This study aimed to conduct a questionnaire experiment using the scenario method to determine if the nature of the imagined contact scene changes the image of a particular group. Specifically, we examined whether Japanese attitudes toward Korea/Koreans and Korean attitudes toward Japan/Japanese change depending on the imagined contact scene (positive/negative). In November 2018, we commissioned a research firm to conduct a questionnaire survey among 432 Japanese and 439 Koreans. The results of the two-factor analysis showed that imagined contact improved attitudes toward the other country/other nations and that positive imagined contact was more effective than negative imagined contact. On the other hand, negative contact had almost no negative effect on country/national image. Based on the above, the following three points can be made. First, this study confirms that the results of imagined contact verified in Western countries are also effective in East Asia, namely Japan and Korea. Second, this study suggests that the change in attitude caused by negative contact is limited and could be used effectively in intercultural training. Third, imagined contact stimulates “the intention to interact with a specific nation,” it is expected to improve the image of a specific country/nation.

Various discourses on debate education have been perpetuated. Especially in Japan, there have been a lot of negative discourses on debate, which led Japanese people to have an aversion to debate. First, positive and negative discourses on debate in the 1990s in Japan were introduced. Then, I focus on the negative discourses to clarify their underlying reasons and discuss whether these criticisms to debate are valid or not. The types of the negative discourses addressed in this paper are the criticisms: (a) randomly assigning the affirmative or negative side is not appropriate, (b) participants suffer from mental damages by discussing sensitive/traumatic topics, (c) debate creates no new value, (d) debate does not fit into Japanese culture, and (e) deciding winners and losers is not appropriate. Finally, considering such criticisms, I propose several ways to promote debate education and research for the future.

This paper delves into the dynamics of how diverse groups engage in problem-solving discourse, specifically focusing on the “proposal development” stage. In this stage, preliminary ideas are elaborated upon and transformed into more refined proposals. To understand this in a practical context, I analyzed the preparation of mock Japanese lessons carried out by three distinct groups labeled A, B, and C. Each of these groups brought varied linguistic backgrounds to the table, some being native speakers, others non-native, and differed in their teaching experiences. Group A's discourse was characterized by bidirectional participation. Here, all members actively collaborated, building upon, and refining the proposals put forth. However, a contrasting pattern emerged in Groups B and C. These groups displayed a more fixed “proposal” structure. There was a noticeable dominance by certain members, typically those with more experience or expertise, leading to a more unidirectional flow of ideas and contributions. This dominance often overshadowed the inputs of other members, limiting the diversity of ideas. Based on these observations, this study underscores a critical insight: for group discourse to be truly effective and holistic, it's imperative that all members, irrespective of their initial proposal status or expertise level, be given ample opportunities to voice their insights and contribute to the discourse.