↓ Skip to main content

Too Lonely to Die Alone: Internet Suicide Pacts and Existential Suffering in Japan

Overview of attention for article published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, September 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#48 of 622)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
29 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Too Lonely to Die Alone: Internet Suicide Pacts and Existential Suffering in Japan
Published in
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, September 2008
DOI 10.1007/s11013-008-9108-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chikako Ozawa-de Silva

Abstract

Most striking in the recent rise of suicide in Japan are the increase in suicide among young Japanese and the emergence of Internet suicide pacts. An ethnography of suicide-related Web sites reveals a distinctive kind of existential suffering among visitors that is not reducible to categories of mental illness and raises questions regarding the meaning of an individual "choice" to die, when this occurs in the context of an intersubjective decision by a group of strangers, each of whom is too afraid to die alone. Anthropology's recent turn to subjectivity enables analyses of individual suffering in society that provide a more nuanced approach to the apparent dichotomy between agency and structure and that connect the phenomenon of suicide in Japan to Japanese conceptions of selfhood and the afterlife. The absence of ikigai [the worth of living] among suicide Web site visitors and their view of suicide as a way of healing show, furthermore, that analyses of social suffering must be expanded to include questions of meaning and loss of meaning and, also, draw attention to Japanese conceptions of self in which relationality in all things, including the choice to die, is of utmost importance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hong Kong 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Rwanda 1 <1%
Unknown 164 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 15%
Student > Master 26 15%
Student > Bachelor 23 14%
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 40 24%
Unknown 25 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 49 29%
Psychology 41 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 10%
Arts and Humanities 10 6%
Computer Science 7 4%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 29 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,478,574
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#48
of 622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,591
of 90,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 90,562 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them