Future plans

First-generation immigrants have often expressed a desire to return to their country of origin. The underlying idea is to earn enough money in the receiving country to build up an economic base for retirement back home. Studies in several countries have, however, shown that these plans are often not realized or that they change over time (Carling 2014). In fact, many choose to stay or to commute between countries after retirement instead of returning permanently as initially envisaged (Hunter 2011). Several factors related to a person’s choice of where to live after retirement have been identified; for instance, they may have gotten used to the lifestyle in their country of settlement, which has gained personal importance, and other family members—in particular, their own children—will often continue to live there (Attias-Donfut, Tessier & Wolff 2005; Bolzman, Fibbi & Vial 2006). Structural or practical considerations, such as health issues and the availability of healthcare provision, legal issues, and financial concerns, can also play a decisive role (Mandres 2014). As life in the receiving country goes on, what is experienced as “home” can also change over time (Kunuroglu et al. 2018). Nonetheless, multiple attachments are possible, and special bonds with one’s country of origin often seem to be retained (Klok et al. 2017, Palladino 2019). The practice of commuting between both countries after retirement has been described in a survey of middle-aged international immigrants in France on their future plans for retirement (Attias-Donfut, Tessier & Wolff 2005). Recently, a retirement mobilities approach has been proposed as a new analytical framework for addressing the complexities of transnational lifestyles in older age (Nedelcu et al. 2023). This approach takes into account that the lifestyles of many older people are characterized by transnational movements and that the assumption of immobility as the norm is no longer valid.

When it came to the future plans of the first-generation Portuguese immigrants who participated in the IRMA project, we were able to identify similar patterns to those found in earlier European studies (Attias-Donfut, Tessier & Wolff 2005). We asked participants if they had planned—at the beginning of their stay in Luxembourg—to return to their country of origin in the future, and we wanted to know what their current plans were at the time of data collection.² Although 69% indicated that when they came to Luxembourg years ago they had envisaged that they would return to Portugal, the picture had evolved in the meantime: about 20% of our participants stated clearly that they would still like to return. A proportion of 41% were planning to stay in Luxembourg, whereas 21% preferred to commute between Luxembourg and Portugal and 18% were undecided about what to do after retirement. Further questions revealed that participants had often immigrated to Luxembourg for economic reasons but had formed emotional bonds with the receiving country over the years. Especially family and other social relationships were mentioned as reasons for staying in Luxembourg or for commuting, in addition to practical considerations (Bolzman, Fibbi & Vial 2006). The main reasons driving future plans to return to Portugal tended to be personal, such as a continuing strong attachment to the cultural heritage and lifestyle in the country of origin. Notably, the proportion of people planning to return in the future was slightly higher among those who were still gainfully employed; presumably, for them, the decision-making process was still ongoing. The likelihood of staying in Luxembourg increased with the length of time in the Grand Duchy and with already having grandchildren in Luxembourg. It should be mentioned that all the participants had children living in Luxembourg (due to our study design), but only a portion of them already had grandchildren. The immigrants’ adult children were also asked about their future plans. As expected, the majority were planning for a future in the Grand Duchy, where they had grown up and had sometimes already started a family of their own. Notably, they often reported also having close bonds with their parents’ country of origin. Interestingly, the majority of participants, irrespective of their future plans, were homeowners in Luxembourg. However, participants who wanted to stay in Luxembourg permanently were less likely to own property in Portugal than those who wanted to return or commute. This could indicate not only the importance of opportunity structures but also the planning ahead of some participants.

However, for the first generation, having plans to stay in Luxembourg did not mean that their ties with their country of origin were completely broken. On the contrary, no differences in the emotional attachment to Portugal were found among this group; however, those who wanted to stay in Luxembourg or commute indicated a stronger attachment to Luxembourg than those who wanted to return to Portugal. The latter group also indicated scarcer Luxembourgish language competences. This confirms earlier claims that when migrants build ties in their country of migration, a permanent return to their country of origin becomes less likely a choice (ibid.). A transnational lifestyle and continued cross-border mobility resulting from multiple social and personal links to both countries then become more probable (Nedelcu et al. 2023).

This brings us to the question of how first-generation migrants establish new bonds and define their cultural identity and belonging across their life course.

Cultural identity

Settling in a new country can be regarded as a critical life transition that requires sociocultural and psychological adaptation, a process termed acculturation (Berry 2005; Redfield, Linton & Herskovitz 1936). Whereas earlier theories regarded acculturation as being a unidimensional adaptation to the receiving culture, it has become evident that migrants build new bonds with their receiving country while retaining aspects of their culture of origin, as described in two-dimensional or multidimensional models of acculturation (Berry 2005; Kunuroglu et al. 2018). In fact, migration might trigger changes in cultural, social, and emotional belonging, as migrants leave behind a familiar living context and an established social network when moving to new surroundings. Nonetheless, people do not migrate without a past. The recently introduced concept of proculturation accounts for the fact that people who migrate as adults have been enculturated in other cultural contexts and carry with them a kind of imprint—that is, they see and interpret the world and new experiences through the cultural lenses acquired earlier (Gamsakhurdia 2019). Therefore, individuals differ in how they internalize old and new cultural influences and integrate them into the self (Schwartz et al. 2010). The bicultural identity integration model refers to different ways in which people might view their belonging to different cultures: The first dimension refers to the perception of both cultures as blended or distant, while the second dimension describes whether people experience their cultures as rather harmonious or conflicted (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos 2005). People might also engage in cultural frame-switching; that is, adapting their behavior to the specific cultural context when moving between different cultural systems (Hong et al. 2000; No 2013). On the basis of these cognitive and behavioral components, earlier research identified different ways of being bicultural: blended biculturals perceived their cultures as overlapping and felt competent in different cultural contexts, whereas alternating biculturals were found to make a clear distinction between both cultures but were able to move between them without problems (Phinney & Devich-Navarro 1997). Importantly, a third group was labeled as separate: although living with multiple cultural influences, they did not identify as bicultural but felt that they belonged only to one or the other culture. More recently, a transformative theory of biculturalism has been proposed (West et al. 2017). This theory suggests frame-switching, hybridizing, or integrating as ways in which people dynamically negotiate different aspects of their different cultural identity. Following the above-described approaches, the bicultural identity integration of first-generation Portuguese immigrants and their adult children was examined in the IRMA project. We considered the dimensions of compatibility, conflict, and frame-switching (Barros & Albert 2020a). We assumed that first-generation migrants face different developmental tasks from those in the second generation when reconciling and negotiating different cultural aspects. Whereas the former group were socialized in a different cultural context before they migrated, the latter have grown up with multiple cultural influences (Birman 2006). Interestingly, both first- and second-generation participants indicated on average low conflict with regard to their multiple cultural belonging, and both groups engaged equally in frame-switching, adapting their behavior when navigating between different cultural systems. However, there were significant differences in the dimension of compatibility. More precisely, the older generation experienced both cultures as more separate, whereas the younger generation saw both cultures as more overlapping.

When taking a closer look at patterns based on the combination of the aforementioned dimensions, we found four different identity types among participants from the first generation and their adult children: (a) blended biculturals, (b) alternating biculturals, (c) ambivalent, and (d) separated (Barros & Albert 2020b). Blended, alternating, and separated types have already been described in earlier studies; the newly discovered ambivalent type included participants who identified with both cultures but experienced them as conflicting. Participants with this pattern also indicated more explicitly that they use cultural frame-switching and adapt their behavior depending on the context they find themselves in. Portuguese migrant fathers were most frequently found to be among the alternating biculturals and the ambivalent types. Both these types engaged in frame-switching, but the alternating biculturals perceived their multiple belonging more positively than the ambivalent types did. The latter seemed to feel conflicted about the two distinct cultures they belonged to, although they felt capable of alternating between them. For Portuguese migrant mothers, the most frequent pattern seemed to be separated types, followed by blended biculturals and alternating biculturals. For first-generation migrants, cultural contact with their culture of origin and the receiving culture occurs one after the other, as they are socialized in one country before settling into a new context with new values, norms, and practices. The asynchronous sequence of experiences in different cultural contexts could account for the higher numbers of people from the first generation who clearly distinguished their multiple cultural aspects. Among the adult children we found the same patterns as for the first generation in that blended biculturals were the most common. Having grown up in and between two cultures, members of the second generation in migrant families might have simultaneously internalized both the culture of their parents and that of the societal context in which they lived during their formative years. This simultaneity of cultural influences could have contributed to the perception of a certain overlap of both cultures. However, the results also showed that, especially for the second generation, reconciling different cultural identities can be a difficult task depending on a person’s life experiences and contexts. This was further demonstrated in the qualitative interviews.

Most of the respondents from the second generation regarded Luxembourg as their focus of life while recognizing their Portuguese roots. The majority said they felt a sense of belonging to both cultures, but there was variety in how they reconciled both influences (Barros & Albert 2020a). Some participants reported experiencing ambivalences concerning their bicultural identity (Barros & Albert 2020b). More precisely, some of the respondents reported that the views of others had undermined their own cultural identity constructions in relation to one or the other culture—being labeled as Portuguese by Luxembourgers and being seen as a Luxembourger when in Portugal (Barros & Albert 2020a). This denial of cultural identity has been described by other authors and is recurrent in reports of second-generation offspring in migrant families (Clark, Glick & Bures 2009).

The next section will focus more closely on the sense of belonging and how it evolves in the context of migration.

Sense of belonging

A sense of belonging gives meaning to individuals’ lives (Lambert et al. 2013), and it speaks to their basic need for communion and agency (Abele & Wojciszke 2007). Belonging is a basic need (Baumeister & Leary 1995) inherent in the processes of acculturation and cultural identity. However, while the sense of belonging has been widely addressed in migration research, it is still difficult to find a common definition. It has been defined in different ways depending on the disciplinary perspective; for instance as identification, connectedness, or attachment to a group (Halse 2018). People can feel they belong to social groups on different levels (such as family or friends, or other groups that share similar values or characteristics), to social institutions (e.g., school), or to transnational networks (ibid.). Apart from the social aspects, some authors have underlined the importance of place in belonging (Antonsich 2010). For instance, one might feel that one belongs to a geographic area or to a symbolic space, and the immediate neighborhood where migrants settle and interact with the other inhabitants might have an impact on feelings of belonging too (Wessendorf 2019). Importantly, these neighborhoods can be characterized by high levels of cultural diversity or be inhabited by specific groups (e.g., peer migrants from the same or a different community), or there might be a majority of long-established local residents in the neighborhood. This can, of course, have an impact on how social contacts unfold. Further, language competence is an important factor for the sense of belonging (Amit & Bar-Lev 2015). Notably, a sense of belonging in the country of settlement does not necessarily entail the desire to become a full part of what is perceived as majority culture or to take over the apparent characteristics of the majority (Blachnicka-Ciacek et al. 2021). It is also possible for migrants to develop a sense of belonging to the migrant community or to other subgroups in their country of settlement.

In the IRMA project, we addressed the question of immigrants’ sense of belonging by drawing on qualitative interviews with n = 10 Portuguese immigrant family dyads (one parent and one adult child each). The focus was on several facets of belonging, namely, spatial, social, and cultural. As expected, for most of the first-generation migrants interviewed, Luxembourg as their country of settlement and as their living context had over the years become a home to which they felt they belonged. Interestingly though, their connection to fellow Portuguese migrants in the Grand Duchy and to Portuguese culture was stronger than their feeling of being a member of the Luxembourgish community or being part of Luxembourgish culture. This was different for their adult children: they not only reported a greater attachment to Luxembourg in more general terms as a living context that provided economic stability but also expressed a strong attachment and identification with the Luxembourgish social and cultural setting (Afonso, Barros & Albert 2023). Interestingly, within the second generation a difference became obvious between those who were born in Luxembourg and those who were born in Portugal and migrated to Luxembourg with their parents at a young age: the latter underlined the importance of the multicultural context, whereas those born in Luxembourg identified more strongly with the Luxembourgish culture as their own.

Migrants’ experiences during their acculturation process are key for their development of a sense of belonging. To examine the pathway of how a sense of belonging evolves over time, we focused on a case study with one selected mother–daughter dyad, retracing their remembered migration history (Albert & Barros 2021). The selected case included a mother in her sixties, who had been living in Luxembourg for forty years and who was interviewed with one of her daughters. The daughter had been born in Portugal but migrated to Luxembourg with her family at the age of seven. She was in her forties at the time of the interview. It should be noted that while the mother had been employed as a low-skilled worker, her daughter had a professional degree and worked in an administrative position in the health sector.

The conversation provided a detailed account of how, in retrospect, an unfamiliar context that was experienced as hostile and even ugly at first, changed meaning over time, and eventually became a home for the mother. Her clearly stated intent to stay in Luxembourg and not to move back to Portugal permanently was in stark contrast to what she remembered as her initial thoughts; namely, a strong impulse to take a train back to Portugal immediately. It should be noted, however, that at the time of the interview she was in retirement and practicing a transnational lifestyle, commuting between both countries and spending part of the year in Portugal. Within this case study, the practical restrictions and opportunities that shape life became evident: the lack of a house in Portugal and a comparatively worse living situation back there eventually pushed our interviewee to stay in Luxembourg. She also remembered that her living conditions had a significant impact on her well-being. In addition, she identified turning points, for instance, an important improvement in the initially very difficult and poor living conditions in Luxembourg. When she started to receive an adequate salary and felt that her work was finally being recognized, her perception of Luxembourg changed, and she started to see it as a friendly and welcoming context (ibid.).

The qualitative interviews underlined the importance of experiences that are shared by first-generation migrants and their descendants, but they also demonstrated that memories can differ between family members as they undergo the same experiences at different points in their life course. Recollections from the past also have an impact on the regulation of relationships between older, first-generation migrants and their adult children (Albert, Barros Coimbra & Boulanger 2020). In the final part of this chapter, we will therefore focus on the regulation of intergenerational relations in the context of migration.

Intergenerational relations

Our focus was on the intergenerational relations in Portuguese migrant families, which we compared with Luxembourgish families. Past studies have shown that in families with a migration history, expectations that each generation has on the other generation(s) can be particularly high (Baykara-Krumme & Fokkema 2019), and intergenerational solidarity is negotiated in relation to the well-being of members of the family (Barros et al. 2023). Notably, in our research we found that conflict around cultural identity is related to intergenerational conflict and loneliness (Albert 2021). A motive behind the migration of first-generation parents might have been to provide a better life for their children (Kang & Larson 2014), and this can be recognized by the children. Strong mutual expectations of solidarity and supporting older parents might be related to the parents’ earlier efforts and sacrifices (Merz et al. 2009). For instance, in the Turkish 2000 families’ study (Baykara-Krumme & Fokkema 2019), migrant families more often corresponded to the full-solidarity family type than to the autonomous type. At the same time, research has shown that younger generations might have adopted values and norms from the country of settlement and not fully agree with parental expectations. Such a generational or acculturation gap can lead to intergenerational ambivalences and conflicts (Albert, Abbey & Valsiner 2018).

In the IRMA project, we took a closer look at the family cultures in Luxembourgish and Portuguese families living in Luxembourg. Our interviews suggested that intergenerational relations and mutual expectations are, not only in Portuguese families but also in Luxembourgish ones, characterized by high cohesion: a sense of being there for each other in case of need (Albert & Barros Coimbra 2017). But we also found differences between these two groups: intergenerational support between Luxembourgish parents and their adult children was mostly downward, whereas support patterns were more reciprocal in the Portuguese families living in Luxembourg, who also rated family obligations higher (Albert, Ferring & Michels 2013)—a finding that was in line with the results of earlier studies (Fleury et al. 2011). We carried out cluster analyses to identify different relationship patterns in our survey data. More of the Luxembourgish adult children were found to be in clear-cut clusters—characterized either by high adherence to obligations or by independence—while more of the Portuguese adult children were found in ambivalent clusters. Thus, some adult children might find it difficult to reconcile their striving for independence with their family obligations, especially in the context of migration.

In order to delve deeper into the topic of relationship regulation and better understand the processes and mechanisms behind different relationship patterns, we then carried out thematic content analyses of our qualitative interview data. In doing so, we focused on the specific topic of moving out of the parental home. We expected to find differences in how autonomy and relatedness or solidarity and reciprocity are negotiated when comparing Portuguese families with Luxembourgish families (Albert & Barros Coimbra 2017). A typical pattern was that of Portuguese parents exhibiting a tendency to move back and forth between granting autonomy and holding their children back, while their young adult children reassured them of their solidarity. Luxembourgish parents assumed the need to let their children grow into independence, because this is an expected part of children growing up that parents must come to terms with. As a tendency, these results hinted at a dyadic co-regulation of autonomy and relatedness in the Portuguese families and at more individual cognitive regulatory strategies in the Luxembourgish families. As described above, cohesion was strongly expressed in both the Luxembourgish and the Portuguese families, but the Portuguese families had higher expectations around frequency of contact than the Luxembourgish families did, and they underlined more clearly the importance of geographical closeness between family members from different generations. The Luxembourgish participants placed more emphasis on the importance of being there for each other in case of need, whereas frequency of contact seemed to be less important. These observations were in line with a theoretical model on assurance (which is typical for intergenerational relations in interdependent cultural contexts) versus trust (which is more central in independent cultural contexts) (Rothbaum & Trommsdorff 2007).

The Portuguese adult children in our project were aware that their parents had worked hard to provide their families with a good life. In exchange, they helped their parents with administrative issues and translation. Recently, the sense of indebtedness has been introduced into the study of intergenerational relations in migrant families. This refers to second-generation members of immigrant families and their wish to give something back to their immigrant parents, who have made many sacrifices to provide a better life for their children Pfammatter & Schwarz 2022). Feelings of gratitude, shame, and guilt have also been described in relation to intergenerational transfers (Carling 2014; Simoni & Voirol 2021).

Conclusions

The present contribution has focused on the first generation of Portuguese migrants to Luxembourg, who have started to reach the retirement age. While it was once unknown whether a large number of them would return to Portugal after completing their professional life, it has now become evident that many are choosing to continue living in Luxembourg or are opting for a transnational lifestyle, where they spend some time in Luxembourg and some in Portugal. The research results from the IRMA project have indicated that Portuguese migrants who were part of the first waves of immigration have formed strong ties and roots in the Grand Duchy; they have found their place in their country of settlement and have become an integral part of the culturally diverse society of Luxembourg. At the same time, these first-generation immigrants have retained strong links to Portugal and have transmitted their cultural traditions to their offspring who have grown up in the Grand Duchy. Despite adopting cultural influences from Portugal and from Luxembourg, the first generation continues to keep the two cultural contexts more separate; but for their offspring, both cultures have become integral, and sometimes blended, parts of their identities. The IRMA study has shed light on intergenerational regulatory efforts and on the intraindividual negation processes that take place when reconciling these two cultural influences. We have discussed the challenges and opportunities of living with diverse cultures and outlined the importance of intergenerational relations in the context of migration.

References

1. Abele, Andrea E., and Bogdan Wojciszke. “Agency and Communion from the Perspective of Self versus Others.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93, No. 5 (2007): 751–763.
2. Afonso, Joyce D., Stephanie Barros, and Isabelle Albert. “The Sense of Belonging in the Context of Migration: Development and Trajectories Regarding Portuguese Migrants in Luxembourg.” Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 57, no. 2 (2023): 518-546.
3. Albert, Isabelle. “Perceived Loneliness and the Role of Cultural and Intergenerational Belonging: The Case of Portuguese First-Generation Immigrants in Luxembourg.” European Journal of Ageing 18, no. 1 (2021): 299–310.
4. Albert, Isabelle, Emily Abbey, and Jaan Valsiner, eds. Cultural Psychology of Transgenerational Family Relations: Investigating Ambivalences.Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishers, 2018.
5. Albert, Isabelle, and Stephanie Barros. “The Sense of Belonging in the Context of Migration: Meanings and Developmental Trajectories.” In Culture as a Process, edited by Brady Wagoner, Bo Christiansen, and Carolin Demuth, 211–222. Cham: Springer, 2021.
6. Albert, Isabelle, and Stephanie Barros Coimbra. “Family Cultures in the Context of Migration and Ageing.” Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 55 (2017): 205–222.
7. Albert, Isabelle, Stephanie Barros Coimbra, and Dany Boulanger. “Intergenerational Memory and Value Transmission in the Context of Migration.” In Memory in the Wild, edited by Brady Wagoner, Ignacio Bresco, and Sophie Zadeh, 203–232. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishers, 2020.
9. Albert, Isabelle, Dieter Ferring, and Frieder R. Lang. Introduction to the Special Issue on “Aging and Migration in Europe”. GeroPsych: The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry 29, no. 2 (2016): 53–55.
10. Albert, Isabelle, Dieter Ferring, and Tom Michels, “Intergenerational Family Relations in Luxembourg.” European Psychologist 18, no. 1 (2013): 59–69.
11. Amit, Karin, and Shirly Bar-Lev. “Immigrants’ Sense of Belonging to the Host Country: The Role of Life Satisfaction, Language Proficiency, and Religious Motives.” Social Indicators Research 124, no. 3 (2015): 947–961.
12. Antonsich, Marco. “Searching for Belonging –An Analytical Framework.” Geography Compass4, no. 6 (2010): 644–659.
13. Attias-Donfut, Claudine, Philippe Tessier, and François-Charles Wolff. “Les immigrés au temps de la retraite.” Retraite et Société 44, no. 1 (2005): 11–47.
14. Baltes, Paul B., Hayne W. Reese, and Lewis P. Lipsitt. “Life-Span Developmental Psychology.” Annual Review of Psychology 31 (1980): 65–110.
15. Barros, Carlos, Jennifer McGarrigle, Ana Sofia Santos, Isabelle Albert, and Elke Murdock. “Solidarity Typologies in Dynamics between Portuguese Emigrants and their Parents.” Human Arenas, October 2023.
16. Barros, Stephanie, and Isabelle Albert. “‘I Feel more Luxembourgish, but Portuguese too.’ Cultural Identities in a Multicultural Society.” Integrative Psychological and Behavioural Science54 (2020a): 72–103.
17. Barros, Stephanie, and Isabelle Albert. “Living in-between or within? Cultural Identity Profiles of Second-Generation Young Adults with Immigrant Background.” Identity. An International Journal of Theory and Research 20, no. 4 (2020b), 290–305.
18. Baumeister, Roy F., and Mark R. Leary. “The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation.” Psychological Bulletin 117, no. 3 (1995): 497–529.
19. Baykara-Krumme, Helen, & Tineke Fokkema. “The Impact of Migration on Intergenerational Solidarity Types.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 45, no. 10 (2019): 1707–1727.
20. Benet-Martínez, Verónica, and Jana Haritatos. “Bicultural Identity Integration (BII): Components and Psychosocial Antecedents.” Journal of Personality 73, no. 4 (2005): 1015–1050.
21. Berry, John W. “Acculturation: Living Successfully in Two Cultures.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29, no. 6 (2005): 697–712,
22. Birman, Dina. “Acculturation Gap and Family Adjustment.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 37, no. 5 (2006): 568–89,
23. Blachnicka-Ciacek, Dominika, Agnieszka Trąbka, Irma Budginaite-Mackine, Violetta Parutis, and Paula Pustulka. “Do I Deserve to Belong? Migrants’ Perspectives on the Debate of Deservingness and Belonging.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 47, no. 17 (2021): 3805–3821.
24. Bolzman, Claudio, Rosita Fibbi, and Marie Vial. “What to do after Retirement? Elderly Migrants and the Question of Return.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 32, no. 8 (2006): 1359–1375.
25. Carling, Jørgen. “Scripting Remittances: Making Sense of Money Transfers in Transnational Relationships.” International Migration Review 48, no.1_suppl (2014): 218–262.
26. Clark, Rebecca L., Jennifer E. Glick, and Regina M. Bures. “Immigrant Families over the Life Course: Research Directions and Needs.” Journal of Family Issues 30, no. 6 (2009): 852–872.
27. Fajth, Veronika, and Laurence Lessard-Phillips. “Multidimensionality in the Integration of First- and Second-Generation Migrants in Europe: A Conceptual and Empirical Investigation.” International Migration Review 57, no. 1 (2022): 1–30.
28. Fleury, Charles, Monique Borsenberger, Nathalie Lorentz, and Stéphanie Cassilde. “Solidarités intergénérationnelles. Le cas de la génération pivot.” Papier du CEPS/INSTEAD no. 15 (2011). Differdange : CEPS/INSTEAD.
29. Gamsakhurdia, Vladimir Lado. “Proculturation: Self-Reconstruction by Making ‘Fusion Cocktails’ of Alien and Familiar Meanings.” Culture & Psychology 25, no. 2 (2019): 161–177.
30. Halse, Christine. “Theories and Theorising of Belonging.” In Interrogating Belonging for Young People in Schools, edited by Christine Halse,1–28. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.
31. Hartmann-Hirsch, Claudia. “Les étrangers et le marché de l’emploi : politiques migratoires et immigrations.” Cahier PSELL no. 157 (2007).
32. Hartmann-Hirsch, Claudia, and Fofo Senyo Amétépé. Between Europeanisation and Renationalisation of the Free Movement of Persons. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 2023.
33. Hong, Ying-Yi, Michale W. Morris, Chi-yue Chiu, and Veronika Benet-Martinez. “Multicultural Minds: A Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture and Cognition.” American Psychologist 55, no. 7 (2000): 709–720.
34. Hunter, Alistair. “Theory and Practice of Return Migration at Retirement: The Case of Migrant Worker Hostel Residents in France.” Population, Space and Place 17, no. 2 (2011): 179–192.
35. IOM. World Migration Report.
36. Kang, Hyeyong, and Reed W. Larson.. “Sense of Indebtedness toward Parents: Korean American Emerging Adults’ Narratives of Parental Sacrifice.” Journal of Adolescent Research 29, no. 4 (2014): 561–581.
37. Kahveci, Cagri, Elifcan Karacan, and Kira Kosnick. “Tactical Mobility: Navigating Mobile Ageing and Transnational Retirement between Turkey and Germany. A Comparison between Turkish-German and German Retirees.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 46, no. 15 (2020): 3157–3173.
38. Klok, Jolien, Theo G. van Tilburg, Bianca Suanet, Tineke Fokkema, and Martijn Huisman. “National and Transnational Belonging among Turkish and Moroccan Older Migrants in the Netherlands: Protective against Loneliness?” European Journal of Ageing 14, no. 4 (2017): 341–351.
39. Kunuroglu, Filiz, Kutlay Yagmur, Fons J. R. Van De Vijver, and Sjaak Kroon. “Motives for Turkish Return Migration from Western Europe: Home, Sense of Belonging, Discrimination and Transnationalism.” Turkish Studies 19, no. 3 (2018): 422–450.
40. Lambert, Nathaniel M., Tyler F. Stillman, Joshua A. Hicks, Shanmukh Kamble, Roy F. Baumeister, and Frank D. Fincham. “To Belong Is to Matter: Sense of Belonging Enhances Meaning in Life.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 39, no. 11 (2013): 1418–1427.
41. Mandres, Marinel. “Out of the Labour Market: Intra-EU Return and Retirement Migration.” In Territoriality and Migration in the E.U. Neighbourhood, edited by Margaret Walton-Roberts, and Jenna L. Hennebry, 163–191. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014.
42. Manzi, Claudia, Viviane L. Vignoles, Camillo Regalia, and Eugenia Scabini. “Cohesion and Enmeshment Revisited: Differentiation, Identity, and Well-being in two European Cultures.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 68, no. 3 (2006): 673–689.
43. Merz, Eva-Maria, Ezgi Özeke-Kocabas, Frans J. Oort, and Carlo Schuengel. “Intergenerational Family Solidarity: Value Differences between Immigrant Groups and Generations.” Journal of Family Psychology 23, no. 3 (2009): 291–300.
44. Murdock, Elke. Multiculturalism, Identity and Difference. Experiences of Culture Contact. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
45. Nedelcu, Mihaela, Livia Tomás, Laura Ravazzini, and Liliana Azevedo. “A Retirement Mobilities Approach to Transnational Ageing.” Mobilities 19, no. 2 (2023): 208–226.
46. No, Sun. “Cultural Frame Switching.” In The Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural Psychology, edited by Kenneth D. Keith, 304–6. Chichester: Wiley, 2013.
47. Palladino, Simona. “Older Migrants Reflecting on Aging through Attachment to and Identification with Places.” Journal of Aging Studies, 50, no. 1 (2019), 100788.
48. Pfammatter, Pirmin, and Beate Schwarz. “Measuring Sense of Indebtedness in Second Generation Immigrants in Switzerland.” Psychological Test Adaptation and Development 3, no. 1 (2022): 106–115.
49. Phinney, Jean S., and Mona Devich-Navarro. “Variations in Bicultural Identification among African American and Mexican American Adolescents.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 7, no. 1 (1997): 3–32.
50. Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. “The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and its Variants.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530, no. 1 (1993): 74–96.
51. Redfield, Robert, Ralph Linton, and Melville J. Herskovits. “Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation.” American Anthropologist 38, no. 1 (1936): 149–152.
52. Rothbaum, Fred, and Gisela Trommsdorff. “Do Roots and Wings Complement or Oppose one another: The Socialization of Relatedness and Autonomy in Cultural Context.” In Handbook of socialization, edited by Joan Grusec, and Paul Hastings, 461–489. New York: Guilford Press, 2007.
53. Schwartz, Seth J., Jennifer B. Unger, Byron Zamboanga, and José Szapocznik. “Rethinking the Concept of Acculturation: Implications for Theory and Research.” American Psychologist 65, no. 4 (2010): 237–251.
54. Simoni, Valerio, and Jérémie Voirol. “Remittances and Morality: Family Obligations, Development, and the Ethical Demands of Migration.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 47, no. 11 (2021): 2516–2536.
55. Statec (2022).
56. Trommsdorff, Gisela. “Cultural Values Regarding Children and Family: The Cultural Meaning of Parent-Child Relationships.” In Pursuit of Meaning. Advances in Cultural and Cross-Cultural Psychology, edited by Jürgen Straub, Doris Weidemann, Carlos Kölbl, and Barbara Zielke, 465–94. Bielefeld: Transcript, 2006.
57. Wessendorf, Susanne. “Migrant Belonging, Social Location and the Neighbourhood: Recent Migrants in East London and Birmingham.” Urban Studies 56, no. 1 (2019): 131–146.
58. West, Alexandria L., Rui Zhang, Maya Yampolsky, and Joni Y. Sasaki. “More than the Sum of its Parts: A Transformative Theory of Biculturalism.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 48, no. 7 (2017): 963–990.