is largely academic, the authors hypothesize gaps between educational specialists (ESs) and the general public (GP) in Japan regarding familiarity with and understanding of virtue. Japan’s virtue discourse reflects intertwined influences from ancient Greek/Christian thought, Confucianism, Buddhism, pre-war Imperial moral education, and post-war educational reforms. The study aims to explore whether the term virtue is less familiar to the GP than ESs and whether the two groups differ in their conceptual understanding. The authors operationalize this via three research questions: (1) How familiar are GP vs ESs with the term virtue (exposure and usage)? (2) What impressions and associations do they hold toward the term? (3) Which virtues are hard to understand and which are considered important, across six historically grounded categories of virtues in Japan.

The authors review three broad streams of contemporary virtue scholarship beyond traditional philosophy: (1) cross-cultural studies comparing virtue conceptions (e.g., Confucian vs Greek-Christian, and explorations in Islamic and African contexts); (2) empirical approaches linking virtue to psychology, sociology, psychiatry, and neuroscience; (3) curriculum-based analyses of how national education systems encode virtues (e.g., in China). They note the longstanding philosophical debate over universality vs cultural relativity of virtue (Nussbaum vs MacIntyre), and recent observations of cross-cultural and historical disagreement over which traits count as virtues. In Japan, the modern revival of virtue is tied to importing Western virtue ethics/epistemology and positive psychology, alongside indigenous Confucian and Buddhist strands and distinct pre-war Imperial and post-war curricular frameworks. These strands motivate an exploratory survey to map current Japanese understandings across GP and ESs.

Design: Cross-sectional online survey administered to two populations in Japan with identical instruments. Participants: General Public (GP) n=997 (initially 1,000; 3 excluded as ESs); balanced by age decades (20s–60s) and sex. Educational Specialists (ESs) n=271 recruited via emails to 10 relevant academic and education organizations; ESs subdivided into Professional Researchers (PRs: university teachers specializing in philosophy/ethics or education/philosophy of education) n=194 and non-professional ESs (npr-ESs: other teachers and clergy) n=77. Religion responses allowed multiple selections; atheism/no religion predominated. Recruitment and timing: GP survey via research consulting company panel, Feb 1–4, 2022; ES survey via academic society emailing, Feb 28–Mar 25, 2022. Measures: Demographics (education, occupation, age group, gender, religion). Twelve content questions mapped to three aims: (1) Familiarity: frequency of seeing/hearing and using the word virtue in daily life (5-point Likert: not at all to almost every day). (2) Image: impression of the word virtue (5-point from very unfavorable to very favorable) and associations—first, second, third choices from 41 pre-collated virtue-related words/phrases reflecting Japanese historical/cultural context (39 content terms plus Others and Nothing). (3) Lost and important virtues: a set of 129 virtues distributed across six categories derived from Japan’s reception history: Category 1 Western moral virtues; Category 2 Western epistemic virtues; Category 3 Psychological virtues (positive psychology); Category 4 Imperial Japanese moral and epistemic virtues (Imperial Rescript on Education); Category 5 Confucian virtues (Analects); Category 6 Post-war Japanese moral and epistemic virtues (MEXT 2017). Respondents selected any virtues whose meanings were hard to understand; then, within each category, selected up to five most important virtues, with first-place emphasized for analysis. Construction of lists: Category 1 from Plato/Aristotle/Christian cardinal and theological virtues; Category 2 from survey papers in virtue epistemology; Category 3 from VIA strengths; Category 4 from the Imperial Rescript; Category 5 from the Analects; Category 6 from MEXT 2017 guidance for moral education. Japanese translations used as appropriate; Confucian terms presented in Chinese characters Japanese readers recognize. The 41 association terms were curated by the authors referencing MEXT-authorized high school Civics/History texts, acknowledging potential curator bias. Analysis: Descriptive percentages for demographics and response distributions. Group comparisons: Fisher’s exact tests for GP vs ES and PR vs npr-ES, with Holm’s correction for multiple comparisons. For association words, only first-choice responses analyzed. Effect sizes and proportion differences reported where relevant. Statistical software: SAS 9.4; significance at p<0.05.

- Familiarity: GP reported very low exposure/use of the word virtue. Seeing/hearing in daily life: 44.5% of GP selected “not at all,” 43.3% “a few times a year.” Using the word: 59.2% “not at all,” 32.5% “a few times a year.” ESs had far greater exposure: only 8.1% “not at all”; 35.4% “a few times a year”; 30.3% used/heard it frequently (almost weekly/daily) vs 4.3% GP. Frequent use among ESs was 16.6%; among PRs, 20.1%. Differences GP vs ES and PR vs npr-ES were significant (p<0.01; p=0.02 and p=0.01, respectively). - Impressions: Both groups predominantly positive. GP: 45.0% positive, 2.7% negative, 52.3% neutral. ESs: 65.0% positive, 7.0% negative, 28.0% neutral. ESs were less neutral and more polarized (p<0.01); PR vs npr-ES difference not significant (p=0.29). - Associations: GP most often chose “Nothing” (18.2%), “Morality” (16.9%), “Character” (8.3%), “Buddha” (7.6%), “Way of living” (5.9%). ESs most often chose “Good life” (15.9%), “Character” (15.5%), “Ethics” (14.8%), “Morality” (9.6%), “Way of living” (8.5%). ESs selected “Good life,” “Ethics,” and “Character” more than GP; GP more often selected “Moral education” and “Nothing.” Negative, pre-war/militaristic terms (e.g., “Imperial Rescript on Education,” “militarism,” “Pacific War”) were rarely selected (0–1.4%). No significant differences between PR and npr-ES on association patterns after correction. - Difficult-to-understand virtues: Both groups struggled with several Confucian virtues; top items included “Elegancy (斯文)” (GP 57.5%, ES 82.3%), and “Stubbornness (頑固)” (GP 41.1%, ES 60.5%). GP had significantly more difficulty than ESs with Aristotelian/Western moral terms such as “Constant mean,” “Piety,” and “Wit” (all p<0.01). ESs also frequently reported difficulty with multiple Confucian terms (e.g., “Elegancy,” “Fraternal respect,” “Humility,” “Stubbornness,” “Culture”). PR vs npr-ES differences were not significant. - Important virtues: Clear contrasts emerged. • Category 1 (Western moral): GP prioritized “Gratitude,” “Love,” “Honesty.” ESs prioritized “Love,” “Prudence,” “Honesty.” ESs rated “Prudence,” “Hope,” “Compassion,” “Wit” higher; GP rated “Gratitude” higher. • Category 2 (Western epistemic): GP prioritized “Responsibility,” then “n/a,” then “Autonomy.” ESs prioritized “Autonomy,” then “n/a,” then “Responsibility.” ESs rated “Autonomy,” “Non-discretion,” “Reflection” higher; GP rated “Responsibility” higher. • Category 3 (Psychological): GP prioritized “Gratitude,” then “Integrity,” then “Love.” ESs prioritized “Integrity,” then “Gratitude,” then “Prudence.” ESs rated “Integrity,” “Prudence,” “Hope” higher; GP rated “Gratitude” higher. • Category 4 (Imperial): GP prioritized “Non-impoliteness,” then “n/a,” then “Fidelity.” ESs prioritized “Fidelity,” then “n/a,” then “Non-impoliteness.” ESs rated “Studying” and “Serving the public” higher; GP rated “Filial devotion” and “Non-impoliteness” higher. npr-ESs rated “Filial devotion” higher than PRs. • Category 5 (Confucian): GP prioritized “Fate,” then “n/a,” then “Ritual propriety.” ESs prioritized “Benevolence,” then “n/a,” then “Constant mean.” ESs rated “Benevolence,” “Deference,” “Wisdom,” and “Constant mean” higher; GP rated “Ritual propriety” and especially “Fate” higher, suggesting possible semantic misunderstanding of “命.” • Category 6 (Post-war): Both groups prioritized “Compassion, gratitude” and “Dignity of life,” but ESs more often selected “Independence, autonomy, freedom and responsibility,” “Searching for truth, creation,” “Mutual understanding, broad-mindedness,” “Fairness, equity, social justice,” and “Joy of living better,” whereas GP more often selected “Compassion, gratitude,” “Politeness,” and “Family love.” Overall, ESs emphasized active, intellectual, Greek/Western-aligned virtues (e.g., prudence, autonomy, justice-related items), while GP emphasized passive, emotional, and Buddhist-colored virtues (e.g., gratitude, politeness). Both groups showed weak links to Confucian virtues. Findings were robust across multiple comparisons with Holm adjustment.

The study’s findings address the exploratory questions by demonstrating: (1) a substantial familiarity gap, with ESs frequently encountering and using the term virtue, indicating its primary circulation within academic philosophy and education; (2) broadly positive impressions in both groups, with ESs’ impressions more clearly valenced and grounded in Western virtue-ethical notions, while GP impressions are more diffuse; (3) divergent associative schemas: ESs connect virtue to “good life,” ethics, and character (ancient Greek traditions), whereas GP often have no clear association or tie virtue to morality or Buddhism; (4) widespread difficulty with Confucian terms among both groups, suggesting contemporary Japanese discourse on virtue is largely decoupled from Confucian conceptual frameworks; and (5) priority differences in what counts as important virtues, aligning ESs with active, intellectual, and Western virtues (prudence, autonomy, fairness, studying) and GP with passive, emotional, and Buddhist-colored virtues (gratitude, politeness, compassion). These results are relevant for theory and practice. Theoretically, they underscore that the contemporary Japanese understanding of virtue is an amalgam of multiple historical-cultural streams, weighted differently by audience: academic engagement skews toward Western virtue ethics/epistemology, while lay orientations retain Buddhist sensibilities and show semantic drift or misunderstanding of classic Confucian concepts. Practically, neglecting these gaps can lead to two harms: (a) academic misalignment—scholarly analyses that overlook common usage risk self-referential theorizing detached from public understanding (an insight paralleling experimental philosophy critiques); (b) policy and curriculum risks—ESs often influence national curricula and textbooks; designing virtue/character education without sensitivity to GP understandings may impair implementation, acceptance, and accuracy in moral education. The positive re-evaluation of virtue terms and the fading of militaristic/Imperial connotations signal opportunity for constructive engagement, but the limited Confucian literacy and differing value emphases call for careful curricular framing and public communication.

This exploratory survey provides the first systematic comparison of how educational specialists and the general public in Japan understand the term virtue and prioritize specific virtues. Key contributions include documenting: (1) a major familiarity gap favoring ESs; (2) broadly positive impressions of virtue in both groups; (3) differing association patterns, with ESs drawing on Greek/Western virtue-ethical concepts and GP retaining Buddhist-colored associations; (4) poor understanding of Confucian virtues across both groups; and (5) differing priority on important virtues, with ESs emphasizing active/intellectual traits and GP emphasizing passive/emotional traits. These findings clarify the contemporary Japanese consciousness of virtue as a cultural amalgam and highlight the necessity for ESs to be mindful of public conceptions in scholarship and educational policymaking. Future research should: identify drivers of changing impressions of virtue post-WWII; include core public-school teachers more centrally; and extend comparative studies to other societies where multiple virtue traditions intermingle to map convergences/divergences in lay and expert understandings.

The study is exploratory, with curated item lists that may reflect authorial selection bias. The exact causes of the observed positive reappraisal of virtue remain unidentified and warrant causal investigation. The authors note that schoolteachers involved in public education should be examined more directly in future work. Confucian terms may have been misunderstood due to cross-linguistic semantic drift, affecting measurement validity. Although only first-choice associations and first-ranked important virtues were analyzed (to avoid ambiguous ranking strengths), this choice reduces information from lower-ranked selections. Finally, results are specific to Japan and to the surveyed professional networks; generalizability to other contexts or professions requires replication and cross-cultural comparison.