In a team meeting at a global tech firm, a manager wraps up a presentation and asks, “Any thoughts?” Almost instantly, voices chime in with suggestions, critiques, and questions. The conversation is lively, ideas are exchanged freely, and disagreement is welcomed as part of the process.
But for us in Singapore, we’re likely more used to a different setting. A question in the meeting room is more likely to be followed by a long awkward silence. Colleagues glance around but say little. It’s not that they aren’t listening, and it’s not that they have nothing to say. But something holds them back.
What explains this difference?
Culture plays a powerful yet often invisible role in shaping how people experience motivation, distress, and healing. How we cope, what support we seek, and how we define a “good life” are often shaped by the cultural stories we inherit.
Yet, when it comes to mental health and wellbeing, many interventions overlook this critical layer. Models developed in Western contexts often prioritise personal autonomy, assertiveness, and open emotional expression. But these assumptions don’t always translate, especially in a multicultural society like Singapore, where emotional restraint, deference to authority, and group harmony may be valued more.
This article explores why culture matters, not as a footnote, but as a foundational lens for anyone working in wellbeing or mental health. We examine how cultural values shape behaviour, what that means for educational and workplace dynamics, and how therapeutic and positive development models can be adapted to resonate more deeply in a multicultural context.
Ultimately, we advocate for care that is not only evidence-based, but culturally attuned, grounded in sensitivity, responsiveness, and respect for the complex cultural identities that shape how people live, work, and heal.
What is Culture? (And How Does It Form?)
When we talk about culture, we’re not just referring to festivals, food, or language.
Culture is something we learn, shaping how we see the world, how we make decisions, and how we relate to others. Over time, our cultural lens is shaped by our environments, communities, and social systems.
As defined by Berry et al. (2011), culture is:
“A shared set of attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviours that are transmitted from one generation to the next, guiding how individuals interpret the world and act within it.”
Culture runs deeply, influencing how we think, feel, relate to others, and even how we heal. In the context of mental health and wellbeing, culture forms the invisible framework that influences our emotional expression, coping strategies, and ideas of what it means to be ‘well.’
From an early age, we internalise the behaviours and beliefs of those around us – parents, teachers, media, and community leaders – learning what emotions are acceptable to show, how decisions should be made, and what success or failure looks like.
Berry makes an important distinction between societal and psychological culture:
- Societal culture refers to the external and visible aspects of culture: customs, holidays, social norms, laws, and institutional practices.
- Psychological culture is internalised: how individuals come to think, feel, and behave as a result of their cultural environment.
This distinction matters in wellbeing and therapeutic contexts. For example, two individuals may come from the same societal culture, but differ in how they internalise cultural expectations around emotional restraint, family loyalty, or personal ambition.
One may feel deeply bound by familial obligations, while another may struggle to reconcile those obligations with personal autonomy. This nuance reminds us that culture isn’t a monolith. Even within a shared environment, personal experiences are bound to vary.
This is why it’s important to understand how culture operates in each unique context. Exploring these lived cultural dynamics paves the way for care that is not only more respectful, but also more relevant and effective.
Navigating Care in a Multicultural World
Much of psychological literature tends to frame cultural differences in terms of individualist versus collectivist. While these categories risk being over simplistic, they offer helpful starting points for contrasting the tendencies seen in differing cultural orientations:
Collectivist Tendencies | Individualist Tendencies | |
|---|---|---|
Core Value | Harmony, interdependence | Autonomy, self-expression |
Motivation | Social approval, fulfilling roles | Personal growth, self-actualisation |
Emotion Expression | Restrained, context-sensitive | Open, emotionally authentic |
Help-Seeking | Reluctant (fear of burden/stigma) | Assertive, self-initiated |
Concept of Self | Defined through relationships | Defined through individual attributes |
Source: Adapted from Berry et al. (2011), Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications; Hofstede et al. (2010), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind; and Markus & Kitayama (1991), Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation.
It’s important to note that these differences are not fixed, nor are they mutually exclusive. But it may be helpful for educators, therapists, coaches, and leaders to understand how to move toward what scholars call culturally situated care, where support is not only evidence-based, but also context-sensitive. It means asking not just “What works?” but “For whom? In what context? And why?”
This is especially since many global wellbeing models, including those used in organisational and therapeutic contexts, are grounded in Western ideals of autonomy, self-esteem, and personal fulfilment. If these frameworks are applied without cultural adaptation, they risk marginalising local conceptions of wellbeing, or worse, pathologising healthy cultural expressions.
How Culture Shapes Wellbeing and Help-Seeking in Singapore
Acknowledging the impact of culture is essential, as it affects:
- What people expect from support
- How they interpret emotional distress
- What healing looks like
- Whether they speak up or remain silent
In many collectivist cultures, including Singapore’s, accepting support may be perceived as burdening others or signalling weakness, particularly if the help offered is emotional or interpersonal in nature. For some, receiving support may feel uncomfortable if it disrupts norms of self-reliance, face-saving, or role expectations within the family or workplace.
Understanding these subtle dynamics reminds us that support is not just a transactional act. It’s a relational experience that depends on trust, mutual respect, and culturally attuned timing. Without recognising this, even well-intentioned interventions may fail to connect.
Furthermore, drawing from data collected from over 40,000 individuals across 50 countries, Sollis et al. (2024) found that while there are some universal pillars of wellbeing like relationships, psychological stability, and physical health, there are significant cultural variations in what people value most:
- In South-East Asian contexts, wellbeing was less associated with independence or leisure and more with social cohesion, economic stability, and being treated with dignity and respect.
- Conversely, Anglo-Saxon societies prioritised autonomy, recreation, and individual purpose more highly.
In Singapore, where East meets West in a dynamic urban city, cultural influences are especially layered. This means that Singaporeans are often navigating multiple and sometimes conflicting cultural scripts about what it means to succeed, to belong, or to feel well. For mental health practitioners, educators, and organisational leaders, this underscores the importance of moving beyond generalised models of care.
By understanding culture not as a backdrop but as a dynamic and active force in shaping human experience, we can begin to design interventions that are not only more respectful and relevant, but also more effective.
Why do Singaporeans stay silent in meetings?
In many classrooms in Singapore, a familiar scene unfolds: the teacher poses a question, pauses, and waits, only to be met with silence and averted gazes. This quiet response is not uncommon across East Asian contexts. Academic research has consistently found that Asian students tend to be less verbally participative than their Western peers (Li & Jia, 2006). For example, one study reported that only 26% of Chinese students felt comfortable initiating classroom discussions, in contrast to 75% of Australian students (Chan, 1999).
However, this quietness is frequently misread. In workplace settings, it is commonly interpreted as a lack of engagement, confidence, or initiative. In response, many organisations invest in communication workshops or presentation skills training, hoping to “fix” the silence.
But by treating silence as a behavioural deficit, rather than a cultural expression, these well-meaning efforts may be addressing the symptom rather than the cause. The tendency to withhold one’s views isn’t simply about shyness or a skills gap. It reflects deep-seated cultural values around deference, harmony, and social risk. In this context, not speaking up could also be a considered act of respect or self-protection, not disengagement.
To foster environments where people feel safe to contribute, we must first recognise the deep cultural scripts shaping communication, many of which begin long before adulthood.
Culture Begins at Home
From a young age, many children are taught that “good behaviour” means not interrupting, not challenging elders, and not drawing undue attention to oneself. Speaking up especially without full certainty may be perceived as overstepping, or even disrespectful.
This early socialisation helps shape what researchers refer to as psychological culture: the internalised beliefs, emotions, and behaviours an individual adopts from their cultural surroundings (Berry et al., 2011).
As researchers have noted, the psychological culture in countries like Singapore, Hong Kong, and mainland China are influenced by Confucian Heritage traditions (CHCs) which prioritise deference to authority, modesty, and group harmony (Hodkinson & Poropat, 2014; Rao & Chan, 2009).
In Singapore, the concept of kiasu, often described as the “fear of losing out”, can also shape classroom and workplace behaviours, leading students to hold back participation in order to protect a perceived advantage or avoid looking unprepared (Kirby et al., 2010). Speaking up, especially without certainty, may be seen as giving away too much or risking social standing.
As Hodkinson and Poropat (2014) describe, this dynamic shapes ideas about when it is appropriate to speak. To understand participation, it helps to consider three interrelated dynamics:
- Power distance: the extent to which individuals accept and expect unequal power distribution.
- Collectivism: the prioritisation of group cohesion and social harmony over individual expression.
- Face: the desire to maintain dignity and avoid social shame or embarrassment.
These values guide behaviour in ways that may seem passive or avoidant in Western contexts, but may in fact be strategic and culturally coherent responses to complex social expectations.
Fostering Motivation in Singapore
If we understand that silence in Singaporean classrooms and meeting rooms is not due to disengagement but shaped by cultural norms around deference, harmony, and face, then the challenge is not to “fix” silence, but to reframe participation.
Drawing from Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), we understand that people are more likely to engage when three core psychological needs are met: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
These needs manifest differently across cultural contexts. In collectivist cultures, for instance:
- Autonomy is less about individual choice and more about having agency within interdependent relationships.
- Competence is enhanced not only by skill development, but also by reassurance that one’s contributions will not cause disruption.
- Relatedness is especially influential; people are more motivated when they feel their actions benefit or are supported by the group.
From a positive psychology lens, employers and leaders can better motivate participation by intentionally designing experiences that cultivate intrinsic motivation and support culturally relevant values, for example:
- Reframing Participation as Contribution
Instead of emphasising personal expression, frame speaking up as a way to support the team, honour shared goals, or show care for others’ success. This appeals to collectivist values and reframes assertiveness as service rather than self-promotion. - Making Motivation Visible
Use strengths-based check-ins or recognition practices to spotlight internal drivers like curiosity, perseverance, or compassion, rather than just confidence or vocal leadership. When inner motivation is named and affirmed, it grows. - Designing for Group Inclusion
In meetings, adopt formats that normalise participation for everyone, such as “round-robin” sharing, silent brainstorming, or anonymous polling. These reduce the social cost of speaking up and allow quieter voices to emerge without pressure.
Intergenerational co-residence and why it matters in therapy
So far, we have explored how cultural values shape engagement and motivation in classrooms and workplaces, but an equally important consideration is how culture shapes the pathways to healing.
In Singapore, it’s common for young adults to live with their parents until marriage, and sometimes even beyond. In fact, 88% of resident households in Singapore are owner-occupied, and due to a combination of cultural expectations and housing affordability, the majority of adult children continue residing in their family home well into adulthood (Esteve & Liu, 2014).
This intergenerational co-residence is a distinct family dynamic that deeply shapes the mental health of many individuals, and highlights why mental health interventions must be attuned to the cultural and relational contexts in which people live.
The Double-Edged Sword of Proximity
In Asia, living together across generations reflects moral obligations to honour, care for, and remain physically close to one’s parents. In this worldview, aging parents are not to be “sent away” for care. They remain central to the family nucleus. Intergenerational households are thus both pragmatic and symbolic, reflecting shared values of familial duty, social harmony, and collective support (Phua & Loh, 2008).
In contrast, Western ideals often emphasise independence and separation as developmental milestones. Moving out is associated with maturity and the formation of adult identity. But in Singapore, the meaning of “growing up” is entangled with staying close with parents.
While these co-residential arrangements can foster closeness, they may also complicate identity formation, emotional boundaries, and autonomy, all of which are crucial in psychological development.
Adult children may struggle with individuation while they remain physically and emotionally embedded in family systems. Tensions can emerge around decision-making, privacy, and generational expectations. For those facing psychological distress or trauma, the constant proximity of well meaning (but often intrusive) family members may hinder healing. Without the emotional space to reflect, express, or change roles, individuals can feel trapped by long standing dynamics that limit growth.
Moreover, shared living often means shared stress. Financial interdependence, caregiving obligations, and conflicting generational values can contribute to anxiety, guilt, or feelings of being overwhelmed. And because co-residence is the norm, seeking distance may be misunderstood as unfilial or selfish, complicating both personal decisions and therapeutic conversations.
Re-understanding Family Dynamics in Mental Health Work
For psychotherapists and counsellors, this context requires a culturally attuned approach. Rather than interpreting dependency as pathology or boundary issues as solely personal, practitioners need to locate these dynamics within the broader cultural frame.
Here are some practice considerations:
- Expand the unit of care. In collectivist cultures, distress is often relational. Explore family narratives and intergenerational roles. Invite clients to reflect on their place within these webs, rather than focusing solely on individual change.
- Redefine autonomy. Instead of aiming for total independence, help clients find ways to exercise agency within connectedness, to negotiate boundaries without rupturing bonds.
- Acknowledge the moral weight of family roles. Choosing self-care over family obligations may carry shame or guilt. Therapists can support clients in navigating these dilemmas with compassion and cultural humility.
- Normalise the challenges of co-residence. Remind clients that difficulty in shared living doesn’t reflect moral failure, but is part of a wider tension between traditional values and modern pressures.
Embracing Multiculturalism in Wellbeing
Most mental health practitioners begin their journey grounded in psychological theories and tools taught through formal training, often from Western contexts. These frameworks offer valuable insights, but when applied uncritically across cultures, they risk missing the mark.
In fact, a large proportion of foundational research in psychology has been conducted on what scholars call WEIRD populations – Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic. Researchers have estimated that over 90% of psychological studies are based on participants from just 12% of the world’s population (Heine, and Norenzayan, 2010). These findings have historically been generalised across humanity, despite their narrow cultural base.
This presents a significant challenge in diverse societies like Singapore. When psychological models assume that independence, assertiveness, or self-esteem are universal markers of wellbeing, they may overlook other culturally relevant values such as relational harmony, interdependence, or respect for hierarchy, which may hold varying levels of significance in different cultures.
What works in one setting may not translate neatly into another. For instance, interventions that prioritise individual expression may inadvertently create discomfort or resistance in individuals from cultures where modesty and discretion are moral ideals. Similarly, practices like open family confrontation or radical self-assertion may conflict with deep-rooted norms of filial piety or emotional restraint.
To support wellbeing in meaningful ways, practitioners must move beyond textbook definitions and examine the lived realities of the communities they serve. This means being curious about cultural narratives, listening with humility, and adapting interventions to align with local values. In a multicultural society, effective care begins not just with knowledge, but with cultural sensitivity and relational wisdom.
From Awareness to Action
Culture isn’t just a backdrop. It actively shapes how we express ourselves, seek help, and define what it means to thrive. Whether it’s a student hesitating to speak up in class, a professional navigating team dynamics, or an adult wrestling with healing while living under the same roof as aging parents, cultural context matters. Recognising these nuances allows us to move from surface-level solutions to deeper, more compassionate support.
At The School of Positive Psychology, we believe that mental wellbeing requires a deeper understanding of self, others, and the systems we live within. Looking for culturally sensitive mental health and wellbeing strategies? Our courses in Positive Organisational Psychology, Psychotherapy and Psychological Interventions, Psychotherapy and Counselling, and Coaching Psychology are designed with a multicultural lens, equipping practitioners and changemakers to create meaningful impact.
Whether you’re starting out or deepening your practice, our accredited part-time courses bridge science with cultural insight so you can support growth that’s not only evidence-based, but also attuned to the needs of your unique communities.
References
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Breugelmans, S. M., Chasiotis, A., & Sam, D. L. (2011). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Chan, D. W. (1999). The Chinese learner: A question of style. Education Journal, 27(1), 71–79.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Esteve, A., & Liu, C. Y. (2014). The emergence and expansion of co-residence with grandparents in Latin America. Demographic Research, 30, 1515–1548. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.56
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
Hodkinson, P., & Poropat, A. (2014). The Confucian learner: A study of the motivations of Chinese students in undertaking tertiary education in Australia. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 37(2), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2013.820642
Kirby, J. R., Hu, W., Wang, Y., & Das, J. P. (2010). The role of teachers in developing students’ learning motivation. Educational Psychology, 30(5), 477–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2010.486903
Li, X., & Jia, X. (2006). Why don’t you speak up?: East Asian students’ participation patterns in American and Chinese ESL classrooms. Intercultural Communication Studies, 15(1), 192–210.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Phua, V. C., & Loh, J. (2008). Filial piety and intergenerational co-residence: The case of Chinese Singaporeans. Asian Journal of Social Science, 36(3–4), 659–679. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853108X327063
Rao, N., & Chan, C. K. K. (2009). Moving beyond “learning to learn”: A critical analysis of research on Asian students’ learning. Educational Psychology, 29(6), 561–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903109054
Sollis, K., Biddle, N., Maulana, H. et al. Measuring Wellbeing Across Culture and Context – are we Getting it Right? Evaluating the Variation in Wellbeing Conceptualisations Throughout the World. Soc Indic Res 174, 123–155 (2024).
