Turks in Bulgaria and the Netherlands: A comparative study of their acculturation orientations and outcomes

G ModelI

To

RMa

b

c

ARRA

KAPTT

daaiTBrtmB2

T

0h

ARTICLE IN PRESSJIR-1025; No. of Pages 11

International Journal of Intercultural Relations xxx (2014) xxx– xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

journa l h om epa ge: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / i j in t re l

urks in Bulgaria and the Netherlands: A comparative studyf their acculturation orientations and outcomes

adosveta Dimitrovaa,∗, Athanasios Chasiotisa,ichael Bendera, Fons J.R. van de Vijvera,b,c

Tilburg University, The NetherlandsNorth-West University, South AfricaUniversity of Queensland, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 14 December 2012eceived in revised form 3 January 2014ccepted 6 January 2014

eywords:cculturationsychological and sociocultural outcomesurkish-Bulgarianurkish-Dutch

a b s t r a c t

This study compared Turkish ethnic minority groups in Bulgaria and the Netherlands byexamining (a) differences in acculturation orientations (mainstream culture adoption andheritage culture maintenance) as well as psychological and sociocultural outcomes and(b) the relation of acculturation orientations and outcomes in a group that is involved inacculturation for a long term (Turkish-Bulgarian) as compared to a group that is morerecently involved in acculturation (Turkish-Dutch). Participants were 391 Turkish adults(280 in Bulgaria and 111 in the Netherlands). Results showed that Turkish-Bulgarians weremore strongly oriented toward their mainstream culture, whereas Turkish-Dutch showeda stronger orientation toward their Turkish heritage culture. Turkish-Bulgarians reporteda lower degree of life satisfaction. A good fit was found for a multigroup path model inwhich mainstream culture adoption was related to life satisfaction for both groups in thesame way. The more stigmatized Turkish-Bulgarian group was more focused on the main-stream culture than the less stigmatized Turkish-Dutch group, contrary to expectations.We conclude that extant acculturation models need to pay more systematic attention tolocal issues, such as the history of the immigrant group.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

This study addresses the question of whether minority groups of the same ethnic heritage, but living in different countries,iffer in their acculturation orientations and outcomes. In so doing, the study adds to the literature in several ways. First, wedd to knowledge of acculturation by conducting a comparative study, thereby providing insight into the role of context incculturation in an Eastern European postcommunist country. Second, there is much interest in understanding acculturationn Turkish minority groups in Europe as they represent one of the largest immigrant groups (Council of Europe, 2007).hird, both Bulgaria and the Netherlands represent contrasting acculturating contexts for bicultural Turkish groups. Turkish-ulgarians have lived in Bulgaria for many more generations than Turkish-Dutch in the Netherlands. Turkish Bulgarians haveepeatedly experienced extensive assimilation campaigns in the late 1980s which forced nearly one million people to changeheir names (Dimitrov, 2000), whereas Turkish-Dutch have been exposed to conditions that are more conducive for cultural

Please cite this article in press as: Dimitrova, R., et al. Turks in Bulgaria and the Netherlands: A compara-tive study of their acculturation orientations and outcomes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations (2014),http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.01.001

aintenance due to the Dutch multicultural approach to diversity. Although studies have been conducted with Turkish-ulgarian (Dimitrova, Bender, Chasiotis, & Van de Vijver, 2012) and Turkish-Dutch groups (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver,003), no research so far has compared the acculturation process and outcomes of bicultural Turkish groups in Bulgaria

∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands.el.: +31 13 466 2526; fax: +31 13 4662067.

E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Dimitrova).

147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.01.001

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.01.001


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01471767

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

mailto:[email protected]


G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESSIJIR-1025; No. of Pages 11
2 R. Dimitrova et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations xxx (2014) xxx– xxx

and the Netherlands. We were particularly concerned with the local conditions of long-term acculturating groups such asTurkish-Bulgarians in comparison to the Turkish-Dutch who have been exposed to different contextual influence in theiracculturation and adaptation.

1. Acculturation

Theory and research have identified two major acculturation dimensions: cultural maintenance and adoption. Culturalmaintenance refers to the extent to which cultural characteristics of the heritage culture of immigrants are retained, whereascultural adoption deals with the extent to which characteristics of the mainstream culture become part of the behavior andattitudes of acculturating individuals. On the basis of these dimensions, four prototypical acculturation strategies have beenproposed: integration (simultaneous maintenance of heritage and adoption of mainstream cultures), separation (mainte-nance of heritage and rejection of mainstream), assimilation (devaluation of heritage and strong identification with themainstream culture), and marginalization (rejection of both heritage and mainstream cultures) (Berry, 1997). This bidimen-sional model is the successor of unidimensional models that assume the complete absorption into the mainstream cultureacross generations (Gordon, 1964); bidimensional models hold that long-term biculturalism by retaining both heritage andmainstream cultures is possible (Berry, 1997).

The conceptual framework that guided our study integrates insights from two specific areas of research and theory onethnic minority groups. First, acculturation research shows that endorsement of both the heritage culture and mainstreamculture leads to more positive developmental outcomes, whereas disengagement from both cultures is associated withmental health problems among immigrants (Berry, 1997). Research has also shown that well-being of minority groupsrelates to challenges of reconciling multiple cultural systems as well as to experienced stress due to one’s minority status(LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993). Second, we draw on the Interactive Acculturation Model (IAM; Bourhis, Moïse,Perreault, & Senécal, 1997). We use the premise of the IAM that the strength of both heritage and mainstream cultureidentifications of minority members depends on, among other things, the acculturation climate in a society, includingindirect threats posed by multiculturalism policies and attitudinal climate in the society at large. Another central assumptionof the IAM is that the combination of the acculturation attitudes by the immigrant and mainstream group yields relationaloutcomes, which can be consensual, problematic, or conflictual. Lack of support and acceptance of cultural diversity inthe society and the minority group’s heritage culture maintenance could lead to conflictual outcomes and threaten theminority’s identity. Findings in support of Bourhis et al.’s (1997) ideological model suggest that immigrants show high levelsof identification with the mainstream culture in countries with more pluralistic policies compared to societies with lesspluralistic policies, where immigrants have the lowest level of sociocultural adjustment and the highest level of heritageculture orientation (Yagmur & Van de Vijver, 2012).

In order to refine the investigation of acculturation outcomes, scholars have differentiated psychological and socioculturaladjustment outcomes (Searle & Ward, 1990). Psychological adjustment includes psychological well-being and satisfactionwith life, whereas sociocultural adjustment refers to competencies signifying the ability to adapt to the new cultural contextor achievements in that domain. Much research has been devoted to how acculturation strategies impact on acculturationoutcomes. Whereas research has established a positive relation between heritage culture maintenance and psychologicalwell-being (Schwartz, Zamboanga, Weisskirch, & Rodriguez, 2009; Smith & Silva, 2011), mainstream culture adoption hasbeen found to enhance sociocultural outcomes (Ward, 2001). It has been argued repeatedly that maintaining one’s heritageculture, while at the same time adopting the mainstream culture (Berry, 1997) is the most adaptive acculturation orientation(see Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006; Sam & Berry, 2006). In the present study we are interested in abilities andachievements in the mainstream domain (sociocultural adjustment) as well as abilities and achievements in the ethnicdomain, such as the skill to speak the ethnic language and having friends from the ethnic group. We refer to these featuresas sociocultural outcomes in the mainstream and heritage domain, respectively.

2. Acculturation and adaptation in context

Extant studies have addressed the relationship between acculturation and adaptation of different acculturating groupsacross national contexts (Berry et al., 2006; Chiu, Feldman, & Rosenthal, 1992; Feldman, Mont-Reynolds, & Rosenthal, 1992;Wiking, Johansson, & Sundquist, 2004). Overall, there is evidence that immigrant groups that endorse integration ratherthan assimilation have the best psychological and sociocultural adaptation outcomes (Berry et al., 2006; Jasinskaja-Lahti,Liebkind, Horenczyk, & Schmitz, 2003; Piontkowski, Florack, Hoelker, & Obdrzálek, 2000; Vedder, Sam, & Liebkind, 2007).However, the context specificity in acculturation and adaptation of immigrant groups also needs to be taken into account.For example, the relationship of acculturation orientations and adaptation may be time-specific with an adaptive valueonly at earlier stages of the acculturation process (Jasinskaja-Lahti, Horenczyk, & Kinunen, 2011; Liebkind & Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2000). Related to that, Titzmann, Silbereisen, Mesch, and Schmitt-Rodermund (2011) examined acculturation-related


hassles (minor negative experiences originating from being an immigrant) by comparing immigrant groups from the formerSoviet Union, ethnic Germans in Germany, and Russian Jews in Israel. The results showed important country differencesin terms of necessity and opportunities to integration such that immigrants in the former Soviet Union and Israel reportedfewer acculturation-related hassles after being in the country for a longer period of time than those in Germany.


G Model

I

iscsswvo

ilwifsMccc

mgac

3

c2e&mDieSl

tsBttai(mtc1r(mi

tawd


R. Dimitrova et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations xxx (2014) xxx– xxx 3

Yagmur and Van de Vijver (2012) also found support for context-specificity in a four-country comparison of Turkishmmigrants. Immigrants in the country with the most assimilation pressure (France) revealed relatively high scores onociocultural adjustment to the mainstream culture, combined with low scores on well-being compared to immigrants ofountries with less assimilation pressure (Australia, the Netherlands, and Germany). Additional support for the context-pecificity comes from the study by Vedder and Virta (2005) with Turkish groups in Sweden and the Netherlands. Overallupport was found for culture maintenance in the Swedish sample and for language assimilation in the Netherlands, buteak support emerged for the integration strategy in the Swedish sample. The authors conclude that acculturation may

ary by context and that there is no preferred acculturation strategy that is always associated with the best acculturationutcomes.

The importance of the context for immigrants’ acculturation has also been addressed by Vedder, Sam, and Liebkind (2007)n a sample of Turkish adolescents living in six North-Western European countries. The results showed that Turkish youthiving in Finland had a stronger culture adoption and a weaker ethnic maintenance than Turkish youth in the other countries,

hereas the bicultural orientation was weakest for Turkish youth in Germany. Additionally, strong ethnic identity andntegration were found to be relevant predictors of good adaptation, whereas poor adaptation was related to marginalizationor all Turkish immigrant groups (Virta, Sam, & Westin, 2004; Verkuyten, 2008). Acculturation and adaptation are alsoubjected to cultural transmission from one generation to the next. In a cross-cultural comparative study of Turkish andoroccan parent–child dyads in Germany and the Netherlands, Phalet and Schönpflug (2001) found that across ethnic

ultures and national contexts, parents with strong collectivistic values of family relatedness tend to have more collectivistichildren. Interestingly, the transmission of relatedness was stronger in Turkish than Moroccan parent–child dyads, due to aloser link between parental collectivism and conformity pressure.

In summary, research has provided that acculturation preferences vary across social contexts as a function of variousoderators, including actual opportunities for immigrants in diverse acculturative contexts. This is also in line with the

eneral agreement on the need to provide a better acknowledgment of contextual influences on immigrant acculturationnd adaptation. In this study we sought to investigate acculturation orientations and outcomes of Turkish-Bulgarian inomparison to Turkish-Dutch groups.

. The Turkish minority in Bulgaria and the Netherlands

Turkish groups in Bulgaria and the Netherlands belong to the largest, most prominent ethnic communities in theirountries, characterized by a strong social cohesion and adherence to Turkish cultural traditions (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver,009; Crul & Doomernik, 2003; Petkova, 2002). Additionally, Turkish groups in Bulgaria and the Netherlands have lowerducation levels and a lower socioeconomic standing compared to the mainstream population (Bosakov, 2006; Rooduijn

Latten, 1986; Vasta, 2007), a situation which may conceivably affect their life in the mainstream societies. Finally, bothinorities have been and continue to be subjected to discrimination by the mainstream population (Boog, Dinsbach, Vanonselaar, & Rodrigues, 2010; Maeva, 2005). Despite the Dutch official policy aiming at stimulating the adjustment of

mmigrant groups into Dutch society and the preservation of their cultural identity (Aldeba et al., 1989), intolerance towardthnic minority and immigrant groups, notably Muslim groups, is widespread (Boog et al., 2010; Vermeulen & Penninx, 2000).uch discrimination attitudes are present in the Bulgarian context, which is also characterized by much more aggravatedong-term interethnic conflicts and negative attitudes toward the Turkish ethnic minority (Maeva, 2005).

The immigration history of Turkish immigrants in Bulgaria and the Netherlands also has important differences. In Bulgaria,he situation of the Turkish minority was historically accompanied by more assimilation pressure. Good examples areeveral renaming campaigns in the late 1980s, which forced nearly one million people with Turkish surnames to adoptulgarian names (Dimitrov, 2000). Turkish labor immigration into the Netherlands was initially assumed to be temporary;herefore, the maintenance of the heritage culture was stimulated by the government and efforts by immigrants to learnhe Dutch language were minimal. Another important distinction among the two Turkish groups regards the duration ofcculturation. The Turkish minority in Bulgaria has been in the country for centuries, unlike Turkish immigrants who arrivedn the last decades in the Netherlands. Turkish-Bulgarians remained in Bulgarian territory after the end of the Ottoman Empire1299–1932) and thus are familiar with the national language and culture to which they have been constantly exposed over

any centuries. At the end of the 14th century the Ottoman Turks occupied and ruled the Balkans, including what is Bulgariaoday. The present Balkan states became Ottoman provinces and remained under Ottoman rule until the end of the 19thentury. Large numbers of Turks moved to these provinces and settled there. This period was followed by the Balkan Wars of912–1913, which caused a massive exodus of Turkish-Bulgarians into Turkey (McCarthy, 1995). Descendants of Turks whoemained in Bulgaria (mostly peasants with very limited resources) nowadays represent the Turkish-Bulgarian communityPetkova, 2002). Historically, the Bulgarian national policy has downplayed the importance of ethnic differences, therefore

aking the issue of the ethnic origins of the Turks and generally of ethnic minority groups in the country almost irrelevantn the eyes of the national population (Maeva, 2005; Petkova, 2002).

In summary, despite commonalities in cultural values and social disadvantages compared to the mainstream population,


he Turkish minorities in Bulgaria and the Netherlands differ in acculturation experiences and immigration policies theyre exposed to. Whereas Turkish-Dutch are labor immigrants, Turkish-Bulgarians belong to an indigenous minority grouphich has been subjected to severe oppression, social and cultural disadvantage. The above presented similarities andifferences may be particularly interesting in the context of these two Turkish ethnic communities and presumably affect


ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model

IJIR-1025; No. of Pages 11


Table 1Description of Samples in Bulgaria and the Netherlands.

Turkish-Bulgarian (n = 280) Turkish-Dutch (n = 111) Group comparisons

Age F(1, 342) = 56.51***

Range 20–70 16–70Mean (SD) 38.07 (12.85) 27.63 (9.94)

Gender, n (%) 2 (1, n = 388) = .22Men 148 (53%) 58 (54%)Women 132 (47%) 50 (46%)

Education (in years) F(1, 342) = 9.05***

Range 2–20 2–25Mean (SD) 12.98 (2.99) 14.19 (4.06)

Acculturation orientationsMaintenance 3.44 (1.00) 4.01 (.69) F(1, 297) = 35.65***

Cronbach’s .96 .91Adoption 3.63 (.72) 3.06 (.71) F(1, 297) = 43.77***

Cronbach’s .90 .89Acculturation outcomes

Mainstream culture 3.96 (.70) – 3.81 (.67) F(1, 297) = 10.91***

Cronbach’s .94 – .91 –Heritage culture 3.70 (.90) – 4.17 (.58) – F(1, 297) = 23.46***

Cronbach’s .97 – .92 –Well-being

SWLS 4.27 (1.17) 4.58 (1.35) 4.77 (1.17) 5.29 (.91) F(1, 297) = 9.16***

Cronbach’s ˛ .75 .81 .76 .79

SWLS: Satisfaction with Life Scale.*** p < .001.

their acculturation orientations and outcomes, which may also be influenced by migration history, receiving policies andgeneral acceptance and tolerance of diversity within the dominant culture. For example, the recent debate in the Netherlandsassumes identification with both heritage and mainstream cultures to be the preferred strategy (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver,2003; Mahnig & Wimmer, 2000), despite some pressure for immigrants to adapt to the mainstream society (Crul, 2000). Asimilar situation is less likely in Bulgaria because of the larger assimilation pressure, although research on Turkish-Bulgarianacculturation orientations is scarce.

4. The present study

This study addresses two research questions:

(1) Do participants with a Turkish background in Bulgaria and the Netherlands differ from each other with respect to theiracculturation orientations and sociocultural and psychological outcomes? Three specific hypotheses address this ques-tion. First, we suppose that there is a relation between the acculturation climate of receiving societies and acculturationpatterns of Turkish groups. In line with the IAM and severely assimilative policies in Bulgaria, we predict stronger Turk-ish heritage culture maintenance in Turkish-Bulgarian than Turkish-Dutch participants (Hypothesis 1a). Second, due toan increasing absorption into the mainstream culture across generations (Gordon, 1964) and our own work on long-term acculturating Turkish-Bulgarian minority showing their bicultural orientation toward heritage and mainstreamcultures (Dimitrova et al., 2012), this group is expected to show good sociocultural functioning in both the heritage andmainstream culture domain compared to Turkish-Dutch (Hypothesis 1b). Third, because of their marginalized condi-tions, Turkish-Bulgarians are hypothesized to report lower levels of psychological well-being than their Turkish-Dutchcounterparts (Hypothesis 1c) (Ganev, 2004; Verkuyten, 2005).

(2) To what extent do acculturation orientations relate to psychological and sociocultural outcomes among participants withTurkish background in the two countries? Consistent with the acculturation framework by Berry (Berry et al., 2006; Sam& Berry, 2006), we use a model to test how Turkish adults’ psychological and sociocultural outcomes are related to theiracculturation orientations toward the culture of origin and the mainstream culture. In line with the hypothesized modeland previous research (Dimitrova et al., 2012), we expect direct positive relations between (a) cultural maintenance andadoption to the Turkish culture; (b) cultural adoption and adjustment to the mainstream culture; and (c) acculturationorientations and psychological well-being (Hypothesis 2).

5. Method


5.1. Participants

The Turkish samples consisted of 280 adults in Bulgaria and 111 adults in the Netherlands, with a mean age of 32.85years, and a balanced gender distribution (see Table 1). The two samples differed with respect to birth country; 4% of the


G Model

I

TTss

5

5

s

5

amG“mBf

5

tt5fa

5

paIa

5

tri

edaTFTtTinRNAossn



urks in Bulgaria and 44% of the Turks in the Netherlands were foreign born. The groups differed in educational level, withurkish-Bulgarians having spent two years less in education than Turkish-Dutch participants, F(1, 342) = 9.05, p < .001. Theamples differed in age (with the Turkish-Dutch having a lower mean age than Turkish-Bulgarians, F(1, 373) = 56.51, p < .001;ee Table 1).

.2. Measures

.2.1. Demographic characteristicsInformation about participant’s age, gender, ethnicity, and level of education (primary, secondary education, and univer-

ity degree) was collected.

.2.2. Acculturation orientationsA scale to measure acculturation orientations was developed for this study to assess heritage Turkish culture maintenance

nd mainstream (Bulgarian or Dutch) culture adoption. Items were presented according to the two-statement measurementethod employing questions about both countries of origin and of settlement (see Arends-Tóth and Van de Vijver, 2006;alchenko & Van de Vijver, 2007). The orientation on heritage culture maintenance was measured by 13 items, such as

I live according to the Turkish culture”, “I have Turkish friends”, “I feel Turkish”, and “I celebrate Turkish holidays”. Theainstream culture adoption was measured with 15 items, such as “I live according to the Bulgarian/Dutch culture”, “I have

ulgarian/Dutch friends”, “I feel Bulgarian/Dutch”, and “I celebrate Bulgarian/Dutch holidays”. Cronbach’s alpha coefficientsor both scales ranged from .89 to .96 (see Table 1).

.2.3. Sociocultural outcomesA scale to measure sociocultural outcomes in both heritage and mainstream culture was developed for the purposes of

his study. The scale consisted of 36 items about both the Turkish and mainstream culture (18 items each), again using thewo-statement format. Participants were asked to indicate the degree of difficulty they experience in daily situations, using a-point scale ranging from 1 (very difficult) to 5 (very easy). Sample items included “Asking advice of Turkish [Bulgarian/Dutch]riends”, “Reading books in Turkish [Bulgarian/Dutch]”, “Making yourself understood by Turkish [Bulgarian/Dutch] people”,nd “Eating Turkish [Bulgarian/Dutch] food” with internal consistencies ranging from = .91 to .97 across cultural groups.

.2.4. Psychological outcomesThe Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) developed by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985) was used to assess

sychological outcomes. The scale consists of 5 items evaluated on a 7-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to stronglygree. Sample items were “In most ways my life is close to my ideal”, “I am satisfied with life”, and “If I could live my life over,

would change almost nothing”. Average scores and internal consistency coefficients for well-being as well as all measures1

re displayed in Table 1.

.3. Procedure

In a pilot study, the three language versions of the measures (Turkish, Bulgarian, and Dutch) were administered to a


otal of 123 participants. The pilot revealed fair psychometric properties of the applied measures with internal consistenciesanging from = .60 to .93. In the subsequent data collection, measures for the Turkish-Bulgarian group were presented onlyn Bulgarian, because all participants in the pilot study chose the Bulgarian language version, most likely due to the fact

1 Measurement invariance was confirmed via multigroup confirmatory factor analysis for all measures across cultural groups following the procedurestablished by Cheung and Rensvold (2002). Accordingly, we determined the model fit indices using the likelihood ration test, also known as the chi-squareifference test (Bollen, 1989). We applied the suggested procedure to the fit statistics of the unconstrained (configural invariance), measurement weights,nd the measurement intercepts models for all measures. The unconstrained models showed a good fit for all measures: Bulgarian sociocultural adjustment,2 (246, n = 391) = 568.620, p < .001, CFI = .922, TLI = .903, RMSEA = .058; Turkish sociocultural adjustment, 2 (250, n = 391) = 608.303, p < .001, CFI = .921,LI = .903, RMSEA = .061; Bulgarian culture adoption, 2 (94, n = 391) = 195.186, p < .001, CFI = .955, TLI = .925, RMSEA = .053; Turkish culture maintenance,2 (120, n = 391) = 378.231, p < .001, CFI = .926, TLI = .904, RMSEA = .074 and life satisfaction, 2 (4, n = 391) = 7.83, p = .098, CFI = .992, TLI = .960, RMSEA = .050.urthermore, the measurement weights model showed a good fit for Bulgarian sociocultural adjustment, 2 (263, n = 391) = 608.372, p < .001, CFI = .917,LI = .903, RMSEA = .058; Turkish sociocultural adjustment, 2 (267, n = 391) = 626.390, p < .001, CFI = .920, TLI = .909, RMSEA = .059; Bulgarian culture adop-ion, 2 (106, N = 391) = 216.023, p < .001, CFI = .951, TLI = .927, RMSEA = .052; Turkish culture maintenance, 2 (132, n = 391) = 408.110, p < .001, CFI = .921,LI = .906, RMSEA = .073 and life satisfaction, 2 (8, n = 391) = 10.442, p = .235, CFI = .995, TLI = .987, RMSEA = .028. It can be concluded that measurementnvariance was supported for all measures. Finally, the measurement intercept invariance showed a good fit for Bulgarian sociocultural adjustment, 2 (281,

= 391) = 681.376, p < .001, CFI = .903, TLI = .895, RMSEA = .061; Turkish sociocultural adjustment, 2 (258, n = 391) = 729.489, p < .001, CFI = .901, TLI = .890,MSEA = .063; Bulgarian culture adoption, 2 (116, n = 391) = 303.485, p < .001, CFI = .916, TLI = .911, RMSEA = .064; Turkish culture maintenance, 2 (145,

= 391) = 475.287, p < .001, CFI = .905, TLI = .898, RMSEA = .077 and life satisfaction, 2 (13, n = 391) = 38.507, p < .001, CFI = .947, TLI = .918, RMSEA = .071.nalyses of the incremental fit statistics revealed that the 2 differences were significant for all measurement and intercept invariance models. Incrementsf CFI pointed in the same direction. Finally, the incremental fit statistics of the measurement intercept (IFI) invariance models were acceptable for Bulgarianociocultural adjustment (.904), Turkish sociocultural adjustment (.902), Bulgarian culture adoption (.917), Turkish culture maintenance (.905), and lifeatisfaction (.948). We computed partial intercept invariance models as well as item parceling and found that the size of the cross-cultural differences wasot much affected by the noninvariance. Therefore, we retained all items and concluded that the scale scores could be compared across groups.


G Model

that Turkish-Bulgarians acquire literacy skills exclusively in Bulgarian (Rudin & Eminov, 1993). The Turkish-Dutch groupwas presented with both language versions. The Turkish language version was chosen by 45% of the participants, while 55%chose the Dutch version.

Participants for the main study were recruited from the Bulgarian capital (Sofia), three towns in Southern Bulgaria witha high concentration of Turkish-Bulgarian inhabitants (Kardjali, Krumovgrad, and Haskovo), and three large Dutch cities(Eindhoven, Rotterdam, and Tilburg) with a relatively high concentration of Turkish-Dutch families. Data collection wasundertaken via community and cultural organizations by a team made up by the first author and local, bilingual researchassistants. Participants were informed that participation was voluntary and that responses were confidential. They wereoffered pens and pencils for their participation.

Since the samples differed in education and age, the effects of these demographic variables on acculturation and outcomeswere examined to test the need to control for them in consequent comparative analyses. Years of formal education werefound to be positively related to satisfaction with life (r(320) = .15, p < .001), and sociocultural outcomes in the mainstream(r(329) = .28, p < .001) and heritage culture (r(328) = .12, p < .05). Age was negatively associated with satisfaction with life(r(349) = −.13, p < .01) and sociocultural outcomes in the mainstream culture, r(358) = −.11, p < .001. Therefore, educationand age were statistically controlled for in subsequent analyses.

6. Results

Before addressing our hypotheses, descriptive statistics were computed for two ethnic groups (see Table 1). We thenexamined differences in acculturation orientations (Hypotheses 1a), sociocultural (Hypotheses 1b) and psychological(Hypotheses 1c) outcomes between Turkish-Bulgarian and Turkish-Dutch groups, using multivariate analyses of covariance(MANCOVA). Furthermore, we examined the relations of acculturation orientations and sociocultural and psychological out-comes in the bicultural Turkish groups in Bulgaria and the Netherlands (Hypothesis 2), using a multigroup path analysis(Arbuckle, 2009). Fit indices adopted to interpret the model fit were the 2 test, the root mean square error of approximation(RMSEA; recommended value ≤.08) and the comparative fit index (CFI; recommended value ≥.90) (Browne & Cudeck, 1993;Marsh, Hau, & Grayson, 2005).

6.1. Comparisons on acculturation orientations and outcomes

We conducted a MANCOVA with group (2 levels) as independent variable, acculturation orientation measures (Turkishculture maintenance and mainstream culture adoption), sociocultural outcomes (toward Turkish and mainstream cultures)and psychological outcomes (SWLS scores) as dependent variables and education and age as covariates. The multivariatetest was significant, Wilks’ Lambda = .81, F(1, 297) = 13.63, p < .001, (partial) 2 = .190. The analyses revealed a significantgroup effect for each acculturation domain. Specifically, Turkish-Bulgarians reported higher scores on mainstream cultureadoption than Turkish-Dutch (F(1, 297) = 43.77, p < .001, 2 = .130), whereas, contrary to expectations, Turkish-Bulgariansshowed a less pronounced tendency to maintain their heritage Turkish culture compared to their Turkish counterparts inthe Netherlands (F(1, 297) = 35.65, p < .001, 2 = .108). So, Turkish-Bulgarians scored higher on cultural adoption and loweron cultural maintenance than Turkish-Dutch (Table 1). Significant group effects also emerged in both sociocultural domains(heritage culture: F(1, 297) = 23.46, p < .001, 2 = .074; mainstream culture: F(1, 297) = 10.91, p < .001, 2 = .036). In line withwhat we found for acculturation orientations, Turkish-Bulgarians reported higher scores on mainstream culture outcomesand lower scores on heritage Turkish culture outcomes compared to Turkish-Dutch. Furthermore, the analyses revealedsignificant group differences for satisfaction with life, F(1, 297) = 9.16, p < .001, 2 = .030. As expected, Turkish-Bulgariansscored significantly lower on life satisfaction compared to Turkish-Dutch consistent with the view that stigmatized ethnicminority groups show compromised well-being.

6.2. Association of acculturation orientations, sociocultural and psychological outcomes

We tested our second hypothesis via multigroup analyses examining direct relations among acculturation orientations,sociocultural outcomes (toward mainstream and heritage cultures) and psychological outcomes (SWLS). The structuralweights model showed a good fit (2 (10, n = 391) = 31.34, p < .001, RMSEA = .074 and CFI = .963). The associations of accul-turation orientations and outcomes within the Turkish-Bulgarian and Turkish-Dutch groups were statistically significant,indicating that both maintenance and adoption predict sociocultural outcomes in mainstream and Turkish contexts(Table 2). In addition, the direct link between ethnic culture adoption and well-being was not significant in both groups. It isalso of interest that the parameters between mainstream culture adoption and heritage culture maintenance were differentin the two groups. While the two domains of acculturation orientations were significantly and negatively related for the


Turkish-Bulgarian group, they were significantly positively related in the Turkish-Dutch group (Fig. 1). It could be speculatedthat the stronger negative relationship in the Turkish-Bulgarian samples could be due to the stronger incompatibilitybetween ethnic and mainstream orientations in Bulgaria as compared to the Netherlands; Yagmur and Van de Vijver(2012) also found the strongest negative correlation between both orientations in the context with the most assimilationpressure.


ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model

IJIR-1025; No. of Pages 11


Table 2Fit indices of acculturation orientations and outcomes path model for Turkish-Bulgarian and Turkish-Dutch adults.

Model 2 (df) 2 (df) AGFI RMSEA CFI

Configural invariance 13.39 (6) – .933 .056 .987Structural weights 31.34*** (10) 17.95*** (4) .913 .074 .963Structural covariances 75.09*** (14) 43.75*** (4) .866 .106 .894Structural residuals 101.01*** (18) 25.92*** (4) .864 .109 .855

Note: Most restrictive model with a good fit is printed in italics.*** p < .001.

Mainstream Culture Orientation

Heritage Culture Orientation

Mainstream Culture

Outcomes

-.35***/.18*

.72***/.79***

Heritage Culture Outcomes

Well-Being

.66***/.65***

.06/.05

.16***/.16***

Fc*

7

oaDIb

7

atpTmuuDawemoIhaaetc

ig. 1. Path model of acculturation orientations and outcomes of Turkish-Bulgarian and Turkish-Dutch Adults. Note: The parameters represent standardizedoefficients. First parameter next to an arrow is the coefficient in the Turkish-Bulgarian sample, the second coefficient refers to the Turkish-Dutch sample.p < .05, ***p < .001.

. Discussion

Whereas most research on acculturation has dealt with immigrant groups in Western Europe or the US, our primarybjective in this study was to compare heritage culture maintenance and mainstream culture adoption of a Turkish-Dutchnd a Turkish-Bulgarian minority. There are two main differences between the two immigrant groups: Compared to Turkish-utch, Turkish-Bulgarians have a much longer immigration history, and have been exposed to much assimilation pressure.

n order to understand how acculturation is associated to outcomes in these two groups, we also examined direct relationsetween cultural maintenance and adoption on sociocultural and psychological outcomes.

.1. Group differences in acculturation

Acculturation orientations differed significantly between the Turkish groups in two aspects. The first regards the culturaldoption of the mainstream culture, which was more important for Turkish-Bulgarians than for their Turkish-Dutch coun-erparts. For the Turkish-Dutch participants, cultural maintenance was a key issue in their acculturation, a result replicatingrevious findings of heritage culture salience in these groups (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2003; Piontkowski et al., 2000).he emphasis on cultural maintenance may be related to the current Dutch situation and attitudes toward immigrants. Dutchainstreamers consider the strong heritage culture maintenance of immigrants a threat to the Dutch culture and the national

nity (Van Oudenhoven, Prins, & Buunk, 1998) and deem the cultural maintenance of the Turkish minority in particular asndesirable for the society at large (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2003). As a reaction to these negative attitudes, Turkish-utch immigrants may be more supportive of their culture of origin since maintaining a positive distinctiveness when facingdversity might offer beneficial psychological and social resources. This appears not to be the case for Turkish-Bulgarians,ho despite a long history of settlement accompanied by severe assimilation policies toward their minority, show a strong

ndorsement of the mainstream Bulgarian culture. This finding is of particular relevance in light of potent contextual factors,ost importantly assimilation pressures in Bulgaria, where members of the Turkish minority are most likely to lack any

ther choice than endorse the mainstream culture. Intriguingly, these findings are contrary to expectations derived from theAM. The IAM would predict that appreciation for the diversity of minority groups in pluralistic societies is associated with aigh endorsement of mainstream culture domains. The model may be able to adequately predict ethnic culture maintenancend mainstream culture adoption within a single ethnic group or between ethnic groups within a single country. However,


cculturation orientations could be moderated by contextual factors that become prominent if comparisons of mainstreamndorsement across groups in different national contexts are made. The much longer time frame of acculturation and his-orical resentment of centuries of Turkish-Bulgarian as compared to Turkish-Dutch is probably a relevant moderator notonsidered in the IAM. The long-term sustainability of a low endorsement of the mainstream culture is questionable if the


G Model

immigrant group has to deal with the mainstream group in essential life domains, such as jobs and education. The dailynecessities of living in the mainstream culture could prompt the immigrant to increasingly adopt the mainstream cultureand to identify with the ethnic group less. This pattern would be different for the short-term acculturation process whichcharacterizes the Turkish-Dutch minority.

It may also be that situational characteristics are responsible for the strong mainstream Bulgarian identification in Turkish-Bulgarian adults. For example, Turkish-Bulgarian youth have been reported to identify with their ethnic group more stronglythan with the mainstream group by reporting high Turkish heritage and low Bulgarian mainstream identity (Dimitrovaet al., 2012). When they are young adolescents, Turkish-Bulgarians live in cohesive ethnic enclaves, where strict normsabout adherence to Turkish culture and traditions are kept. During later transitions in life, once they leave the safety of theircommunity, they move to new environments in search of better employment and educational opportunities. It may wellbe that when faced with persons from the mainstream culture and options for better life opportunities, Turkish-Bulgarianschoose to identify more strongly with the Bulgarian society as a way to get out of their marginalized position.

Additionally, researchers have argued that cultural maintenance and adoption may coexist relatively independent fromeach other (Berry et al., 2006). This may also suggest that adopting the Bulgarian culture and maintaining the ethnic culturecould be important for our Turkish-Bulgarian participants as it might reflect the benefits of their bicultural everyday context(Stephenson, 2000). Alternatively, it may also be that by adopting the Bulgarian culture, Turkish-Bulgarians give in to thecontinuous pressure exerted on them and reduce feelings of discomfort that result from maintaining their heritage Turkishculture in a mainstream Bulgarian context. Our findings suggest that, contrary to what the IAM would predict, in a highlyoppressive mainstream society minority groups may prefer some form of adjustment to the mainstream society. Our findingspoint out the importance of context-specificity in acculturation and adaptation processes of Turkish groups in line with priorresearch that clearly shows that these processes may be time-specific and assume adaptive salience at different stages ofthe acculturation process (Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2011; Liebkind & Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2000; Titzmann et al., 2011). Therefore,aspects like the duration of the acculturation experience may also be important such that minority groups residing thelongest in the mainstream society (Turkish-Bulgarian), show stronger preferences for and similarities with the mainstreamculture than immigrant groups who have spent less time in their receiving society (Turkish-Dutch). Acknowledging theIAM premises regarding policies adopted by receiving countries, our findings also point out to the need to consider broadercontext factors within these countries, which may differentially affect acculturation orientations and outcomes of ethnicminority groups.

The above reported group differences in acculturation orientations between Turkish-Bulgarian and Turkish-Dutch groupswere also reflected in their sociocultural outcomes. Turkish-Bulgarians reported higher scores on outcomes of both main-stream and heritage cultures, whereas Turkish-Dutch showed a more pronounced tendency to maintain their heritageTurkish culture. Regarding psychological outcomes, Turkish-Dutch and Turkish-Bulgarian minority showed lower life satis-faction than Bulgarian and Dutch mainstreamers. Turkish-Bulgarians, as expected, scored significantly lower on well-beingcompared to their Turkish-Dutch counterparts. As previously reported, members of oppressed ethnic minorities typicallyexperience less psychological well-being (Verkuyten, 2005). We can extend these findings to our sample of Turkish-Bulgarianadults who report lower life satisfaction than their Turkish-Dutch counterparts. Another potential explanation for differencesin well-being between Turkish-Bulgarian and Turkish-Dutch adults may be found in national policies toward immigrant andethnic minority groups. Despite the fact that diversity is officially supported as a policy in both countries, attempts of pres-sure on cultural minorities to adjust to the mainstream culture have been dominant in Bulgaria, whereas Dutch acculturationpolicies are characterized by a stronger endorsement of multiculturalism (Evan & Need, 2002; Vink, 2007; Weldon, 2006).Yagmur and Van de Vijver (2012) also report that immigrants in more assimilative compared to those in less assimilativecontexts had high scores on sociocultural adjustment to the mainstream culture, and low scores on well-being. Therefore,strong mainstream culture sociocultural adjustment and low well-being may reflect a lack of multiculturalism policies.

Additionally, differences in life satisfaction between Turkish-Bulgarian and Turkish-Dutch groups may mirror differencesbetween Dutch and Bulgarian mainstreamers. For example, findings from large multicountry comparisons show that theNetherlands score substantially higher than Bulgaria regarding overall well-being and satisfaction with life (Veenhoven,2013). Also according to other sources, levels of life satisfaction of the general Dutch population are far higher than those inBulgaria (Marks, Abdallah, Simms, & Thompson, 2006). Moreover, the relationship between wealth and life satisfaction mayalso be impacting our findings. We found that Turkish-Bulgarians score lower than the Turkish-Dutch on life satisfaction,which may also be due contextual differences, such as a greater affluence in the Netherlands than Bulgaria. Results froma meta-analysis reveal that there is an effect of poverty on levels of subjective well-being across nations. Comparisons onwell-being with access to education (UNESCO, 2006), health (United Nations, 2005), and poverty (CIA, 2006) showed thatwell-being correlated most strongly with health, followed by access to basic education (Marks et al., 2006). This adds to theevidence that the strongest correlates of well-being are poverty and associated variables.

7.2. Relationship between acculturation orientations and outcomes


Our final set of results focused on the relation between acculturation orientations and outcomes in Turkish-Bulgarianand Turkish-Dutch groups. Findings provide additional evidence to prior work on the relation between acculturation andsociocultural and psychological outcomes by replicating these in a sample of Turkish-Bulgarian and Turkish-Dutch adults(Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2004; Berry, 1997). Our model suggests that both Turkish culture maintenance and mainstream


G Model

I

csoatuBc

8

trTFttcTo

ca

heTmta

imm

9

cRgettptTacilmo

A

Ao



ulture adoption foster acculturation outcomes. In both Turkish minority groups, cultural maintenance was associated withociocultural outcomes in the heritage culture, whereas mainstream culture adoption was conducive to better socioculturalutcomes in the mainstream culture. These findings also underscore an important similarity with respect to acculturationnd outcomes of Turkish minority groups living in two different countries: feelings of belonging to the mainstream cul-ure promote a greater sense of well-being. However, acculturation orientations toward host culture and well-being werenrelated in both cultures. Similar results are reported by Beirens and Fontaine (2011) in a sample of Turkish immigrants inelgium: No significant relationships were observed between acculturation orientations and well-being indices of somaticomplaints, sadness, anxiety, and anger.

. Limitations and future research

Although this study provides the first comparative perspective on acculturation of Turkish minority groups in Bulgaria andhe Netherlands, some limitations need to be acknowledged. One limitation involves the need to verify our results in a moreepresentative sample of immigrants, including larger Turkish groups in other contexts. Our study was concerned with twourkish samples, thereby limiting our ability to generalize any observed effects in Turkish groups to other receiving countries.or example, a replication of this study including bicultural Turkish groups in other contexts will increase confidence inhe current findings. Further studies should include samples representing a broader historical perspective (short vs. long-erm) and more conditions of acculturation (favorable vs. unfavorable). Studying minority groups prototypical for all fouronstellations would greatly increase the insight into the relevance of important contextual conditions. Additionally, oururkish samples were recruited via snowballing and the results from such samples must be interpreted carefully. A replicationf these results with a random sampling approach is necessary.

Turkish-Bulgarians were representative of provincial areas, whereas the Turkish-Dutch were recruited from three majorities. Nevertheless, our Turkish participants may still be characteristic of each country as they were recruited in communityreas that Turkish-Bulgarian and Turkish-Dutch usually inhabit.

Another limitation involves the domain specificity of acculturation orientations. For example, Turkish minority groupsave been found to favor cultural maintenance in the private domain including their family, child-rearing practices, andthnic community, whereas preferring cultural adoption in the public domain of life due to tangible social benefits (Arends-óth & Van de Vijver, 2003). With regards to Bulgarian and Dutch contexts, a domain specificity of acculturation orientationsay reflect the pressure to adapt to the mainstream society accompanied with desire of Turkish immigrants to maintain

heir culture in the private domain. To adequately address the influence of multiple factors on cultural maintenance anddoption, future studies need to consider the role of life domains with respect to the acculturation of minority groups.

Finally, to fully understand the multifaceted processes that affect acculturation orientations and outcomes, studies includ-ng further potential moderating and mediating variables should be conducted. Factors such as cultural distance from the

ainstream community, ethnic vitality of the Turkish minority groups, as well as perceived and experienced discriminationay also be linked to acculturation processes.

. Conclusion

This study tested whether acculturation orientations would be associated with stronger maintenance and less socio-ultural adjustment to the mainstream culture in heavily stigmatized Turkish-Bulgarians compared to Turkish-Dutch.esults clearly show that acculturation processes can differ among Turkish minorities within Europe. We found overallroup differences as well as different relational patterns between acculturation and well-being. Regarding group differ-nces, Turkish-Bulgarians showed higher mainstream culture adoption and lower heritage culture maintenance comparedo the Turkish-Dutch. It seems as if the Turkish-Dutch can more afford to maintain their culture within the Dutch multicul-ural context, whereas for the Turkish-Bulgarians, adoption and adjustment to the mainstream culture are more important,ossibly due to their historical experiences and specific status as a long-term acculturating minority group. We found thathe mainstream identification was stronger in the more stigmatized Turkish-Bulgarian group than in the less stigmatizedurkish-Dutch. Our results emphasize the role of Turkish minority groups’ receiving context such that the link betweencculturation orientations and outcomes of Turkish minorities might result in a stronger identification with the mainstreamulture among long-term compared to short-term acculturating groups. In conclusion, this study adds to the increasinglymportant comparative acculturation studies by enabling a more systematic research on the role of context in affectingong-terms versus short-term acculturating ethnic minority groups. Based on this evidence, future research should pay

ore attention to the investigation and measurement of context factors associated with acculturation orientations andutcomes of ethnic minority groups across and within diverse societies of settlement.

cknowledgements


The authors are extremely grateful to Mr. Velichko Valchev and Mrs. Yana Avramova for their linguistic help and Mrs.rzu Aydinli, Mrs. Neli Filipova, Mr. Terziev, Mr. Petkov, Mr. Chobanov, Mrs. Gospova, Mrs. Rafet for their help in carryingut the study.


G Model

References

Aldeba, W., Adriaansens, H. P. M., Van Damme-Week, M. A., Geelhoed, L. A., Kreukels, A. M. J., Van Praag, B. M. S., et al. (1989). (Policies with respect toimmigrants) Allochtonenbeleid. The Hague, The Netherlands: Staatsuitgeverij.

Arbuckle, J. (2009). Amos 19. Crawfordville. FL: AMOS Development Corporation.Arends-Tóth, J. V., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of Dutch and Turkish-Dutch. European Journal of Social Psychology,

33, 249–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.143Arends-Tóth, J. V., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2006). Issues in the conceptualization and assessment of acculturation. In M. H. Bornstein, & L. R. Cote (Eds.),

Acculturation and parent–child relationships: Measurement and development (pp. 33–62). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Arends-Tóth, J. V., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2009). Family relationships among immigrants and majority members in the Netherlands: The role of acculturation.

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 466–487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00331.xArends-Tóth, J. V., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2004). Domains and dimensions in acculturation: Implicit theories of Turkish–Dutch. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 28, 19–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2003.09.001Beirens, K., & Fontaine, R. J. J. (2011). Somatic and emotional well-being among Turkish immigrants in Belgium: Acculturation or culture? Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 56–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022110361773Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.

1080/026999497378467Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 55, 303–332.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00256.xBollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Boog, I., Dinsbach, W., Van Donselaar, J., & Rodrigues, P. R. (2010). (Monitor race discrimination 2009) Monitor Rassendiscriminatie 2009. Rotterdam, The

Netherlands: Landelijk expertisecentrum van Art.1.Bosakov, V. (2006). Bulgarian Turks in the context of neighborhood with other ethnic-religious communities in Bulgaria. International Journal of Sociology

and Language, 179, 29–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/IJSL.2006.023Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International

Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002075997400629Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways in assessing model fit. In K. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equations Modeling, 9, 233–255.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902 5Chiu, M., Feldman, S. S., & Rosenthal, D. A. (1992). The influence of immigration on parental behavior and adolescent distress in Chinese families residing

in two Western nations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2, 205–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0203 2CIA. (2006). The World Factbook. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbookCouncil of Europe. (2007). The Turkish presence in Europe: Migrant workers and new European citizens. Retrieved from: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=

CM/Notes/998/6.3&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383Crul, M. (2000). (The key to success) De sleutel tot succes. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Het Spinhuis.Crul, M., & Doomernik, J. (2003). The Turkish and Moroccan second generation in the Netherlands: Divergent trends between and polarization within the

two groups. International Migration Review, 37, 1039–1064. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2003.tb00169.xDiener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.

1207/s15327752jpa4901 13Dimitrov, V. (2000). In search of a homogeneous nation: The assimilation of Bulgaria’s Turkish minority, 1984–1985. European Center for Minority Issues (ECMI)

Report. Flensburg, Germany: European Center for Minority Issues.Dimitrova, R., Bender, M., Chasiotis, A., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2012). Ethnic identity and acculturation of Turkish-Bulgarian adolescents. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.04.005Evan, G., & Need, A. (2002). Explaining ethnic polarization over attitudes towards minority rights in Eastern Europe: A multilevel analysis. Social Science

Research, 31, 653–680. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0049-089X(02)00018-2Feldman, S. S., Mont-Reynaud, R., & Rosenthal, D. A. (1992). When East moves West: The acculturation of values of Chinese adolescents in the US and

Australia. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2, 147–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0202 3Galchenko, I., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2007). The role of perceived cultural distance in acculturation among exchange students in Russia. International Journal

of Intercultural Relationships, 31, 187–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.03.004Ganev, V. (2004). History, politics, and the constitution: Ethnic conflict and constitutional adjudication in postcommunist Bulgaria. Slavic Review, 63, 66–89.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1520270Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Horenczyk, G., & Kinunen, T. (2011). Time and context in the relationship between acculturation attitudes and adaptation among Russian-

speaking immigrants in Finland and Israel. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37, 1423–1440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2011.623617Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., Horenczyk, G., & Schmitz, P. (2003). The interactive nature of acculturation: Perceived discrimination, acculturation

attitudes and stress among young ethnic repatriates in Finland, Israel and Germany. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 79–97.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(02)00061-5

LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395–412.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.395

Liebkind, K., & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. (2000). The influence of experiences of discrimination on psychological stress: A comparison of seven immigrant groups.Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10, 1–16, org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(200001/02)10:1<1::AID-CASP521>3.3.CO;2-X.

Maeva, M. (2005). Bulgarian Turks and the European Union. In H. Rusu, & B. Voicu (Eds.), EU Integration process from EAST to EAST: Civil society and ethnicminorities in a changing world. Proceedings from a round table for young social scientists (pp. 119–126). Sibiu, Romania: Psihomedia Publ. House.

Mahnig, H., & Wimmer, A. (2000). Country-specific or convergent? A typology of immigrant policies in Western Europe. International Journal of Migrationand Integration, 1, 177–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12134-000-1001-9

Marks, N., Abdallah, S., Simms, A., & Thompson, S. (2006). The happy planet index. London, United Kingdom: New Economics Foundation.Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit evaluation in structural equation modeling. In A. Maydeu-Olivares, & J. McCardle (Eds.),

Contemporary psychometrics: A Festschrift to Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275–340). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.McCarthy, J. (1995). Death and exile: The ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821–1921. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press.Petkova, L. (2002). The ethnic Turks in Bulgaria: Social integration and impact on Bulgarian-Turkish relations, 1947–2000. The Global Review of Ethnopolitics,

1, 42–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14718800208405112Phalet, K., & Schönpflug, U. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of collectivism and achievement values in two acculturation contexts: The

case of Turkish families in Germany and Turkish and Moroccan families in the Netherlands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 186–200.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032002006Piontkowski, U., Florack, A., Hoelker, P., & Obdrzalek, P. (2000). Predicting acculturation attitudes of dominant and non-dominant groups. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(99)00020-6Rooduijn, M. J., & Latten, J. J. (1986). (The social situation of Turks and Moroccans in the Netherlands: 1984. Part 2: Core statistics) De leefsituatie van Turken en

Marokkanen in Nederland: 1984. Deel 2: Kerncijfers. The Hague, The Netherlands: Staatsuitgeverij.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00003-0/sbref0005






















dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.143


































dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00331.x


dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022110361773

dx.doi.org/10.1080/026999497378467

dx.doi.org/10.1080/026999497378467

dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00256.x



























dx.doi.org/10.1515/IJSL.2006.023

dx.doi.org/10.1080/002075997400629




























dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0203_2

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Notes/998/6.3&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Notes/998/6.3&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383

















dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2003.tb00169.x

dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
































dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0049-089X(02)00018-2

dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0202_3


dx.doi.org/10.2307/1520270




















dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2011.623617

dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(02)00061-5

dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.395













































































dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12134-000-1001-9



























































dx.doi.org/10.1080/14718800208405112

dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032002006

dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(99)00020-6




































G Model

I

R

SS

S

S

S

T

UUV

V

V

V

V

V

V

VV

V

W

W

W

Y



udin, C., & Eminov, A. (1993). Bulgarian nationalism and Turkish language in Bulgaria. In E. Fraenkel, & C. Kramer (Eds.), Language contact – languageconflict. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

am, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.chwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Weisskirch, R. S., & Rodriguez, L. (2009). The relationships of personal and ethnic identity exploration to indices of adaptive

and maladaptive psychosocial functioning. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33, 131–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025408098018earle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 14, 449–464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(90)90030-Zmith, T. B., & Silva, L. (2011). Ethnic identity and personal well-being of people of color: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 42–60.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021528tephenson, M. (2000). Development and validation of the Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale (SMAS). Psychological Assessment, 12, 77–88.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.77itzmann, P. F., Silbereisen, R. K., Mesch, G. S., & Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2011). Migration-specific hassles among adolescent immigrants from the former

Soviet Union in Germany and Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 777–794, org/10.1177/0022022110362756.NESCO. (2006). EFA Global Monitoring Report. Retrieved from: www.unesco.org/educationnited Nations. (2005). UN Human Development Report. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.an Oudenhoven, J. P., Prins, K. S., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority members towards adaptation of immigrants. European Journal

of Social Psychology, 28, 995–1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28:6<995::AID-EJSP908>3.0.CO;2–8asta, E. (2007). From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: Multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial

Studies, 30, 713–740. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870701491770edder, P., & Virta, E. (2005). Language, ethnic identity, and the adaptation of Turkish immigrant youth in the Netherlands and Sweden. International Journal

of Intercultural Relations, 29, 317–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.05.006edder, P., Sam, D. L., & Liebkind, K. (2007). The acculturation and adaptation of Turkish adolescents in North-Western Europe. Applied Development Science,

11, 126–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888690701454617eenhoven, R. (2013). Average happiness in 148 nations 2000–2009. World database of happiness. The Netherlands: Erasmus University Rotterdam. Retrieved

from: http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap nat/findingreports/RankReport AverageHappiness.phperkuyten, M. (2005). Ethnic group identification and group evaluation among minority and majority groups: Testing the multiculturalism hypothesis.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 121–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.121erkuyten, M. (2008). Life satisfaction among ethnic minorities: The role of discrimination and group identification. Social Indicators Research,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9239-2ermeulen, H., & Penninx, R. (Eds.). (2000). Immigrant integration: The Dutch case. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Het Spinhuis.ink, M. P. (2007). Dutch multiculturalism beyond the pillarisation myth. Political Studies Review, 5, 337–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9299.

2007.00134.xirta, E., Sam, D. L., & Westin, C. (2004). Adolescents with Turkish background in Norway and Sweden: A comparative study of their psychological adaptation.

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45, 15–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2004.00374.xard, C. (2001). The A, B, Cs of acculturation. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), Handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 411–445). New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.eldon, S. A. (2006). The institutional context of tolerance for ethnic minorities: A comparative, multilevel analysis of Western Europe. American Journal


of Political Science, 50, 331–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00187.xiking, J., Johansson, S.-E., & Sundquist, J. (2004). Ethnicity, acculturation, and self reported health. A population based study among immigrants from

Poland, Turkey, and Iran in Sweden. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58, 574–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.2003.011387agmur, K., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2012). Acculturation and language orientations of Turkish immigrants in Australia, France, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 1110–1130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022111420145








































dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025408098018

dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(90)90030-Z

dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021528

dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.77


























http://www.unesco.org/education












dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28:6<995::AID-EJSP908>3.0.CO;2unhbox voidb@x hbox --

dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870701491770


dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888690701454617

http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_nat/findingreports/RankReport_AverageHappiness.php

dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.121

dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9239-2












dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9299.2007.00134.x

dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9299.2007.00134.x

dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2004.00374.x


























dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00187.x

dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.2003.011387

dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022111420145

Documents

Turks in Bulgaria and the Netherlands: A comparative study of their acculturation orientations and outcomes