Immigrant–Native Disparities in Happiness among Middle-Aged and Older Adults in Western European Countries: The Moderating Role of Social Capital

Abstract

Objective: This study investigated native–immigrant disparities in happiness among middle-aged and older adults in Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands and the moderating role of social capital associated with such disparities. Methods: Cross-sectional data from 2583 respondents aged 50 years or older from 10 origin countries from the 2015 wave of the Migrants’ Welfare State Attitudes survey were used to estimate linear regression models. Results: Older immigrants experienced different levels of happiness compared with native-born individuals. Immigrants’ socioeconomic status and other standard predictors accounted for much of the native–immigrant gap. Depending on origin countries, social capital had differential moderating roles compared to nonimmigrants. Conclusion: Immigrants were not always worse off than native-born residents; they showed a “happiness advantage” after controlling for socioeconomic status and related covariates. Social capital plays an important role in narrowing the immigrant–native gap in happiness.

Keywords

happiness immigrants social capital Europe

In an atmosphere of rising concern about anti-immigration governments and social conflicts in the European Union (EU), understanding and addressing the subjective well-being disparities observed in the European aging immigrant populations is a public health priority. Older immigrants represent a significantly growing part of the total immigrant population (Eurostat, 2019). In 2017, more than 10% of the total population was international migrants (i.e., foreign-born) and about 13% of the international migrants were 65 years old or older (United Nations, 2017). Likewise, large numbers and a steady increase were observed among immigrants aged 50–64 years, who are regarded as “future older immigrants” (Ciobanu et al., 2017). Even more so, aging immigrants are likely to interact differently in shaping preferences for elderly care than the older native population, which calls for this intersectional approach. Immigrants are often perceived as a group that is relatively more vulnerable than the native population due to factors such as marginalization, language barriers, and the subsequent hampered access to healthcare institutions (e.g., Persefoni et al., 2015). These factors are likely to affect older immigrants’ happiness as compared to the older native population.

Older immigrants in Europe, however, are not a catchall group. The aging immigrant population is more diverse than ever, in some measure due to an increasing share from non-Western countries (Eurostat, 2019). Currently, Asian-born and non–EU-born immigrants account for approximately 35% of all aging foreign-born residents in the EU-28 (Eurostat, 2017). This demographic shift stems partly from the increase in the general immigrant population and the fact that many working-age immigrants are aging into the 65 years and older group.

Because of its impending demographic importance, the rapid growth of the aging immigrant population calls for a better understanding of this group’s subjective well-being and associated determinants. Happiness, as a core component of subjective well-being, is receiving more attention in the recent literature as one important indicator of immigrant integration, or the extent to which immigrants are on par with their native-born counterparts (e.g., Calvo et al., 2019; Hendriks, 2015; Markides & Rote, 2019). This knowledge is essential in making informed decisions about prospective immigrants, developing accurate post-immigration orientations for current immigrants, and enhancing policies to support immigrants in achieving greater benefits and well-being. However, disparities in the happiness of immigrants at age 50 years and older relative to their native-born counterparts in Europe have remained largely unexplored.

Social capital, an important predictor of immigrant happiness, may be the key to gaining a better insight into the immigrant–native happiness gap (Derose et al., 2007). Due to linguistic and cultural barriers, aging immigrants tend to have fewer or different friendships and social networks compared with their native-born peers (Sand & Gruber, 2018). They continue to face significant and rising discrimination and anti-immigrant sentiment (e.g., Kende et al., 2018; Stockemer et al., 2020). Values taken from their country of origin (CO) may still influence immigrants’ perceptions of their surroundings and thus their happiness (Schans, 2008). However, few studies have considered the extent to which social capital contributes to this gap among middle-aged and older adults. In addition, the existing research has paid minimal attention to the different roles of social capital in response to the heterogeneity related to COs in the aging population in Europe. Given that differences among immigrants at age 50 years and older are believed to stem from cultural or social factors, there is a particular need for research that clarifies the role of social capital in the gap in happiness across various immigrant populations from different COs.

Using data from the Migrants Welfare State Attitudes (MIFARE) survey from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany in 2015, this study aims to fill this void by investigating immigrant–native gaps in happiness among middle-aged and older adults in Western Europe. We study10 COs¹ in three receiving countries (RCs): the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany. These three RCs have a long tradition of receiving immigrants from other countries, including those considerably farther afield (Castles, 2002). We thus go beyond and extend prior research by assessing the extent to which social capital moderates immigrant–native inequality in happiness. Our focus on CO diversity allows us to better understand the moderating effect of social capital in the immigrant–native happiness gap.

Literature Review

Immigrant–Native Happiness Disparities in Europe

Happiness refers to “an effective, hedonic, or emotional state” (Diener et al., 1985; Diener & Seligman, 2004). It has been shown to be a valid and reliable measure of short-term subjective well-being in later life because it is associated with physical and psychological health (Angner et al., 2013) and is an indicator of social integration (Hendriks & Bartram, 2019; Lobos et al., 2016; Tegegne & Glanville, 2019). Next to the much-studied “healthy (im)migrant effect” (e.g., Markides & Rote, 2019; McDonald & Kennedy, 2004), more and more studies start to focus on the “happy migrant effect.” In the American context, older immigrants had higher levels of happiness than their comparable native-born counterparts (Calvo et al., 2019). Happier older immigrants have been shown to live longer and lead healthier lives. In addition, more happiness among older immigrants may alleviate social inequalities and reduce potential conflicts in RCs (Hendriks & Bartram, 2019).

In the European context, happiness has been less studied among older immigrants. Therefore, it remains unclear whether the “happy migrant effect” also applies in this population. The only study we identified examined immigrant and native-born differences in subjective well-being among individuals aged 50–85 years, by Sand and Gruber (2018). Using the Survey of Health, Aging, and Retirement in Europe, they found that immigrants from Northern and Central Europe reported similar well-being as native-born residents. Southern European, Eastern European, and non-European immigrants reported lower levels of well-being than their native-born counterparts. Research that focused specifically on the happiness of immigrants at age 50 years and older has been very limited across Europe, and findings regarding the happiness of the entire immigrant group in general population studies are not consistent because of variation in immigration policy, selection factors, and health behaviors of RCs (Hendriks, 2015; Hendriks & Bartram, 2019). Most studies found that immigrants generally report worse subjective well-being than native-born populations, especially in the Netherlands, Belgium, and in aggregate data from multiple European countries (De Vroome & Hooghe, 2014; Tegegne & Glanville, 2019). These results hold for samples of adults aged 50 years or older. Exceptions to these trends include Italy, wherein there is no significant difference in well-being between natives and immigrants (Sand & Gruber, 2018). Research in Germany has shown that the happiness advantages of immigrants are only present in early years and that similar to findings in other countries, immigrants report a steeper decline in happiness over time regardless of socioeconomic gains (Obućina, 2013). There are many reasons for the inconsistent patterns of well-being differences between immigrants and native born. Immigration occurs for a variety of reasons, and immigrant characteristics may differ and depend on obstacles. It is also true that differences in assimilation resulting from lack of access to support or language barriers might lead to a happiness disadvantage (Solé-Auró & Crimmins, 2008). Moreover, much research found that COs, more so than RCs, influence immigrant well-being in Europe. Different COs mean different immigration patterns, cultures, and reference groups; all aspects that have been found to affect how immigrants evaluate their happiness (Vaillant & Wolff, 2010).

In addition, previous research suggests that a series of health and social factors may also drive the happiness among immigrants and native older adults differently, and while happiness and health are closely linked, human and financial capital has been shown to moderate health-related outcomes among immigrants and natives (Markides & Rote, 2019). It is well established that there is a positive, although moderate, relationship between income and subjective well-being across the life span (Solé-Auró & Crimmins, 2008). Generally, the more vulnerable immigrants and immigrant groups (i.e., with a relatively lower socioeconomic status) would be negatively affected by this (e.g., Van Tubergen et al., 2004). Another example is discrimination or people’s trust in the RC’s government, which is a factor that negatively affects happiness of individuals in later life (Calvo et al., 2019). In addition, these factors may differently benefit some immigrants over others by origin. For instance, older non-Western immigrants are likely to participate in more religious activities than other immigrant groups, and this institution offers a beneficial resource for coping with challenges in life, which translates to happiness advantage (Tegegne & Glanville, 2019).

Group Heterogeneity among Immigrants

In addition, the growing diversity of the aging immigrant population calls for a better understanding of factors associated with the native–immigrant gap in happiness. Most survey studies in Europe are either limited by small samples of immigrants and are thus often lumped together as one heterogeneous group or are focused on only a handful of immigrant groups. The heterogeneity in immigrant groups has been largely ignored. Moreover, the traditional “Western” and “non-Western” classification cannot depict COs differences both inside and outside Europe.

Currently, immigrants from COs such as Spain, Great Britain, Poland, Romania, the United States, Japan, China, Russia, Turkey, and the Philippines generally consist of voluntary immigrants, meaning that they presumably chose to migrate based on their own initiative for reasons such as education, labor, or family reunification (Bekhuis et al., 2018). Immigrants from earlier cohorts (from the 1980s) commonly migrated with a so-called blue-collar status or as lesser-skilled migrants, whereas latter waves increasingly encompassed knowledgeable and educated migrants. Although there are not clear ethnic enclaves, the earlier migrants do tend to look out for one another. As a result, those groups tend to have a stronger sense of belonging and connection to other migrants from their COs, and community effects are often found (Schans, 2008; Van Tubergen et al.,2004). Immigrants from COs also differ strongly in their need for healthcare services and their COs healthcare systems (known as the state socialization hypothesis).

Conversely, later waves of Polish, Turkish, Spanish, and Chinese immigrants, for example, were higher skilled and partly due to a shorter intention of stay; these groups commonly felt a lesser sense of belonging to immigrant groups in the RC (Van Mol & De Valk, 2016). The same can be expected for immigrants from the United States, Japan, and Great Britain, who generally show a lower degree of state support recipiency (Statistics Netherlands, 2016). We know less about Filipino and Russian migrants in terms of their acculturation patterns. However, Filipino immigrants are predominantly women and presumably less likely to have migrated for family reunification purposes (Bekhuis et al., 2018). Russians mostly started to migrate after the fall of the Berlin wall, and the majority entered the Netherlands and Denmark after 2000 (Bekhuis et al., 2018).

These various waves of migration patterns and subsequent settlement patterns are likely to yield different ramifications in terms of the formation of social embeddedness in the RC. Some COs have more established and deeper rooted migrant communities than other COs. For example, in the case of Turkish or Spanish immigrants, the earlier migration waves were often included in the receiving countries government-sponsored schemes after the Second World War. These groups are thus deeply rooted in the RCs, while their ties to their CO are still strong. In that way, they may benefit from the two-sourced social support that is likely to create a strong community effect that may differ from RC to RC (Van Tubergen et al., 2004). Acculturation patterns are bound to be different for the later waves of migration flows, especially when the COs are not strongly rooted in RCs.

Aging Immigrant Social Capital and Happiness

Social capital is a broad umbrella and a much-contested concept. Although there is no universally accepted definition of social capital, it generally refers to shared property based on community activities and not of individuals alone. Bourdieu (1986) highlighted social support in a network as social capital, whereas Coleman (1994) identified social capital as relationships that enable or constrain the achievement of goals in life. In the field of immigration, both schools of thought apply. Most research found that social connections and the social capital embedded in them are important for aging immigrants’ social, cultural, and psychological adjustment in RCs (Markides & Rote, 2019). Not only do social connections influence immigration decisions—for example, through existing ties between the OC and RC—but they also facilitate social and economic integration after immigration. Older immigrants utilize social ties to obtain information, resources, and social support, which are well documented as one of the strongest predictors of well-being. In addition, older immigrants’ feeling of comfort and security increases once social support is assured, especially for those in need of care and support (Nyqvist et al., 2013).

Despite the crucial importance of social capital for immigrants’ adaption and acculturation in RCs, previous studies found that immigrants confront a social capital disadvantage compared with the native-born population during their lifetime (Renema, Meuleman, & Lubbers, 2019; Solé-Auró & Crimmins, 2008; Tegegne & Glanville, 2019). Immigration is costly in terms of social connections and the resources embedded in them because it is often accompanied by significant disruption of existing social ties (Lancee, 2012). Meanwhile, the formation of new social connections in RCs is often hampered by linguistic and cultural differences, leading to social capital deficits among immigrants, especially those from non-Western countries (Zorlu, 2013). A lack of such connections could potentially hinder immigrants from obtaining their welfare rights (Seibel, 2019), which are especially crucial for older immigrants, who tend to have a higher risk of healthcare need than younger immigrants. Moreover, recent studies indicated that aging immigrants, particularly those from non-Western societies, may have less trust than natives (Sand & Gruber, 2018). The cultural perspective suggests that the CO is an important determinant of their level of trust. On the other hand, exceptions showed that older immigrants may receive higher returns from social capital because social connections are important for economic and social adaption (Hao & Johnson, 2000).

However, recent research on aging immigrants in Europe showed differential returns on social capital in terms of its effects on happiness. In particular, some social capital components may differentially benefit immigrants from some COs over others. For example, experiences with political oppression in the immigrants’ CO can lead to lower levels of happiness (Huijts & Kraaykamp, 2012). In Europe, immigrants’ happiness is influenced by exposure to discrimination due to their CO and the ability to socially integrate with natives. For some immigrant groups such as Chinese, sense of belonging may be more crucial because a stronger sense of belonging in the RC can help with social integration and minimize social isolation (Barbiano di Belgiojoso, Cela, & Rimoldi, 2020). There is also evidence that Turkish and Romanian immigrants tend to live in large immigrant communities or seek each other out more (De Vroome & Hooghe, 2014). Values and social norms shared among immigrant groups may constrain opportunities and discourage the formation of new social connections (Tegegne & Glanville, 2019). Older immigrants may feel overly burdened by the expectations of insular immigrant groups, thus hampering their social integration and resulting in worse well-being. Given the focus on potential differential returns on social capital components among aging immigrants in the literature, further study is warranted.

Despite the clear significance of social capital for immigrants’ social adjustment in older age, previous research on social capital and happiness among older immigrants in Europe only focused on immigrants, with no comparison to their native-born counterparts (Solé-Auró & Crimmins, 2008). It is still not clear whether social capital mitigates or contributes to the gap in happiness or whether social capital is more or less important as a predictor of happiness among older immigrants from certain COs. This is an important gap in the literature, given the disparities between immigrants and native adults aged 50 years or older. Thus, the current study sought to build on previous research by exploring the following questions:

Research Question 1: Does the happiness gap observed apply to all immigrant groups from different COs?

Research Question 2: Does social capital moderate the potential happiness disparities between immigrants and natives?

Methods

Data and Sample

Our sample was drawn from the MIFARE study, a cross-country survey conducted in the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark in 2015. In each surveyed country, the MIFARE obtained samples of native residents and immigrants from 10 COs: China, Japan, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Renema et al., 2019). For this stratified sample, immigrants were oversampled and covered different societal and economic positions. This (self-report) survey was conducted online (computer-assisted self-interview) or by postal mail, and the respondent could choose the official language in the RC or their native tongue and was given an incentive to reduce nonresponse. For the sampling procedure, net samples between 1000 and 1100 immigrants from each CO were drawn from the population register, using the following inclusion criteria: (a) older than 15 years when they migrated from their CO and (2) between 18 and 75 years old. In Germany, registration data were acquired from the municipal level. Based on previous research, a target of 300 respondents per group within each CO was aimed.

The response rate among different ethnic groups was between 22% and 47%. A sample of 9974 was reached. Full comparisons were made in Denmark, and the results show that there is little deviation from the response rate’s representativeness for each group. For the Netherlands and Germany, the comparisons with the population numbers of each group were less extensive due to national regulations. Yet, we wish to highlight that we observed small under- or overrepresentativeness in responses with regards to group’s welfare dependency. The gender distributions nevertheless are a good reflection of the national population in both countries. Overall, while keeping the small deviations in mind, we can conclude that for each CO group in each RC, all strata are represented (socioeconomically) and that the MIFARE data represent both the older and newer migration inflows. More detailed information about data collection and the response rate can be found in the MIFARE methodological report (Bekhuis et al., 2018). In the final sample, we included individuals aged 50 years or older (N = 2583).

Measures

Dependent variable

Happiness was measured using a self-reported scale derived from the World Value Survey (Bekhuis et al., 2018): “As a final question, we would like to ask, when you take all things together, how happy would you say you are?” Answers ranged from 0 (extremely unhappy) to 10 (extremely happy).

Independent variables

Four measures of immigration status were included in our analyses. We used information on country of birth to distinguish between native-born and foreign-born participants. Among foreign-born participants, we further classified respondents according to their CO. The RC variable included Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark. The variable for years of residence was measured as the number of years respondents had lived in the RC and recoded into five groups (native, < 5 years, 6–10 years, 11–20 years, and 20 + years). Citizenship in the RC was dichotomized as 1 (yes) and 0 (no).

Social capital was measured with five dichotomous variables. Sense of belonging in the RC was a measure of respondents’ sense of belonging to the RC (1 = close or very close and 0 = not at all, weak, or moderate). Generalized trust was a measure of respondents regarding whether only a few people in the RC can be trusted completely (1 = disagree or strongly disagree and 0 = strongly agree, agree, or neutral). Given prior findings of the importance of distinguishing the source (Renema & Lubbers, 2019), we tested the inter- and intra-ethnic social capital separately. Friends in the RC referred to whether some or most of respondents’ friends were originally from the RC (1 = yes and 0 = no). CO friends referred to whether some or most of respondents’ friends shared the same ethnic background (1 = yes and 0 = no). Last, we included contact with the CO, which indicated whether respondents contacted family members and friends in the CO weekly or more (1 = yes and 0 = no).

Covariates

We followed previous research on happiness among aging immigrants in selecting our control variables (Calvo et al., 2019; Markides & Rote, 2019; Tegegne & Glanville, 2019). Gender was dichotomously coded as 0 (men) and 1 (women). Age was measured in continuous years. Education was classified into three groups: primary education or less, secondary education, and tertiary education. We measured monthly household income based on responses to a self-reported question. Because many respondents did not answer this question, we created a categorical variable: “€0–€1999,” “€2000–€3999,” “€4000 or more,” and “missing.” We also controlled for employment status, whether the respondent was married or cohabiting and whether the respondent had a child living at home.

Beyond the sociodemographic correlates of happiness, we also added controls relevant in assessing the relationship among social capital, happiness, and aging processes. Self-rated health was measured with responses to the question, “How is your health in general?” Answers were recoded as 1 (very good or good) and 0 (fair, bad, or very bad). Language proficiency, which is an important predictor of happiness for aging immigrants (Mui et al., 2007), was measured with a dichotomous variable indicating whether the respondent could speak the RC’s official language well. Religiosity was a dichotomous variable indicating whether the respondents described themselves as religious. We also included a measure to control for perceived discrimination, which plays an important role in shaping health among immigrants (Calvo et al., 2019). This variable was based on the question, “How often do you think that the migrants from your CO are discriminated against in the RC?” and dichotomized as 1 (very often, often, or sometimes) and 0 (almost never or never). Finally, immigrants often have higher levels of trust in government than native-born residents, and this might suppress the immigrant–native gap (Tegegne & Glanville, 2019); we controlled for trust in government, which is a dichotomous variable of respondent’s trust in public officials. All information on the operationalization of the concepts used for this study is presented in the Table A1.

Analytic Strategy

Our analytic approach examined whether social capital moderated the immigrant–native gap in happiness among middle-aged and older adults in Western Europe. To address our research questions, we started by comparing the happiness and social capital of native-born residents versus immigrants using bivariate t-tests or chi-square tests to identify significant differences. Second, we used ordinary least squares (OLSs) regression models for all respondents in our sample. We applied a progressive adjustment strategy. In Model 1, we regressed happiness on CO and RC only to examine the unadjusted relationship between CO groups and happiness. Model 2 included other immigration status covariates such as citizenship and years of stay. Model 3 controlled for individual socioeconomic status and other related factors. The last model added social capital indicators to examine whether the predicted effect of immigrant status diminished when social capital was entered. Finally, we assessed whether the interactions between CO and social capital indicators were associated with respondents’ happiness as the final step in our analyses. The standard errors of all multivariate models were clustered by CO in each RC to account for the nested structure of the data.²

Data were analyzed in Stata version 15. For all models, individuals with missing responses were excluded (n = 80, 3% of the total sample), and complete-case analyses were conducted. In sensitivity analyses, we used multiple imputed data and found the results showed little substantive difference.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 summarizes descriptive statistics for happiness and social capital measures for immigrant and native middle-aged and older adult subsamples. Comparing the univariate statistics for immigrants to native-born residents, there were significant differences in social capital indicators. We found that Filipinos were happier, whereas Russians and Turks indicated lower happiness scores. Immigrants reported a lower sense of belonging in the RC but higher levels of generalized trust. In terms of inter- and intra-ethnic social capital, non-EU immigrants except for those from Japan and the United States had fewer friends in the RC. Turkish, Romanian, and Filipino immigrants indicated having more friends in the CO. Spanish, Russian, Filipino, and Chinese immigrants reported more contact with family and friends in the CO.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Immigrant and Native-Born Middle-Aged and Older Adults in Social Capital and Happiness.

		Natives	Philippines	Japan	China	Poland	Russia	Spain	GB	Turkey	Romania	US
Happiness (1–10)	Mean	7.27	7.85^***	7.43	7.13	7.09	6.75^***	7.37	7.49	6.34^***	7.03	7.42
Happiness (1–10)	SE	1.73	1.75	1.91	1.80	1.87	1.97	1.83	1.96	2.38	2.04	2.08
Sense of belonging in the RC	Mean	.72	.49^***	.27^***	.39^***	.47^***	.33^***	.63	.56^***	.41^***	.56^***	.59^***
Sense of belonging in the RC	SE	.45	.50	.44	.49	.50	.47	.49	.50	.49	.50	.49
Generalized trust	Mean	.33	.37	.41^*	.45^*	.31	.37	.52^***	.58^***	.33	.33	.58^***
Generalized trust	SE	.47	.49	.49	.50	.46	.48	.50	.49	0.47	.47	.49
RC friends	Mean	.98	.50^***	.67^***	.36^***	.62^***	.57^***	.83^***	.83^***	.53^***	.68^***	.89^***
RC friends	SE	.14	.50	.47	.48	.49	.50	.38	.38	.50	.47	.31
CO friends	Mean	0	.65	.57	.50	.51	.59	.27	.22	.85	.68	.21
CO friends	SE	0	.48	.50	.50	.50	.49	.44	0.42	.36	.47	.41
Contact with CO	Mean	0	.53	.35	.53	.44	.54	.56	.46	.39	.30	.49
Contact with CO	SE	0	.50	.48	.50	.50	.50	.50	.50	.49	.46	.50
N		538	137	264	104	211	272	105	411	152	117	272

Note. * indicates statistical significance in difference between the immigrant group and native-born group. RC = residence country; CO = country of origin. For CO friends and contact with CO, no statistical difference test was conducted. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

Table A1 provides sample characteristics by the respondents’ CO. Overall, immigrants were younger. Filipino, Japanese, Chinese, Polish, and Russian Immigrants were predominantly women, whereas the majority of immigrants from Great Britain, Turkey, and the United States were men. These differences generally align with national register data (Bekhuis, 2018). Turkish, Romanian, and Chinese immigrants were more likely to have citizenship. Spanish and Turkish immigrants had stayed in the RC longer, whereas Russians had a shorter length of stay. Regarding socioeconomic status, immigrants generally were better educated and more likely to work than native-born residents, except the Turkish. Japanese, Chinese, British, and American immigrants had more wealth than native-born populations, whereas Filipino, Polish, Russia, Turkish, and Romanian immigrants had less wealth.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression Analyses

Table 2 presents the results from the regression models predicting happiness. Model 1 includes only CO and RC variables to provide the baseline average difference in happiness between native-born adults and immigrants in the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark. Filipinos were predicted to score .51 (p < .001) units higher on happiness than natives, and Chinese, Russian, and Turkish immigrants were predicted to score .18, .51, and .91 units lower on happiness than natives, respectively. Hence, although some groups appeared to be at an advantage or disadvantage in terms of happiness, immigrants from other COs did not differ significantly from the native-born population.

Table 2.

Ordinary Least Squares Regressions of the Associations between Social Capital Indicators and Happiness (N = 2583).

	CO and RC Only	Adding Immigrant Status	Adding Controls	Adding Social Capital
Immigration status
Country of origin
(Ref. Native)
Philippines	.505^***	.944	1.381**	1.493**
	(.087)	(.502)	(.471)	(.473)
Japan	.140	.596	.779	.991^*
	(.091)	(0.501)	(.436)	(.441)
China	−.179^*	.299	.871	.963^*
	(.077)	(.492)	(.428)	(.447)
Poland	−.162	.289	0.967*	1.050*
	(.178)	(.519)	(.452)	(.461)
Russia	−.513^**	.121	.908	1.019^*
	(.165)	(.539)	(.470)	(.487)
Spain	.104	.522	.710	.696
	(.126)	(.510)	(.437)	(.457)
Great Britain	.200	.662	.616	.643
	(.106)	(.490)	(.426)	(.442)
Turkey	−.914^*	−.512	.515	.516
	(.078)	(.447)	(.364)	(.367)
Romania	−.145	.261	.807*	.880^*
	(.120)	(.453)	(.373)	(.370)
United States	.145	.611	.573	.564
	(.089)	(.496)	(.447)	(.459)
Receiving country
(Ref. Netherlands)
Denmark	.158	.057	−.137	−.097
	(.087)	(.076)	(.074)	(.067)
Germany	−.203	−.423^***	−.253^*	−.147
	(.114)	(.115)	(.100)	(.101)
Citizenship of the RC		.223	.111	.105
		(.114)	(.103)	(.088)
Years of stay
(Ref. Native)
<5 years		−.086	−.268	−0.224
		(.558)	(.469)	(.444)
6–10 years		−.393	−.480	−.437
		(.510)	(.444)	(.435)
11–20 years		−.657	−.590	−.597
		(.529)	(.439)	(.422)
20+ years		−.249	−.369	−.434
		(.480)	(.368)	(.359)
Social capital
Sense of belonging in the RC				0.530^***
Sense of belonging in the RC				(0.075)
Generalized trust				0.415^***
Generalized trust				(0.078)
RC friends				0.116
RC friends				(0.112)
CO friends				0.071
CO friends				(0.088)
Weekly contact with CO				0.182^***
Weekly contact with CO				(0.077)
Individual characteristics
Women			.077	.041
Women			(.087)	(.083)
Age			.030^***	.031^***
Age			(.006)	(.006)
Educational attainment
(Ref. primary education and less)
Secondary education			−.146	−.219
Secondary education			(.129)	(0.124)
Tertiary education			−.154	−.257
Tertiary education			(.144)	(.136)
Monthly household income
(Ref. 0–€1999)
€2000–€3999			.375^***	.329^***
€2000–€3999			(.095)	(.092)
€4000 and above			.723^***	.673^***
€4000 and above			(.113)	(.113)
Income missing			.437^*	.482^**
Income missing			(.164)	(.144)
Employed			.179^*	.170^*
Employed			(.073)	(.075)
Married or cohabit			.338^***	.303^**
Married or cohabit			(.087)	(.084)
Child at home			-.160^*	-.153
Child at home			(.073)	(.077)
Good self-reported health			.998^***	.939^***
Good self-reported health			(.075)	(.077)
Speak official language			.135	-.021
Speak official language			(.125)	(.125)
Being religious			.187	.143
Being religious			(.101)	(.096)
Perceived discrimination			-.753^***	-.615^***
Perceived discrimination			(.098)	(.100)
Trust in government			.322^***	.271^***
Trust in government			(.071)	(.073)
Constant	7.250^***	7.111^***	4.021^***	3.520^***
Constant	(.101)	(.118)	(.364)	(.429)
Log likelihood (model)	−5342.88	−5332.08	−5107.34	−5057.00
AIC	10711.77	10700.16	10274.70	10174.01

Note. Standard errors are in parentheses and clustered by country of origin in each residence country. AIC = Akaike information criterion; RC = residence country; CO = country of origin.* p < 0.05,** p < 0.01,*** p < 0.001.

Model 2 accounted for citizenship and years of stay, which explained some of immigrant status differences across immigrant groups. The statistical difference in the immigrant–native gap disappeared. Model 3 included controls for socioeconomic status, health, religiosity, perceived discrimination, and trust in government. Unsurprisingly, the immigrant–native gap was no longer statistically significant. Filipino, Polish, and Romanian immigrants were predicted to score 1.38, .97, and .81 units higher on happiness, respectively. These results suggest that the economic resources and other predictors are sufficient to explain the immigrant–native gap in happiness. After adjusting for controls, middle-aged and older immigrants experienced higher levels of happiness than comparable native-born individuals.³

Model 4 added all social capital variables, and we found that the “happiness advantage” remained significant, but additional statistically significant relationships emerged for more immigrant groups, including Japanese, Chinese, Polish, Russian, and Romanian immigrants. The coefficients significantly increased (Paternoster et al., 1998).⁴ However, for other COs, including Spain and the United States, the magnitude of coefficients declined. Altogether, because social capital is either more or less beneficial for immigrants than natives, there is evidence that social capital moderates the relationship.

For the relationships between social capital and happiness, we found that sense of belonging in the RC, generalized trust, and weekly contact with people in the CO were associated with happiness after adjusting for covariates. Having a sense of belonging in the RC predicted a .53-unit increase in happiness (SE = .08, p < .001). The predicted difference in happiness for a respondent who reported generalized trust in the RC versus no trust was .42 (SE = .08, p < .001). Regarding contact with others in the RC, we saw that the predicted effect size was more modest. Contacting family members and friends in the RC weekly or more was predicted to boost happiness by .18 units (SE = .08, p < .05).

Finally, we interacted country of origin by each measure of social capital in our regression models. Abbreviated model results are presented in Table 3. The coefficients for the interactions and Wald test results (not shown in the table, ps < .001) suggest social capital had a significant moderating effect on happiness, although the role of each type in shaping the happiness of middle-aged and older adults differed by CO. Having a sense of belonging in the RC significantly increased the happiness advantage for Japanese immigrants. Generalized trust brought a significant happiness advantage for Chinese, Polish, and Romanian immigrants but a disadvantage for British immigrants. Only British immigrants had a significantly higher happiness advantage when they reported more CO friends. Having weekly contact with the CO increased happiness but brought immigrant disadvantages for Filipino, Chinese, Spanish, and British immigrants. These results suggest that differential returns on social capital exist for immigrants compared to nonimmigrants.

Table 3.

Associations between Social Capital Indicators and Happiness by Country of Origin (N = 2583).

	Sense of Belonging in the RC	Generalized Trust	RC Friends	CO Friends	Contact with CO
Social capital	.498^***	.434^***	.169	−.261	0.548^**
Social capital	(.068)	(.063)	(.950)	(.206)	(0.158)
CO
(Ref. Native)
Philippines	1.654^**	1.306^**	1.356	1.514^**	1.503^**
Philippines	(.459)	(.390)	(1.088)	(.488)	(.446)
Japan	.853^*	.580	.749	.912	.700
Japan	(.402)	(.360)	(1.068)	(0.471)	(.440)
China	.886^*	.611	1.009	.894	.926^*
China	(.400)	(.360)	(1.056)	(0.455)	(0.446)
Poland	1.160^**	.802^*	.803	1.104^*	.951^*
Poland	(.400)	(.383)	(1.050)	(0.465)	(0.464)
Russia	.981^*	.797	.728	.957	.834
Russia	(.445)	(.406)	(1.086)	(.500)	(.468)
Spain	.920^*	.739^*	.447	.680	.736
Spain	(.426)	(.361)	(1.059)	(.478)	(.430)
Great Britain	.614	.639	.313	.608	.679
Great Britain	(.420)	(.359)	(1.045)	(.458)	(.432)
Turkey	.473	.681	1.058	.075	.452
Turkey	(.359)	(.395)	(.986)	(.524)	(.456)
Romania	1.010^*	.532	.362	1.434^**	.801^*
Romania	(.389)	(0.345)	(1.053)	(.518)	(0.389)
United States	.607	.104	.097	.713	.344
United States	(.461)	(.403)	(1.070)	(.476)	(.458)
CO*social capital
(Ref. Native)
Philippines*social capital	−.314	.071	.146	.206	−.702^**
Philippines*social capital	(.172)	(.117)	(0.952)	(.221)	(.217)
Japan*social capital	.492^*	.346	.084	.191	−.213
Japan*social capital	(.203)	(.182)	(0.952)	(.275)	(.199)
China*social capital	.235	.351^***	−.214	.415	−.584^*
China*social capital	(.263)	(.074)	(.945)	(.209)	(.260)
Poland*social capital	−.161	.217^*	.274	.143	−.441
Poland*social capital	(.220)	(.087)	(.955)	(.273)	(.331)
Russia*social capital	.242	.050	.353	.349	−.328
Russia*social capital	(.360)	(.083)	(.977)	(.211)	(.166)
Spain*social capital	−.193	−.264	.327	.671	−.546^**
Spain*social capital	(.132)	(.204)	(.950)	(.463)	(.172)
Great Britain*social capital	.226	−.242^*	.374	.660^**	−.610^**
Great Britain*social capital	(.127)	(.091)	(.947)	(.216)	(.203)
Turkey*social capital	.302	−.935	−.972	.874	−.344
Turkey*social capital	(.288)	(.650)	(.972)	(.596)	(.521)
Romania*social capital	−.191	.553^**	.671	−.556	−.417
Romania*social capital	(.329)	(.155)	(.969)	(.324)	(.340)
United States*social capital	.102	.589^**	.530	.351	.330
United States*social capital	(.250)	(.179)	(.946)	(.092)	(.092)
Constant	3.720^***	4.052^***	3.934^***	3.956^***	3.973^***
Constant	(.431)	(.359)	(.749)	(.378)	(.376)

Notes. RC = residence country; CO = country of origin. Data are from MIFARE wave I and restricted to participants 50 years and older. Figures in each column are from a separate regression. The dependent variable is the happiness score. Social capital is the independent variable listed as column heading. All models are based on OLS regressions and controlled for immigration status and individual covariates. Standard errors are in parentheses and clustered by country of origin in each residence country.* p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Sensitivity Analyses

In addition to our main analyses, we conducted four sets of sensitivity analyses to investigate additional important questions regarding the role of social capital in the immigrant–native gap in happiness. First, because some research suggested that social capital mediated the influence of the CO on happiness (Tegegne & Glanville, 2019), we examined mediating effects of each type of social capital. Sobel test results suggest that the mediations were not significant (ps > .05). Therefore, there was no evidence that social capital mediated the relationship between immigrant status and subjective well-being.

Second, we conducted additional analyses to examine whether middle-aged and older adults with higher socioeconomic status had more social capital and thus an enlarged immigrant–native gap in happiness. We used monthly household income as a proxy for socioeconomic status and examined its interactions among COs and each aspect of social capital. Although income level was highly correlated with each form of social capital, we did not observe any interaction effect among income level, social capital, and CO, indicating that social capital had the same effect on the immigrant–native happiness gap for all income groups (results available on request).

Third, we used education as a proxy to distinguish between high- and low-skilled immigrants and then interacted it with social capital and COs. Wald test results for the interactions showed education had a significant moderating effect on the immigrant–native happiness gap (ps < .05). In general, as education increased, so did the association between the social capital and happiness advantage of immigrants. However, regarding friends in the RC, middle-aged and older immigrants felt less happy than natives when they had higher levels of education. Having a sense of belonging in the RC was related to decreased happiness among highly educated Russian immigrants. For Filipino and British immigrants with general trust, as education increased, their happiness declined (results available on request).

Finally, we interacted the COs with the RCs to investigate whether COs influenced immigrant happiness differently in the three RCs. We found that the happiness difference was most pronounced in the Netherlands and Denmark before and after controlling for covariates (results available on request). However, COs influenced the immigrant–native happiness difference more than the RC (results available on request).

Discussion

Prior research typically exhibited the same or lower levels of happiness among middle-aged or older immigrants than their native-born counterparts in Europe (Sand & Gruber, 2018). Our study built on this literature to explore (a) whether the “happiness disadvantage” was observed among older immigrants from different COs and (b) whether social capital moderated the relationships between COs and happiness. To our knowledge, this is the first study to attempt to disentangle the potential effect of immigrant and nativity status on happiness and examine the role of social capital among middle-aged and older adults from certain ethnic backgrounds in Europe.

Concerning the first question, our findings are novel and reveal that immigrants from the Philippines reported higher levels of happiness; Chinese, Russian, and Turkish immigrants reported lower levels of happiness; and Japanese, Spanish, British, Polish, Romanian and US immigrants reported similar happiness levels as the native-born population. This finding is inconsistent with previous population-based studies, which have shown that immigrants from only Northern or Central Europe were as happy as their native-born peers in the Netherlands and Denmark (Sand & Gruber, 2018). Southern European, Eastern European, and non-European immigrants were less happy than the native-born population. It is also inconsistent with other population studies among immigrants in Western Europe using datasets such as the European Social Survey (De Vroome & Hooghe, 2014; Solé-Auró & Crimmins, 2008; Tegegne & Glanville, 2019).

A potential explanation for our divergent findings could stem from variations in data source and samples. Many previous studies were conducted among immigrant communities with high levels of poverty, and they mostly oversampled immigrants of Turkish (or Moroccan) origin (De Vroome & Hooghe, 2014; Markides & Rote, 2019; Sand & Gruber, 2018). Our sample covered multiple ethnic groups, some of which are highly under researched groups in the European context, especially the new immigrant waves from the Philippines, Japan, and China. These immigrants have higher socioeconomic status and more social resources (Ooijevaar & Verkooijen, 2015); thus, their happiness level might be higher than prior immigrant waves. However, we found that immigrants had an advantage in happiness when models were adjusted for covariates of happiness. These results suggest that older immigrants’ socioeconomic status and other standard predictors (such as self-reported health) accounted for much of the native–immigrant gap. In other words, when older immigrants achieved higher socioeconomic standing, they felt happier than natives. Social capital further expanded the native–immigrant gap. Although initially we observed significant deficits in levels of happiness, these could be almost fully explained by financial and social resources.

Interestingly, having RC or CO friends was not associated with happiness, and this contradicted with many prior social capital findings in Europe (Arampatzi, Burger, & Novik, 2018; Renema & Lubbers, 2019; Tegegne & Glanville, 2019). Unlike the primarily working-age immigrants included in previous population-based studies, the adults included in our sample were at the end of their migratory careers. Emerging evidence shows that among middle-aged and older immigrants, happiness increases with perceived social support rather than actual personal network size (Markides & Rote, 2019). This may be why weekly contact with people in the CO was significant in our model.

Concerning the second research question regarding the moderating effect of social capital on the observed immigrant–native happiness gap, our findings revealed that for middle-aged and older immigrants from different COs, social capital had differential returns compared to nonimmigrants. Our findings align with prior evidence that the correlates of happiness among middle-aged and older immigrants may differ cross-culturally and among COs (De Vroome & Hooghe, 2014; Markides & Rote, 2019). For example, the effect of a greater sense of belonging to the RC on happiness was stronger for Japanese immigrants. Middle-aged and older Japanese immigrants are mostly white-collar professionals and businesspeople, which reflects a considerably higher socioeconomic status than other immigrant communities. They are likely to perceive RCs as destinations to pursue career or personal goals that might be difficult to achieve in Japan. Having a sense of belonging in the RC would motivate them to search more for personal fulfillment and thus promotes their happiness (Martinez-Callaghan & Gil-Lacruz, 2017). The effect of generalized trust on happiness was greater for Chinese, Polish, Romanian, and US immigrants. We speculate that this related to their sense of integration (except US immigrants) because these immigrant groups might experience a high sense of discrimination due to their integration patterns. Generally, in West Europe, earlier waves of Polish, Chinese, and Romanian immigrant groups arrived with a blue-collar status. Most respondents had moved to the RCs decades before reaching later life and had long overcome the initial stressors associated with starting a new life in a foreign land. With generalized trust, our respondents could have been socially integrated in the RC and had a more positive assessment of their happiness. In terms of inter- and intra-ethnic social capital, although increased contact with people from the CO was positively associated with happiness, its effect was weaker for immigrants from the Philippines, China, Spain, and Great Britain. This might be due to lesser relevance of their sense of belonging to CO groups, especially for higher skilled immigrants or those married to a native in the RC.

Despite these interesting findings, this study should be examined in light of its limitations. The most prominent weakness of the present study was its inability to address the problems of reverse causation and omitted variable bias. The reliance on a cross-sectional study does not allow for causal conclusions about relationships between immigration and happiness among different middle-aged and older adult ethnic groups. Future research should collect longitudinal data to better understand the mechanisms through which this overserved effect operates. Another limitation concerns the fact that social capital indicators were limited in scope and did not address specific social capital related to aging. A more holistic inquiry about social capital might have resulted in different findings.

Nevertheless, the present study provides a fresh perspective on immigrant–native happiness differences among middle-aged and older populations and how social capital influences the degree to which immigrants’ COs explain the gap in happiness. The study also added to the emerging body of literature on immigrant effects that often show divergence from previous findings in the American, Canadian, or Australian context (Markides & Rote, 2019). Our study highlights that immigrants were not always worse off than native-born residents; in fact, many immigrants showed a “happiness advantage” after controlling for socioeconomic status and related covariates. Social capital plays an important role in the immigrant–native gap in happiness, but there is no single conclusion to draw here. Particularly, our research illuminated the mechanisms through which happiness disparities between CO groups may be produced and maintained. Thus, this study emphasizes the importance of social capital to achieve the full integration of middle-aged and older immigrants of all origins and their long-term commitment to life in RCs. It also contributes to alleviating social inequalities and strengthening social cohesion.

The finding of this study should be useful in expanding our understanding of current aging and immigrant issues facing all European countries and provides information from which policymakers can identify modifiable structural factors on happiness and social capital development of a growing and aging immigrant population. There have been changes in the diversity of immigrant populations in Europe, with the largest growth in immigrants from Asia and Russia. Better understanding of these new trends in older immigrant happiness in both sending and receiving nations is important to shape the discourse on social, economic, and health policy related to immigration. The finding draws attention to the high complexity of older immigrants’ processes that develops at the overlap between macro, meso, and micro social levels, opening a new avenue to scrutinize it from an interdisciplinary perspective.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Nan Jiang

Notes

Appendix A

Table A1.

Descriptive Characteristics and Correlates of Happiness by Country of Origin (N = 2583)

		Natives	Philippines	Japan	China	Poland	Russia	Spain	GB	Turkey	Romania	US
Residence country (%)	Netherlands	34.02	8.07	5.22	3.64	6.49	12.97	1.74	12.82	3.01	3.96	8.07
	Denmark	17.06	6.76	12.66	5.03	7.63	9.43	4.56	17.92	5.90	2.04	11.01
	Germany	15.61	0.00	10.31	2.50	10.75	10.31	5.30	15.02	8.54	9.72	11.93
Citizenship (%)	No	0	41.61	52.65	38.46	44.55	50.37	43.81	57.66	37.50	27.35	48.53
Citizenship (%)	Yes	100	58.39	47.35	61.54	55.45	49.63	56.19	42.34	62.50	72.65	51.47
Years of stay (%)	<5 years	0	7.30	11.36	9.65	8.53	7.72	7.62	9.49	1.32	12.82	9.93
	6–10 years	0	10.95	6.06	7.69	22.27	11.76	2.86	6.57	7.66	8.55	6.99
	11–20 years	0	28.47	16.29	33.65	12.32	62.13	8.57	16.06	9.87	10.26	20.59
	20+ years	0	52.55	65.15	48.08	55.45	17.65	80.00	67.40	80.92	68.38	61.76
Gender (%)	Men	45.72	15.33	26.89	23.08	36.97	25.00	46.67	67.88	55.92	41.88	56.62
Gender (%)	Women	54.28	84.67^***	73.11^***	76.92^***	63.03^*	75.00^***	53.33	32.12^***	44.08^*	58.12	43.38^**
Age	Mean	62.22	57.97^***	59.94^***	56.82^***	58.73^***	57.24^***	58.84^***	59.65^***	58.66^***	58.09^***	59.61^***
Age	SE	8.35	6.76	7.37	6.34	6.15	5.73	6.81	7.07	7.38	5.52	7.14
Education (%)	Primary education and less	16.73	3.65	9.85	9.62	5.69	2.57	12.38	12.65	55.26	4.27	4.04
	Secondary education	69.14	27.01	29.17	33.65	73.93	35.29	56.19	38.69	31.58	58.97	20.96
	Tertiary education	14.13	69.34^***	60.98^***	56.73^***	20.38^***	62.13^***	31.43^***	48.66^***	13.16^***	36.75^***	75.00^***
Monthly household income (%)	0–€1999	28.25	32.85	22.35	33.65	52.61	51.10	24.76	20.19	49.34	40.17	18.38
	€2000–€3999	41.08	36.50	31.82	27.88	27.96	26.10	41.90	31.39	26.32	35.04	28.68
	€4000 and above	24.91	18.25^*	33.71^***	27.88^*	15.64^***	15.44^***	27.62	41.12^***	14.47^***	16.24^*	44.49^***
	Income missing	5.76	12.41	12.12	10.58	3.79	7.35	5.71	7.30	9.87	8.55	8.46
Employment status (%)	Not employed	52.97	40.15	45.45	47.12	39.81	52.21	39.05	37.23	67.76	40.17	36.03
Employment status (%)	Employed	47.03	59.85^**	54.55^*	52.88	60.19^**	47.79	60.95^**	62.77^***	32.24^**	59.83^*	63.97^***
Marital status (%)	Single or widowed	31.78	39.42	33.33	34.62	41.23	40.44	45.71	37.47	40.13	41.88	36.03
Marital status (%)	Married or cohabit	68.22	60.58	66.67	65.38	58.77^*	59.56^*	54.29^**	62.53	59.87	58.12^*	63.97
Living with a child (%)	No	78.25	67.88	71.59	52.88	73.93	59.56	63.81	70.32	54.61	70.09	72.43
Living with a child (%)	Yes	21.75	32.12^*	28.41^*	47.12^***	26.07	40.44^***	36.19^**	29.68^**	45.39^***	29.91	27.57
Self-reported health (%)	Poor/fair	39.78	29.20	31.44	41.35	41.23	57.72	32.38	24.57	59.87	41.03	15.44
Self-reported health (%)	Good/very good	60.22	70.80^*	68.56^*	58.65	58.77	42.28^***	67.62	75.43^***	40.13^***	58.97	84.56^***
Speak official language (%)	No	0	47.45	50.76	64.42	39.34	46.32	21.90	24.57	65.13	21.37	24.26
Speak official language (%)	Yes	100	52.55	49.24	35.58	60.66	53.68	78.10	75.43	34.87	78.63	75.74
Religiosity (%)	Not religious	69.70	38.69	68.18	66.35	49.29	70.96	78.10	83.45	44.08	44.44	72.43
Religiosity (%)	Religious	30.30	61.31^***	31.82	33.65	50.71^***	29.04	21.90	16.55^***	55.92^***	55.56^***	27.57
Perceived discrimination (%)	No	100	40.15	56.44	40.38	29.86	40.44	69.52	77.13	15.13	33.33	59.19
Perceived discrimination (%)	Yes	0	59.85	43.56	59.62	70.14	59.56	30.48	22.87	84.87	66.67	40.81
Trust in government (%)	No	56.13	37.23	34.85	23.08	46.92	40.81	33.33	37.96	50.00	46.15	44.49
Trust in government (%)	Yes	43.87	62.77^***	65.15^***	76.92^***	53.08^*	59.19^***	66.67^***	62.04^***	50.00	53.85^*	55.51^**
N		538	137	264	104	211	272	105	411	152	117	272

Note. Significant differences reported use of t tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for dichotomous variables to determine whether differences exist between native-born and foreign-born individuals. p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

References

Angner

Ghandhi

Williams Purvis

Amante

Allison

(2013). Daily functioning, health status, and happiness in older adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(5), 1563-1574.

Arampatzi

Burger

M. J.

Novik

(2018). Social network sites, individual social capital and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(1), 99-122.

Barbiano di Belgiojoso

Cela

Rimoldi

S. M. L.

(2020). The effect of migration experiences on wellbeing among ageing migrants in Italy. Social Indicators Research, 4(6), 1-27.

Bekhuis

Hedegaard

T. F

Seibel

Degen

Renema

(2018). MIFARE study-Migrants' welfare state attitudes: Methodological Report. https://welfarestatefutures.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/mifare_method-report_231020181.pdf

Bekhuis

H. H.

Hedegaard

T. F

; Seibel

Degen

(2018). Design and content of the MIFARE study [Methodological Research Report]. Radboud University Nijmegen.

Bourdieu

(1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson

(Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood.

Calvo

Carr

D. C.

Matz-Costa

(2019). Expanding the happiness paradox: Ethnoracial disparities in life satisfaction among older immigrants in the United States. Journal of aging and health, 31(2), 231-255.

Castles

(2002). Migration and community formation under conditions of globalization. International Migration Review, 36(4), 1143-1168.

Ciobanu

R. O.

Fokkema

Nedelcu

(2017). Ageing as a migrant: Vulnerabilities, agency and policy implications. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(2), 164-181.

10.

Coleman

J. S.

(1994). Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press.

11.

De Vroome

Hooghe

(2014). Life satisfaction among ethnic minorities in the Netherlands: Immigration experience or adverse living conditions? Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(6), 1389-1406.

12.

Derose

K. P.

Escarce

J. J.

Lurie

(2007). Immigrants and health care: Sources of vulnerability. Health Affairs, 26(5), 1258-1268.

13.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.

14.

Diener

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2004). Beyond Money. Psychological science in the public interest, 5(1), 1-31.

15.

Eurostat. (2017). People in the EU - statistics on origin of residents. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Archive:People_in_the_EU_-_statistics_on_origin_of_residents

16.

Eurostat. (2019). People in the EU -statistics on demographic changes. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/pdfscache/41896.pdf

17.

Hao

Johnson

R. W.

(2000). Economic, cultural, and social origins of emotional well-being. Research on Aging, 22(6), 599-629.

18.

Hendriks

(2015). The happiness of international migrants: A review of research findings. Migration Studies, 3(3), 343-369.

19.

Hendriks

Bartram

(2019). Bringing happiness into the study of migration and its consequences: What, why, and how? Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 17(3), 279-298.

20.

Huijts

Kraaykamp

(2012). Immigrants' health in Europe: A cross-classified multilevel approach to examine origin country, destination country, and community effects. International Migration Review, 46(1), 101-137.

21.

Kende

Hadarics

Szabó

Z. P.

(2018). Inglorious glorification and attachment: National and European identities as predictors of anti‐ and pro‐immigrant attitudes. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(3), 569-590.

22.

Lancee

(2012). Immigrant performance in the labour market. Amsterdam University Press.

23.

Lobos

Grunert

K. G.

Bustamante

Schnettler

(2016). With health and good food, great life! Gender differences and happiness in Chilean rural older adults. Social Indicators Research, 127(2), 865-885.

24.

Markides

K. S.

Rote

(2019). The healthy immigrant effect and aging in the United States and other Western Countries. The Gerontologist, 59(2), 205-214.

25.

Martinez-Callaghan

Gil-Lacruz

(2017). Developing identity, sense of belonging and social networks among Japanese immigrants in Scotland and Spain. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 26(2), 241-261.

26.

McDonald

J. T.

Kennedy

(2004). Insights into the ‘healthy immigrant effect’: Health status and health service use of immigrants to Canada. Social Science & Medicine, 59(8), 1613-1627.

27.

Mui

A. C.

Kang

S.-Y.

Kang

Domanski

M. D.

(2007). English language proficiency and health-related quality of life among Chinese and Korean immigrant elders. Health & Social Work, 32(2), 119-127.

28.

Nyqvist

Forsman

A. K.

Giuntoli

Cattan

(2013). Social capital as a resource for mental well-being in older people: A systematic review. Aging & Mental Health, 17(4), 394-410.

29.

Obućina

(2013). The patterns of satisfaction among immigrants in Germany. Social Indicators Research, 113(3), 1105-1127.

30.

Ooijevaar

Verkooijen

(2015). Expat, wanneer ben je het? Een afbakening van in het buitenland geboren werknemers op basis van loon. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek(CBS).

31.

Paternoster

Brame

Mazerolle

Piquero

(1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36(4), 859-866.

32.

Persefoni

Georgia

Anastasios

Giannoula

Nikoleta

(2015). Migrants healthcare utilization in Europe: A comprehensive review of emergency room utilization and hospitalization. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 5(11), 19-25.

33.

Renema

J. A. J.

Lubbers

(2019). Welfare-based income among immigrants in the Netherlands: Differences in social and human capital. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 17(2), 128-151.

34.

Renema

J. A. J.

Meuleman

Lubbers

(2019). Immigrants’ support for welfare spending and the role of perceived and preferred group’s access to welfare: A comparative study among 10 immigrant groups in the Netherlands. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 28, 179-195.

35.

Sand

Gruber

(2018). Differences in subjective well-being between older migrants and natives in Europe. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 20(1), 83-90.

36.

Schans

(2008). ‘They ought to do this for their parents’: Perceptions of filial obligations among immigrant and Dutch older people. Ageing and Society, 28(1), 49.

37.

Seibel

(2019). Determinants of migrants’ knowledge about their healthcare rights. Health Sociology Review, 28(2), 140-161.

38.

Solé-Auró

Crimmins

E. M.

(2008). Health of immigrants in European countries. International Migration Review, 42(4), 861-876.

39.

Statistics Netherlands. (2016). Jaarrapport integratie 2016. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek Hague/Heerlen.

40.

Stockemer

Niemann

Unger

Speyer

(2020). The “Refugee Crisis,” immigration attitudes, and Euroscepticism. International Migration Review, 54(3), 883-912. doi:10.1177/0197918319879926.

(2019). The immigrant-native gap in subjective well-being in Western European countries: Assessing the role of social capital. International Migration Review, 53(2), 458-485.

42.

United Nations. (2017). Ageing. http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/ageing/

43.

Vaillant

Wolff

F. C.

(2010). Origin differences in self-reported health among older migrants living in France. Public Health, 124(2), 90-98.

44.

Van Mol

De Valk

(2016). Migration and immigrants in Europe: A historical and demographic perspective. In Integration processes and policies in Europe (pp. 31-55). Springer Cham.

45.

Van Tubergen

Maas

Flap

(2004). The economic incorporation of immigrants in 18 western societies: Origin, destination, and community effects. American Sociological Review, 69(5), 704-727.

46.

Zorlu

(2013). Occupational adjustment of immigrants in the Netherlands. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 14(4), 711-731.