From a Collection of Identities to Collective Identity

Abstract

We studied collective identity and psychological well-being in Bulgarian adolescents (305 mainstreamers, 278 Turkish-Bulgarians, and 183 Muslim-Bulgarians). Turkish-Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian minorities (ethnic Bulgarians converted to Islam during the Ottoman Empire) have been subjected to severe assimilation policies until recently. A multigroup confirmatory analysis showed that ethnic, religious, and familial identities were significantly and positively related to a single underlying factor we labeled collective identity. Bulgarian identity was unrelated to collective identity in the Turkish-Bulgarian group. As expected, mainstream adolescents showed a stronger Bulgarian and weaker religious identity than Turkish-Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian adolescents. In all groups, individuals with a stronger collective identity reported higher levels of well-being. We conclude that the concept of collective identity is useful to link various identity components to well-being of youth from different ethnic groups.

Keywords

ethnic identity familial identity religious identity Turkish-Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian minority well-being

This study investigates the contribution of collective identity to well-being of ethnic minority youth in Bulgaria. We focus on ethnic, familial, and religious identities because they provide a sense of collective identity and belonging for minority youth, which may ultimately be relevant for their well-being (e.g., Kiang, Yip, & Fuligni, 2008; Smith & Silva, 2011). Bulgaria provides a unique context to study these identity components because the country has two minority groups that have lived there for a long time—Turkish-Bulgarians and Muslim-Bulgarians (ethnic Bulgarians converted to the Islam during the Ottoman Empire). Despite continuous assimilation pressure and socioeconomic disadvantages, these groups have maintained a distinct culture (Eminov, 2007). In contrast, other European studies of identity often involve recent Muslim immigrants. After reviewing the theoretical background for the importance of three components of collective identity and presenting our hypotheses, we use multigroup confirmatory analysis to examine the structure of collective identity (i.e., the associations of the components) and the salience of these components. We suggest that a single collective identity encompassing ethnic, familial, and religious identities is crucial for youth’s well-being.

Collective Identity and Well-Being

Traditionally, identity literature is predicated on social identity theory and self-categorization theory. Both theories view the collective self as corresponding to social identity, which is represented by interpersonal and collective self-concepts. In these self-concepts, relations and similarities to others are central (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Turner, 1987). Closely related to social identity, the notion of collective identity has been proposed to denote group membership, affective commitment, and closeness to other members of the group as well as behaviors such as language use in the case of ethnic identity, or intensity of religious rituals in the case of religious identity (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004). Collective identification includes, among other things, self-categorization, evaluation, importance, attachment, and behavioral involvement. Self-categorization involves the process of identifying oneself as a member of a particular social group; evaluation regards the positive or negative attitude toward the social grouping; importance to the degree of significance of a group membership to self-concept, and attachment concerns the emotional or affective involvement felt with a group. Behavioral involvement refers to the degree to which a person engages in actions related to a collective identity component.

Our conceptualization of collective identity starts from identifications attributed to social group memberships (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Social identity has been defined as the part of an individual’s self-concept that derives from the membership of a social group together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership. Collective identity, as it is used in the definition of Ashmore et al. (2004), goes beyond the categorical membership and sharing of characteristics with a group, and includes the affective commitment to other members of the category as well as behavioral implications that emerge from that commitment. In addition, we draw from the notion of collective identity, proposed by Cheek (1989), which refers to the importance of ethnic background, religion, and feeling of belonging to a social community for self-definitions. Our view of collective identity addresses also differences in conceptualizations about social and ethnic identity as important sources for well-being. Theory on social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and ethnic identity (Phinney, 1990) draws on the notion of identity coherence in contrast to multidimensionality (Ashmore et al., 2004). Following the available evidence, we view collective identity as a collection of categorical identities. In line with social identity theory, we argue that this collection has a coherent core with meaningful relations to well-being. So, we argue that individuals will use their social category memberships for construing coherence, positive self-evaluation, and belongingness, which will influence, among other things, well-being. Identity domains that are depreciated in a cultural context will not be strongly related to this collective identity. We are particularly interested in three identity domains: ethnicity, family, and religion. Our choice of identity domains is also based on empirical findings of a previous study of Roma minority youth in Bulgarian context. A confirmatory factor analysis showed that a single latent variable, called collective identity, with positive loadings for ethnic, familial, and religious identities, was positively associated with well-being (Dimitrova, Chasiotis, Bender, & van de Vijver, 2012). So, in our model collective identity comprises those domains that enhance feelings of coherence, positive self-evaluation, and belongingness; this collective identity construct is positively related to well-being. Identity domains that do not enhance those feelings will not be associated with this collective identity factor, thereby introducing multidimensionality of the construct. Furthermore, these domains will not be positively associated with well-being. Previous research has already shown that stronger identities in these domains are associated with enhanced levels of well-being (Phinney, 1990; Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2009) and better coping with acculturative stress (Furrow, King, & White, 2004).

Finally, our choice of the three identity domains is based on our knowledge of the target groups and on work highlighting the importance of belongingness for well-being (Smith & Silva, 2011). Identity research has provided extensive evidence on the central role that ethnic identity assumes for youth and that important social identifications in their lives revolve around family and religion (Lopez, Huynh, & Fuligni, 2011). Furthermore, ethnic belonging, religion, and family signify important proximal social groups with which to identify (Kiang et al., 2008). We also focus on these three identity domains because the existing literature suggests that minority compared with majority youth display higher levels of ethnic, familial, and religious identity (Lopez et al., 2011; Phinney, 1990). Especially for ethnic minority youth, ethnicity, family, and religion represent core domains of identification with affiliative and communal effects in terms of belongingness to proximal social groups.

In summary, our conceptualization of collective identity adopts the notion of a conceptual multidimensionality in the precise meaning of identity (Ashmore et al., 2004; see also Cheek, 1989) and includes multiple identifications attributed to ethnic, familial, and religious group memberships. Our assumption is that collective identity derives from these important sources of identification for youth, in line with prior work on the salience and relations among these sources (Kiang et al., 2008). We extend the notion of collective identity beyond prior work that focused only on the relevance of identification with specific social groups rather than on the relevance of collective identity for psychological well-being. Therefore, we argue that the various identity components are derived from a single integrated collective identity and such a collective identity is crucial for well-being. For each of the three identities, the defining characteristics and their relation with well-being in adolescence are described below.

Ethnic identity, a central issue for adolescents, has been studied from two perspectives. The first is based on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and conceives ethnic identity as a process of maintaining positive distinctiveness, attitudes, and feelings that accompany a sense of group belonging (Phinney, 1989; Phinney & Ong, 2007). The second focuses on identity development; it addresses the process of exploration and commitment during adolescence which leads to a secure, confident sense of identity (Erikson, 1968; Ghavami, Fingerhut, Peplau, Grant, & Witting, 2011; Marcia, 1980). The literature on ethnic identity suggests that there are significant group differences in ethnic identity salience, such that minority youth display higher levels of ethnic identity compared with their mainstream peers (Kiang et al., 2008; Smith & Silva, 2011). A strong ethnic identity may be the result of pressure to assimilate into the mainstream culture, as suggested by the rejection-identification model (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999), and hostility toward minority groups (Verkuyten & Nekuee, 1999). It has also been suggested that ethnic identity is related to psychological well-being and adjustment. Across different cultural groups, an established sense of ethnic identity has been repeatedly shown to be associated with enhanced levels of self-esteem (Costigan, Koryzma, Hua, & Chance, 2010; Umaña-Taylor, Diversi, & Fine, 2002), life satisfaction (Yap, Settles, & Pratt-Hyatt, 2011), and adaptive psychosocial functioning (Bombay, Matheson, & Anisman, 2010; Pugh & Bry, 2007; Torres & Ong, 2010).

Familial identity reflects the identification with the familial group and the perception of a nuclear or extended family as source of social and emotional support (Bagger, Li, & Gutek, 2008). A strong familial identity is associated with a sense of obligation, relatedness, and commitment to the family and family relationships (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2008; Steidel & Contreras, 2003). The scarce literature on familial identity suggests that, particularly for ethnic minority groups, a salient familial identity is associated with positive adjustment (Fuligni & Flook, 2005) and health-protective behaviors that buffer against negative effects of stress (Masood, Okazaki, & Takeuchi, 2009).

For many individuals, religious convictions are at the core of their identity, self-concept, and position in an ideological framework (Furrow et al., 2004). Religious identity appears to be particularly salient for members of Muslim immigrant communities and significantly influences the way they lead their lives (Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2009). This pattern has been documented across different European countries for both youth and emerging adults (Haddad & Smith, 2001; Phalet, 2004). In addition, endorsing one’s religious identity also comes with very tangible preventive effects. Positive links have been reported between a strong religious identity and general positive development, including low levels of delinquency (Junger & Polder, 1993), disruptive behaviors (Abbotts, Williams, Sweeting, & West, 2004; Udel, Donenberg, & Emerson, 2011), and internalizing and externalizing problems (Bartkowski, Xu, & Levin, 2008).

Context and Target Groups

The present study was conducted in Bulgaria, which, like other Eastern European regions, is experiencing marked political and economic instability due to the shift from a communist to a capitalist economy. The country is rarely mentioned in discussions about Muslim communities, despite their presence in this majority Orthodox Christian nation state for centuries. Bulgaria is the first European Union member country with a large Muslim population that immigrated so long ago that it can be called indigenous, whereas Muslim immigration in other European countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, is recent in comparison. Muslims in Bulgaria form heterogeneous communities, constituted by a bicultural Turkish-Bulgarian and a monocultural Muslim-Bulgarian group (Ghodsee, 2005).

The Turkish-Bulgarian Group

Turkish-Bulgarians represent 605,802 of the total of 7,364,570 Bulgarians (National Statistical Institute, 2011) and thus form the second largest ethnic group with a separate language, religion, and culture, preceded only by the Bulgarian Christian Orthodox majority. Ethnic and religious strife have been a determining part of the group’s history. In the late 1980s, this ethnic community faced a stringent assimilation campaign and restrictions on education, language, minority rights, and expression of cultural identity through a name-changing policy (Ganev, 2004). This period is considered to represent one of the most extensive and rapid assimilation campaigns in recent European history with nearly one million people forced to change their names (Dimitrov, 2000). Scholars have argued that the extreme assimilation policies during communism had the effect of strengthening Turkish ethnic identity of Turkish-Bulgarians (Warhola & Boteva, 2010).

Currently, there is a sizable community of Turkish-Bulgarians living in South and North-Eastern Bulgaria, whose background is shaped by Bulgarian local customs, communist/post-communist influences as well as the Islam. After the fall of the communist regime Turkish-Bulgarians were again allowed to choose their original names, practice Islam, and use the Turkish language in public. Yet, their socioeconomic situation has not improved, as signified by unemployment rates of up to 80% in regions with a large Turkish-Bulgarian population (Maeva, 2005; Petkova, 2002). Most Turkish-Bulgarians live in small towns or in the countryside in areas lacking occupational opportunities as well as good educational, cultural, and health care services. Probably in response to these circumstances, members of the group have a strong supportive network and a cohesive community. Adherence to Turkish traditions, such as marrying a Turkish-Bulgarian or native Turkish person and maintaining contact with Turkey, is highly valued (Maeva, 2005).

As stated above, this community differs from majority Bulgarians by having its own language, culture, and traditions. An important issue for the salience of ethnic identity regards the language of Turkish-Bulgarians. Contrary to what has been observed in the past communist period, nowadays there are no restrictions about speaking Turkish in public. Several newspapers are published in Turkish and Turkish political parties issue some of their brochures in the Turkish language. Daily newspapers and books published in Turkey are also available in Bulgaria. In addition, the Bulgarian state television began airing news and entertainment programs in Turkish. The government also provides funding for Turkish-language classes in public schools, with an estimate of about 40,000 Turkish-Bulgarian children studying their native language at school (Warhola & Boteva, 2010).

The Muslim-Bulgarian Group

The Muslim-Bulgarians, locally called Pomaks, are Bulgarians of Islamic faith who converted to the Islam during the Ottoman ruling of Bulgaria (1396-1878). Although the term Pomak is sometimes seen as derogatory, it is used officially (Minority Rights Group International, 2008) and is widely applied in the literature (Raichevski, 1998). Two etymological theories have been proposed; one holds that the word Pomak is derived from pomagach (helper), as Bulgarian Christians regarded Muslim-Bulgarians as the right-hand men of the Ottomans. The other theory sees the roots of the label in pomachen (tortured), because Pomaks were victims of the official Ottoman policy of assimilation. Muslim-Bulgarians live in compact settlements in Southern Bulgaria. Their group has been estimated to comprise between 80,000 and 269,000 people (Mihaylova, 2006). Similarly to the Turkish-Bulgarian minority, Muslim-Bulgarians inhabit regions that are characterized by severe socioeconomic disadvantages and stagnation and they have been subjected to name-changing and religious assimilation policies (Eminov, 2007; Srebranov, 2006). Also, like members of the Turkish minority, the Pomak community is largely agricultural and rural, and considerably less socioeconomically developed than the Bulgarian majority. Yet, despite the common faith (Islam) with the Turkish-Bulgarians, Pomaks are ethnically Bulgarian and speak mainly Bulgarian. There is no specific Pomak dialect and Pomaks generally speak the same dialects as Christian Bulgarians (Stoykov, 2002).

In addition, there are important historical and economic factors that need to be taken into account. Muslim-Bulgarians differ substantially from their mainstream co-nationals, they are, for instance, very orthodox in their Islamic-related practices and therefore have much in common with other Muslims, like the Turkish-Bulgarians or rural people of nearby Turkey. Turkish-Bulgarians differ not only in religion from Bulgarian Christians but also in their commitment to their Turkish ethnic identity, probably strengthened by their ties to their ancestral homeland. Another important historical factor regards the effect of the communist regime, which attempted to erase religious and ethnic differences in a unified socialist state. Religious and ethnic minorities, as well as strongly religious Bulgarians were the target of official state policy. Poverty and a lack of education among Turkish-Bulgarians and Muslim-Bulgarians prevent them from fully participating in the Bulgarian society and hinder social integration. Their disadvantaged condition is further augmented by their isolated geographic location as both minority groups primarily live in poor and stagnating regions. However, in the Turkish-Bulgarian case, there is a proximity to Turkey and opportunities for the maintenance of contacts with Turkey and an involvement with Turkish culture. All these considerations are salient components of the everyday reality of our samples, presumably affecting their multiple social identifications and well-being outcomes.

Hypotheses

The main goal of the present study is to investigate the contribution of collective identity (i.e., multiple identities in concert) to well-being where most approaches addressed these identities separately (Ashmore et al., 2004). This study relies on the notion of collective identity conceptualized in terms of strong relationships among ethnic, familial, and religious group memberships. Although to our knowledge no studies have examined the joint contribution of these three identity components on well-being, there is some evidence suggesting that experiences of ethnic, familial, and religious group involvement as core elements of collective identity are linked to enhanced well-being among minority youth (Dimitrova et al., 2012). Therefore, collective identity was expected to be related to well-being among minority and mainstream youth.

We compared ethnic, familial, and religious identity among adolescents from two stigmatized minority groups (Turkish-Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian adolescents) and their mainstream Bulgarian peers. Our first predictions focus on ethnic and religious identities. Given that our Turkish-Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian adolescents belong to two distinct minority groups, we expect different patterns of ethnic and religious identity to emerge. First, based on previous studies on ethnic identity salience in minority groups (Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001) and on the rejection-identification model (Branscombe et al., 1999), we expect that Turkish-Bulgarian youth show a stronger ethnic Turkish than Bulgarian identity (Hypothesis 1a). Second, we expect that Muslim-Bulgarian and mainstream youth, because of their monocultural ethnic belonging, show a more pronounced Bulgarian identity compared with their Turkish-Bulgarian peers (Hypothesis 1b). As religious identity is particularly important for Muslim minority groups (Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2009), our second hypothesis is that both the Turkish-Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian group would show a stronger religious identity than the mainstream Bulgarian group, in which a generally less pronounced religiousness was observed in the past (Halman & Petterson, 2001; Kanev, 2002) (Hypothesis 2).¹

In addition, we investigated the widely reported relationship between identity and well-being (Phinney, 1989; Smith & Silva, 2011). Based on our conceptualization of collective identity, we tested a model in which different identities have a joint influence on well-being. The model predicts that collective identity encompassing ethnic, familial, and religious components is positively associated with well-being. In line with our theoretical conceptualization and earlier findings among the Roma (Dimitrova et al., 2012), our third prediction is that collective identity, contributes to higher levels of well-being in both minority and majority groups. Given the unique ethnic and religious backgrounds, as well as the historical and current situations of the groups under investigation, we furthermore expected several specific associations. Because religion and ethnic group identification have been shown to assume greater relevance in bicultural minority than in majority groups, we expect that their Turkish ethnic and religious identity (i.e., identification with Turkish culture and Muslim religion) are significantly related to well-being for the Turkish-Bulgarian participants. As prior work shows low national identity salience for well-being of minority groups (Branscombe et al., 1999; Phinney et al., 2001), no relation between Bulgarian identity and well-being for Turkish-Bulgarian youth is expected (Hypothesis 3a). Similarly, because religion is a distinctive component of the Muslim-Bulgarian minority, we expect a strong relation between youth’s religious identity and psychological well-being in that group (Hypothesis 3b).

Method

Participants

Participants were 766 adolescents aged 11 to 18 years (M = 15.05, SD = 1.67), attending ethnically diverse schools in the South Central and South Western regions of Bulgaria. The sample included Turkish-Bulgarian (n = 278), Muslim-Bulgarian (n = 183), and majority Bulgarian (n = 305) youth. Familial socioeconomic status (SES) was computed by using composite scores of both parental education (primary, secondary and university degree) and occupation (unskilled, semiprofessional, professional job) coded into three levels of low, middle, and high SES.

Analyses revealed significant group differences with respect to the age of participants, with Bulgarians being about 1 year younger than Turkish-Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian youth, F(2, 734) = 12.02, p < .001 (see Table 1). Groups also differed with respect to gender, with more women in the Muslim-Bulgarian group than in the other groups, χ²(2, N = 766) = 9.10, p < .01. Similarly, cultural groups differed with respect to family SES, χ²(4, N = 756) = 215.42, p < .001, with Bulgarian youth having a higher SES. All subsequent analyses controlled for these effects. Finally, we checked for group differences in well-being variables by running a MANCOVA with group (two levels) as the independent variable, the two well-being scales, life satisfaction and positive affect (PA), as dependent variables, and age, gender, and SES as covariates. Turkish-Bulgarian scored significantly lower on life satisfaction, F(2, 647) = 3.27, p < .03, and PA, F(2, 647) = 12.53, p < .001, than Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian youth.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics by Ethnic Group.

Characteristic	Turkish-Bulgarian (n = 278)	Muslim-Bulgarian (n = 183)	Bulgarian (n = 305)	Group differences
Age
Range	12-18	12-18	11-18
M (SD)	15.23 (1.56)	15.38 (1.60)	14.70 (1.73)	F(2, 734) = 12.02***
Gender
Boys	154 (55%)	76 (42%)	144 (47%)	χ²(2, N = 766) = 9.10**
Girls	124 (45%)	107 (58%)	161 (53%)
Socioeconomic status
Low	233 (85%)	143 (78%)	98 (32%)
Middle	37 (13%)	39 (21%)	153 (50%)	χ²(4, N = 756) = 215.42***
High	2 (0.7 %)	—	51 (17%)

p < .01. ***p < .001.

Measures

Sociodemographic Questionnaire

A short questionnaire addressed self-reported ethnicity and nationality, SES (occupation and education of both parents), gender, age, place of birth, and religious affiliation.

Ethnic Identity Scale–Self-Report (EIS-SR)

An inspection of the literature revealed that no existing identity measures addressed all aspects of collective identity of the present study (ethnic, familial, and religious) in an adequate manner. A comprehensive scale was therefore constructed. The collective identity scales (Ethnic, Familial and Religious) were created by generating items following identity components of self-categorization, attachment, evaluation, importance, and behavioral involvement (Ashmore et al., 2004). Some items were also adapted from previously used measures of ethnic (The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure [MEIM]; Phinney, 1992), familial, and religious identity (Kiang et al., 2008), which have shown excellent psychometric properties.

The EIS-SR investigates ethnic identity according to the collective identity domains (Ashmore et al., 2004). For the minority Turkish-Bulgarian group, the scale comprised items referring to both Turkish and Bulgarian aspects of ethnic identity. The number of items varied between groups, with a total of 42 items in the Turkish-Bulgarian and 21 items for the Bulgarian youth, respectively. Answers were given on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from completely disagree to completely agree (which was also used in the next two scales). Sample items for ethnic identity include “I consider myself Turkish/Bulgarian” and “I participate in Turkish/Bulgarian cultural practices.” Across ethnic groups, internal consistencies for the scale ranged from α = .87 to .93.

Familial Identity Scale–Self-Report (FIS-SR)

This scale on familial identification followed the same format and domains as the ethnic identity scale. Examples of the 21 items constituting the scale were “I see problems of my family as my problems” and “I have a strong sense of belonging to my family” with internal consistencies ranging from α = .88 to .93.

Religious Identity Scale–Self-Report (RIS-SR)

This 21-item scale again adopted the previously reported structure of ethnic and familial identity scales with questions referring to religious self-categorization, attachment, evaluation, importance, and involvement. Sample items were “Being part of my religious community has much to do with how I feel about myself” and “When I need help, I can count on my religious community” (α = .89-.95).

The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS)

This scale, developed by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985), was used for the measurement of life satisfaction as the outcome of a cognitive-judgmental process. The SWLS measures global life satisfaction and consists of 5 items evaluated on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Sample items include “In most ways my life is close to my ideal,” “I am satisfied with life,” and “If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing” (α = .75-.80).

The Positive and Negative Affective Schedule (PANAS)

The scale developed by Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988) provides a measure of positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA). For the purpose of this study, only the measure of PA was used. It consists of 10 positive (e.g., “enthusiastic”) mood descriptors. Participants are asked to rate on a 5-point scale (ranging from very slightly to extremely) the extent to which they experienced each mood state during the past 2 weeks (α = .81-.85).

Procedure

All questionnaires were translated from English into Turkish and Bulgarian by five bilingual translators following the recommended procedures for the establishment of linguistic equivalence (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). In addition to the use of parental consent forms, local school authorities and teachers were informed about the purpose and methods of the current study. A pilot study with mixed ethnic participants was carried out to assure the clarity of the translated measures. For the Turkish-Bulgarian group, the questionnaires were presented in both Turkish and Bulgarian. In a pretest, we applied the set of questionnaires to 152 adolescents (52 Turkish-Bulgarian, 32 Muslim-Bulgarian, and 68 Bulgarian); these respondents were not included in the present study. This pretest revealed that the scales exhibited good psychometric properties for the three groups and only a few questionnaire items were altered or dropped for the subsequent data collection.

Participants of the current study were recruited from nine ethnically and religiously mixed schools in representative regions with a high density of Turkish-Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian students. After obtaining permission from principals and teachers’ councils, schools provided access to students and their families who were sent a letter with a project description. Prior to data collection, the first author presented the project to teachers and students and requested their involvement. Students filled in the questionnaires in a classroom setting during regular class hours under the supervision and support of the first author. The completion of the measures took between 30 and 45 min. The questionnaires were presented only in Bulgarian, because in the pilot study (in which versions in all languages were available) all Turkish-Bulgarian minority students chose the Bulgarian language version. Turkish-Bulgarian students acquire literacy skills exclusively in Bulgarian and many feel more comfortable to write in Bulgarian than in Turkish (Rudin & Eminov, 1993).

Results

The results are presented in three parts. We first discuss within-group differences of ethnic, familial, and religious identities as well as the associations among them for youth from minority and majority groups. We then report mean group differences in ethnic, familial, and religious identities between the Turkish-Bulgarian, Muslim-Bulgarian, and Bulgarian adolescents. Finally, we present a structural equation model of general associations between the three identity measures and psychological well-being. The model examined the relationship of one (latent) collective identity component, encompassing ethnic, familial and religious identification, with well-being, and tested whether this relationship was the same across different ethnic groups.

Ethnic Group Differences in Collective Identity

To test the first hypothesis that (a) Turkish-Bulgarian youth show a stronger ethnic Turkish than Bulgarian identity and (b) Muslim-Bulgarian and mainstream youth show a more pronounced Bulgarian identity than Turkish-Bulgarians, we explored mean differences in collective identity within each group by running a series of paired-sample t tests. We refrained from combining these data in a single analysis as the Turkish-Bulgarian ethnic identity was only assessed in that group. Results for the Turkish-Bulgarian group revealed that familial identity is more important than Turkish, t(274) = 5.01, p < .001; religious, t(274) = 10.46, p < .001; and Bulgarian identity, t(274) = 15.75, p < .001. In addition, the Turkish-Bulgarian adolescents valued their Turkish identity more than their Bulgarian mainstream identity, t(278) = 13.02, p < .001, which is in line with our expectation regarding a stronger Turkish than Bulgarian identity in our Turkish-Bulgarian group (Hypothesis 1a). Bulgarian mainstream adolescents assigned more importance to their familial identity than their Bulgarian, t(303) = 14.33, p < .001, and religious identity, t(303) = 21.69, p < .001. Finally, for Muslim-Bulgarian minority adolescents familial identity was significantly more important than both religious, t(183) = 13.77, p < .001, and Bulgarian identity, t(183) = 13.86, p < .001.

In a following step, we investigated the collective identity components across groups by carrying out a MANCOVA with group (three levels) as independent variable, ethnic, familial, and religious identity as dependent variables, and age, gender, and SES as covariates. The multivariate test of group differences was significant, Wilks’s Lambda = .67, F(2, 717) = 50.44, p < .001, η² = .17. The analyses revealed a significant group effect for each identity: ethnic Bulgarian, F(2, 717) = 100.86, p < .001, η² = .22; familial, F(2, 717) = 34.23, p < .001, η² = .08; and religious identity, F(2, 717) = 4.58, p < .01, η² = .01. The first two effect size estimates indicate particularly salient group differences in Bulgarian and familial identity. Post hoc tests (Bonferroni multiple comparisons) revealed that Bulgarians reported a higher involvement with their ethnic culture than Turkish-Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian youth (Hypothesis 1b), and Turkish-Bulgarians reported a lower familial identity compared with their Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian peers. Results confirmed our second hypothesis regarding the importance of religion in ethnic minority and Muslim community contexts such that Turkish-Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian youth scored higher on religious identity compared with Bulgarian mainstreamers (Table 2). In summary, mainstream youth reported a stronger Bulgarian identity than their Turkish-Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian counterparts; Turkish-Bulgarian youth showed a stronger ethnic Turkish than Bulgarian identity. Both Turkish-Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian minority youth showed a stronger religious identity compared with Bulgarian mainstreamers.

Table 2.

Means (and Standard Deviations) of Collective Identity by Ethnic Group.

Identity	Turkish-Bulgarian (n = 278)	Muslim-Bulgarian (n = 183)	Bulgarian (n = 305)	Group differences	η²
Turkish	3.48 (0.77)	—	—
Bulgarian	2.72_a (0.71)	3.39_b (0.78)	3.70_c (0.73)	F(2, 717) = 100.86	.22***
Familial	3.70_a (0.84)	4.23_b (0.68)	4.22_b (0.65)	F(2, 717) = 34.23	.08***
Religious	3.32_a (0.74)	3.41_a (0.81)	3.10_b (0.85)	F(2, 717) = 4.58	.01**

Note. Means with different subscripts differ significantly.

p < .01. ***p < .001.

Collective Identity and Psychological Well-Being

Our last and conceptually most relevant analysis regards the relation between collective identity and well-being among minority and mainstream youth. To test our third hypothesis on the structural role of collective identity in well-being (using scores of SWLS and PA), a multigroup analysis with Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian youth was performed using AMOS (Arbuckle, 2009). We first tested the model that the three identities (ethnic Bulgarian, familial, and religious identity) act in concert and that there is a latent variable, labeled collective identity, which has the three identities as manifest indicators and predicts well-being. We chose to test this model as it follows our reasoning about the structure of collective identity (as comprising life domains that are relevant for a sense of collective self) and its central role for well-being. Moreover, this model is more parsimonious than the alternative model in which each identity would have its unique contribution to well-being. Finally, we were interested in the link among two structural variables of collective identity and well-being. We used a second latent variable for well-being because we were interested in the way the two well-being indicators (life satisfaction and PA) jointly relate to collective identity; we were not interested in how they can be distinguished. Two latent variables were chosen because, compared with analyses of manifest variables using analysis of variance or regression, they enable us to model complex multivariate relations (e.g., multiple dependent variables) to estimate and correct for measurement error, and to obtain fit indices for these complex models (see Kline, 2005; Little, Card, Slegers, & Ledford, 2007).

In all groups, there were positive correlations among all three collective identity domains with the only exception for the relation between Turkish and Bulgarian identity in the bicultural Turkish-Bulgarian group (Table 3). We retained the structural weights model as the most restrictive model with an acceptable fit, χ²(11, N = 488) = 22.08, p < .05, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .047, and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .968 (Table 4). Two comments are needed for an adequate interpretation. First, the loading of Bulgarian identity was much stronger in the Muslim-Bulgarian group than in the Bulgarian mainstream group (.70 and .33, respectively). Therefore, we did not impose any constraint on this factor loading. It is interesting to note that even though the mean score on Bulgarian identity is much lower in the Muslim-Bulgarian than in the mainstream group (Table 3), Bulgarian identity plays an important role in the collective identity of Muslim-Bulgarians. Second, the choice between the measurement weights model and structural weights model is somewhat arbitrary as fit statistics did not suggest a clear choice. In the measurement weights model, the standardized regression coefficients were .47 and .70 (both ps < .001) in the mainstream and Muslim-Bulgarian groups, respectively. We eventually decided to opt for the structural weights model as the loadings were high in both groups and interpretation of the findings would not be much different for the two models. The fitted model shows that collective identity was positively associated with well-being in a similar fashion across the Bulgarian and the Muslim-Bulgarian group: Stronger ethnic, familial, and religious identities were associated with more well-being, irrespective of ethnic group membership (upper panel of Figure 1).

Table 3.

Intercorrelations of Collective Identity Components and Well-Being by Ethnic Group.

	Turkish-Bulgarian						Muslim-Bulgarian					Bulgarian
	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	1.	3.	4.	5.	6.	1.	3.	4.	5.	6.
Identity
1. Bulgarian	—
2. Turkish	.03	—
3. Familial	.21***	.69***	—				.40***	—				.60***	—
4. Religious	.33***	.68***	.74***	—			.40***	.37***	—			.61***	.33***	—
Well-Being
5. PA	.11	.19***	.28***	.20***	—		.25***	.12	.03	—		.19***	.14**	.00	—
6. SWLS	.04	.26***	.18***	.22***	.19***	—	.22***	.11	.27***	.20***	—	.21***	.22***	.08	.27***	—

Note. PA = Positive Affect; SWLS = Satisfaction With Life Scale.

p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 4.

Fit Indices of Collective Identity Path Model for Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian Adolescents.

Model	χ² (df)	Δχ² (df)	AGFI	RMSEA	CFI	ΔCFI
Unconstrained	16.96 (8)*		.945	.049	.974
Measurement weights^a	17.48 (10)	.52 (2)	.955	.040	.978	.004
Structural weights ^a	22.08 (11)*	4.60 (1)*	.949	.047	.968	.010
Structural covariances^a	35.04 (12)***	12.95(1)***	.930	.065	.933	.035
Structural residuals^a	35.04 (13)***	.00 (1)	.935	.061	.936	−.003
Measurement residuals^a	76.96 (18)***	41.92 (5)***	.898	.084	.829	.107

Note. Most restrictive model with adequate fit in italics. AGFI = Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index.

Model without equality constraints on factor loading of Bulgarian identity.

p < .05. ***p < .001.

Figure 1.

Path model of collective identity and well-being.

An analogous path model was tested for the Turkish-Bulgarian group with four identity domains (Turkish, Bulgarian, familial, and religious) as predictors of well-being. The model showed an excellent fit, χ²(7, N = 278) = 13.18, p = .056, RMSEA = .056, and CFI = .987, providing support for our hypothesis that the structural relationship between collective identity which enhances well-being is similar across groups. It is important to note that the loading of Bulgarian identity was not significant; so, for Turkish-Bulgarian youth, Bulgarian identity is an independent component that is unrelated to their well-being and not part of their collective identity constituted by ethnic Turkish, familial, and religious identity (lower panel of Figure 1).

In summary, collective identity, notably its familial and religious components, was significantly associated with well-being for Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian adolescents. This pattern could also be observed in the Turkish-Bulgarian youth; yet, this group showed a weaker link between mainstream and collective identity, while Turkish identity was also positively associated with well-being. Overall, our results show strong relationships among ethnic, familial, and religious identity components and positive effects of an overarching collective identity on well-being of youth from different ethnic groups.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to investigate collective identity, encompassing ethnic, familial, and religious identities, and its relation to well-being by extending the descriptive nature of previous approaches and testing a model of collective identity in youth from a majority and two minority groups in Bulgaria. This country, similarly to other Eastern European regions, has a large population of indigenous minority groups that are quite distinct from the mainstream group, which creates an interesting and uncommon context to study identity. While much research has been conducted in Western European and American settings, this is, to our knowledge, the first study involving Turkish-Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian groups. This context is unique, as the groups’ long history in the host country is characterized by periods of ethnic strife, stigmatization, and forced assimilation until fairly recently. The findings are discussed in terms of similarities and differences in collective identity components and their relation to well-being.

Collective Identity: Similarities and Differences Across Groups

The present study underscores the importance of ethnicity, family, and religion in sustaining the notion of collective identity of both minority and mainstream adolescents. Our results confirm that collective identity is a useful, overarching concept in which different identity components can act in concert. The strong support we find for this notion points to the relevance of examining identity at a superordinate level, with collective identity conceptualized as encompassing ethnic, familial, and religious group membership as core elements of strength and belonging for minority youth. Central to this view is the idea, that connectedness and belonging to each of these social categories are fundamental in the way an integrated identity is construed in adolescents’ collective self, and do not merely represent fleeting affiliations or alliances between the self and others.

Our notion of collective identity is more restrictive than common definitions proposed in which any social category is included (Ashmore et al., 2004). The difference to other conceptualizations of collective identity can be illustrated in our findings regarding national identity in the Turkish-Bulgarian group. In that group, national identity was unrelated to collective identity and to well-being. In our conceptualization national identity is then not a part of collective identity. Our study supports a model of a coherent collective identity that comprises only those domains of life that can foster a sense of belonging and help to enhance well-being. Collective identity then refers only to those aspects of life from which a sense of belonging can be derived, which, in the case of the Turkish-Bulgarian group, does not include national identity. If collective identity is defined as comprising all categorical memberships, the unidimensionality that we found can no longer be expected.

Comparing the identities of the Muslim-Bulgarian minority and Bulgarian mainstream adolescents is relevant for the current discourse on Muslim identity in the United States and Europe. Collective identity composition shows similarities in both groups, even though these adolescents belong to two substantially different religious communities (Muslim and Christian Orthodox, respectively) and occupy very different socioeconomic positions within the Bulgarian society. Both groups have the Bulgarian culture and language use in common, and perceive themselves as ethnically Bulgarian. In fact, all Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian adolescents reported the mainstream ethnic label “Bulgarian” when asked to self-identify. These similarities suggest that despite mean differences in levels of identity endorsement, there are structural communalities underlying the collective identity in both groups. The consistency in this relationship is particularly intriguing within the European discourse on Islam that has traditionally doubted the joint existence of a strong religious and national identity of Muslim minority groups (Verkuyten, 2005). These issues are also currently debated in the United States where Muslim minority groups with a strong American national identity have been found to experience elevated levels of discrimination and that this relationship is getting even stronger with high endorsement of their religious identity (Awad, 2010).

The similarity of collective identity structure across ethnic groups does not imply an equal endorsement of each identity domain. Indeed, different patterns emerged when comparing adolescents from minority and majority groups: As expected, Bulgarian majority youth reported a stronger involvement with their Bulgarian ethnic culture than did minority youth, whereas both Turkish-Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarians assigned a higher value to their religious identity. These findings are consistent with prior research documenting that Muslim youth display a more pronounced religious identity than their non-Muslim peers (Saroglou & Galand, 2004). The religious identity of our minority groups may be moderated by experiences of discrimination and pressure to assimilate into the mainstream culture. Instead of a weaker endorsement, however, our findings reveal that a stronger sense of religious group belonging is more likely to emerge in response to marked hostility toward the religious affiliation of the Turkish-Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian communities. Such identity threats and perceptions of discrimination presumably strengthen identification with those who share the stigma (Branscombe et al., 1999). Accordingly, youth of devalued Muslim groups are likely to endorse their religious identity by placing greater emphasis on their positive distinctiveness from the Bulgarian group. The lack of significant differences in religious identity between Muslim-Bulgarian and Turkish-Bulgarian youth may stem from their shared assimilation patterns, because both minorities have historically been subjected to religious assimilation attempts (Srebranov, 2006). Although the political regime has changed in Bulgaria and has been transformed from communism to democracy, for Turkish-Bulgarians and Muslim-Bulgarians the harsh reminders of the former regime and vivid interethnic hostilities still remain (Warhola & Boteva, 2010). Like other Muslim minorities in Bulgaria, they still have to deal with discrimination and threats to their religious identity. The election of 2005 marked the appearance of a new phenomenon in Bulgaria with the overwhelming success of a nationalist right-wing party called Ataka. Using populist anti-Muslim and anti-Turk slogans, this nationalist coalition has managed to attract considerable attention in the Bulgarian political landscape (Genov, 2010).

In accordance with research suggesting that a strong ethnic identity may be a result of pressure to assimilate into the mainstream culture (Branscombe et al., 1999; Phinney et al., 2001) and hostility toward minority group (Verkuyten & Nekuee, 1999), we also found a stronger Turkish than mainstream identity in our bicultural Turkish-Bulgarian participants. In other words, ethnic and mainstream identities may receive different levels of endorsement (Phinney, 1989, 1990), with the Turkish identity being more pronounced than the Bulgarian identity. Our findings show that Turkish-Bulgarian youth identified with their ethnic group more strongly than with the mainstream group by holding a complex collective identity that includes an integration of ethnic Turkish, familial, and religious but not their Bulgarian mainstream identity.

Collective Identity and Well-Being

Our final set of results, concerning the unique and shared influence of different identity components on well-being, provided consistent support for a model in which three aspects of collective identity—ethnicity, family and religion—work together to predict well-being. These results suggest that the concept of collective identity offers a parsimonious way to describe the psychologically beneficial effects of identity on well-being. The model proved to be applicable to individuals from three very different minority groups (ethnic and religious). These cross-group similarities strongly suggest common processes that underlie identity in spite of marked differences among the three groups in their sociocultural experiences, ethnic and religious orientation, and stigmatization. Bulgarian, familial, and religious components as predictors of well-being showed a common pathway for Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian adolescents. Our study suggests that a single, simple model of collective identity may be sufficient to describe the link between identity and well-being, despite differences in endorsement of these identities among different groups.

In addition, our findings are consistent with expectations and prior work (Phinney, 1989, 1990), showing that integration of Turkish, familial, and religious, but not Bulgarian mainstream identity, was positively associated with enhanced well-being for our Turkish-Bulgarian youth. Prior research has consistently found that ethnic, familial, and religious identities relate in meaningful ways to the adjustment of members of both minority and majority groups (Ghavami et al., 2011; Masood et al., 2009; Schwartz et al., 2010). We can extend these findings to our sample and conclude that if youth, irrespective of group membership, experience a strong sense of belonging in terms of positive ethnic, familial, and religious identity they seem to feel quite well in their sociocultural environment.

Consistent with our theoretical conceptualization of collective identity which incorporates various identity components within superordinate category of collective identification, our study provides evidence for the interrelations of specific identity domains that influence psychological outcomes. It is interesting to note that Bulgarian identity was not significantly related to either collective identity or well-being. Which elements of collective identity are interrelated and which elements add to well-being may be moderated by social context factors, such as in our case the discrimination and assimilation history of our bicultural ethnic group. The rejection-identification model suggests that those aspects of identity that are the focus of stigma can be used by minority youth for positive distinctiveness (Branscombe et al., 1999) and our study provides evidence for the limited role of Bulgarian identity in Turkish-Bulgarians. However, a prior study that has examined a group that is even more marginalized than Turkish-Bulgarians, the Roma minority in Bulgaria, showed that in cases of extreme oppression, the relation between collective identity and well-being is moderated by contextual factors (Dimitrova, Chasiotis, Bender, & van de Vijver, 2013). In conditions of extreme suppression and discrimination as is the case in Roma groups, ethnic background may no longer provide a positive source of identification such that both ethnic Roma and mainstream Bulgarian identities have low endorsement levels and weak relation to well-being. Nevertheless, our study points to the need to examine collective identity at an assembled level rather than a collection of identities at a dissembled level to understand its relation with well-being.

Caveats, Conclusions, and Prospects

While offering unique insights in acculturation of groups with a long history of oppression, it is a limitation of the present study that our findings regarding minority youth derive from the Bulgarian context only. As a consequence, it is not clear how patterns observed in this study would generalize to adolescents in other contexts in which ethnic groups might have different acculturation experiences. It would also be interesting to extend our line of research to Turkish-Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian populations who live beyond Bulgaria’s borders in Greece and Turkey (Angelov & Marshall, 2006). Future studies in these European contexts may be useful to elucidate the relationships between collective identity and well-being to test the generalizability of findings. Related to that, we are currently completing a study with Roma groups in Romania, Kosovo, and the Czech Republic that may give us more insight in identity processes of youth across diverse contexts.

Another limitation concerns the fact that our sample of minority youth was recruited in the Southern regions of Bulgaria because schools and communities in other parts of the country refused to participate in the study. The religious and ethnic content of our scales may be partly responsible for this refusal: The historical and contemporary controversies surrounding these topics may have kept both Turkish-Bulgarians and Muslim-Bulgarians from emphasizing their religious and ethnic distinctions. Participation in our study may also have been influenced by negative social perceptions and stigmatization of these minorities within the mainstream society—a concern which is alleviated by our finding of overall more similarities than differences in identity composition, particularly for Bulgarian and Muslim-Bulgarian youth. Finally, our study did not use longitudinal data to investigate the causal direction of the observed pattern. We are currently completing a longitudinal study with the same ethnic groups that may give us more in-depth insight about developmental changes of collective identity and its relation to well-being in minority and majority youth in Bulgaria.

In conclusion, this study adds to existing research on identity and well-being in adolescence in several ways. First, it provides unique evidence concerning the contribution of one overarching collective identity rather than multiple separate identities to well-being in minority and majority youth in Eastern Europe. There is surprisingly little work on the joint influence of ethnic, familial, and religious identity in adolescent well-being. By adopting the notion of collective identity, the present study went beyond prior work that focused primarily on the identification with specific social groups rather than on the relevance of one coherent collective identity. Second, much work investigates only one ethnic group in one receiving country, whereas this study compared youth from two minority groups and the mainstream group in Bulgaria. Finally, we focused on a unique context to study identity in adolescence as it allows comparing collective identities of majority group members and of different minority groups that have a history of severe oppression and assimilation, and which were therefore barely considered in prior work. The most salient result is the common underlying composition of collective identity and its relations to well-being in youth from ethnically and religiously diverse communities. We believe that our work can have important implications for policy and practice by indicating positive benefits for those youth who engage in a meaningful process of exploration and commitment to their ethnic, familial, and religious identities. Our study supports the notion that youth are more similar than they may be assumed to be, and, irrespectively of ethnic and religious background, adolescents with a strong sense of ethnic, familial, and religious belonging are more likely to be well-adjusted in their broader social context.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are extremely grateful to Ms. Neli Filipova, Mr. Terziev, Mr. Petkov, Mr. Kircev, Mr. Chobanov, Ms. Gospova, Ms. Velianova, Ms. Chergova, Ms. Hristova, Mr. Stamatov, Ms. Kukusheva, Ms. Ahrianova, Mr. Bashev, and all school personnel and students for their help in carrying out the study.

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.

Notes

Author Biographies

Radosveta Dimitrova holds a PhD in cross-cultural psychology from Tilburg University, the Netherlands and PhD in developmental psychology from Trieste University, Italy. Her major research interests include acculturation and identity of ethnic minority youth, most notably Roma.

Athanasios Chasiotis is an associate professor at Tilburg University. He received his doctorate in 1998 from the University of Osnabrück. His major research interests include evolutionary and cross-cultural developmental psychology, and cross-cultural research in motivation and acculturation.

Michael Bender is an assistant professor at Tilburg University. He received his doctorate in 2006 from the University of Osnabrück. His major research interests include autobiographical memory, implicit and explicit motivation, and acculturation, from a cross-cultural, developmental perspective.

Fons J. R. van de Vijver is a professor at Tilburg University and holds a chair at North-West University, South Africa, and the University of Queensland, Australia. He received his doctorate in 1991 from Tilburg University, the Netherlands. His major research interests include acculturation, cross-cultural research methodology, test adaptations, and intelligence differences between cultures.

References

Abbotts

J. E.

Williams

R. G. A.

Sweeting

H. N.

West

P. B.

(2004). Is going to church good or bad for you? Denomination, attendance and mental health of children in West Scotland. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 645-656. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00283-1

Angelov

A. G.

Marshall

D. F.

(2006). Introduction: Ethnolinguistic minority language policies in Bulgaria and their Balkan context. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 179, 1-28. doi:10.1515/IJSL.2006.022

Arbuckle

(2009). Amos 18. Crawfordville, FL: AMOS Development Corporation.

Arends-Tóth

Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2008). Family relationships among immigrants and majority members in the Netherlands. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 466-487. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00331.x

Ashmore

R. D.

Deaux

McLaughlin-Volpe

(2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80-114. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80

Awad

G. H.

(2010). The impact of acculturation and religious identification on perceived discrimination for Arab/Middle Eastern Americans. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 59-67. doi:10.1037/a0016675

Bagger

Gutek

(2008). How much do you value your family and does it matter? The joint effects of family identity salience, family-interference with work, and gender. Human Relations, 6, 187-211. doi:10.1177/0018726707087784

Bartkowski

J. P.

Levin

M. L.

(2008). Religion and child development: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Social Science Research, 37, 18-36. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.02.001

Bombay

Matheson

Anisman

(2010). Decomposing identity: Differential relationships between several aspects of ethnic identity and the negative effects of perceived discrimination among first nation adults in Canada. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 507-515. doi:10.1037/a0021373

10.

Branscombe

N. R.

Schmitt

M. T.

Harvey

R. D.

(1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135-149. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.135

11.

Cheek

J. M.

(1989). Identity orientation and self-interpretation. In Buss

D. M.

Cantor

(Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 275-285). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

12.

Costigan

C. L.

Koryzma

C. M.

Hua

J. M.

Chance

L. J.

(2010). Ethnic identity, achievement, and psychological adjustment: Examining risk and resilience among youth from immigrant Chinese families in Canada. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 264-273. doi:10.1037/a0017275

13.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

14.

Dimitrov

(2000). In search of a homogeneous nation: The assimilation of Bulgaria’s Turkish minority, 1984-1985. Flensburg, Germany: European Center for Minority Issues (ECMI) Report.

15.

Dimitrova

Chasiotis

Bender

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2012). Collective identity and well-being of Roma minority adolescents in Bulgaria. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 502-513. doi:10.1080/00207594.2012.682064

16.

Dimitrova

Chasiotis

Bender

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2013). Collective identity and well-being of Bulgarian Roma adolescents and their mothers. Manuscript submitted for publication.

17.

Eminov

(2007). Social construction of identities: Pomaks in Bulgaria. Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 2, 1-25.

18.

Erikson

(1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

19.

Fuligni

A. J.

Flook

(2005). A social identity approach to ethnic differences in family relationships during adolescence. In Kail

(Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 125-152). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

20.

Furrow

J. L.

King

P. E.

White

(2004). Religion and positive youth development: Identity, meaning, and prosocial concerns. Applied Developmental Science, 8, 17-26. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0801_3

21.

Ganev

(2004). History, politics, and the constitution: Ethnic conflict and constitutional adjudication in postcommunist Bulgaria. Slavic Review, 63, 66-89. doi:10.2307/1520270

22.

Genov

(2010). Radical nationalism in contemporary Bulgaria. Review of European Studies, 2, 35-53.

23.

Ghavami

Fingerhut

Peplau

Grant

S. K.

Witting

M. A.

(2011). Testing a model of minority identity achievement, identity affirmation, and psychological well-being among ethnic minority and sexual minority individuals. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 79-88. doi:10.1037/a0022532

24.

Ghodsee

(2005). Examining “Eastern” aid: Muslim minorities and Islamic foundations in Bulgaria. The Anthropology of East Europe Review: Central Europe, Eastern Europe and Eurasia, 23, 63-71.

25.

Haddad

Y. Y.

Smith

J. I.

(2001). Muslim minorities in the West: Visible and invisible. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

26.

Halman

L. C. J. M.

Petterson

(2001). Religion and social capital in contemporary Europe: Results from the 1999/2000 European Values Study. In Moberg

D. O.

Piedemont

R. L.

(Eds.), Research in the social scientific study of religion (pp. 65-94). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

27.

Hogg

M. A.

Abrams

(1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group process. London, England: Routledge.

28.

Junger

Polder

(1993). Religiosity among ethnic groups in the Netherlands. British Journal of Criminology, 33, 416-435.

29.

Kanev

(2002). Religion in Bulgaria after 1989: Historical and socio-cultural aspects. South East Europe Review for Labour and Social Affairs, 1, 75-95.

30.

Kiang

Yip

Fuligni

A. J.

(2008). Multiple social identities and adjustment in young adults from ethnically diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 643-670. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00575.x

31.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

32.

Little

T. D.

Card

N. A.

Slegers

D. W.

Ledford

E. C.

(2007). Modeling contextual effects in multiple-group MACS models. In Little

T.D.

Bovaird

J. A.

Card

N. A.

(Eds.), Modeling ecological and contextual effects in longitudinal studies of human development (pp. 121-147). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

33.

Lopez

A. B.

Huynh

V. W.

Fuligni

A. J.

(2011). A longitudinal study of religious identity and participation during adolescence. Child Development, 82, 1297-1309. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01609.x

34.

Maeva

(2005). Bulgarian Turks and the European Union. In Rusu

Voicu

(Eds.), EU Integration process from EAST to EAST: Civil society and ethnic minorities in a changing world—Proceedings from a round table for young social scientists (pp. 119-126). Sibiu, Bulgaria: Psihomedia Publishing House.

35.

Marcia

J. E.

(1980). Identity in adolescence. In Adelson

(Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 159-187). New York, NY: Wiley.

36.

Masood

Okazaki

Takeuchi

D. T.

(2009). Gender, family, and community correlates of mental health in South Asian Americans. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 265-274. doi:10.1037/a0014301265

37.

Mihaylova

(2006). Social suffering and political protest: Mapping emotions and power among Pomaks in postsocialist Bulgaria. In Svašek

(Ed.), Postsocialism: Politics and emotions in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 53-73). Oxford, UK: Berghahn Books.

38.

Minority Rights Group International. (2008). World directory of minorities and indigenous peoples—Bulgaria: Bulgarian-speaking Muslims (Pomaks). Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49749d4737.html

39.

National Statistical Institute. (2011). Census 2011. Sofia, Bulgaria: NSI Press.

40.

Petkova

(2002). The ethnic Turks in Bulgaria: Social integration and impact on Bulgarian-Turkish relations, 1947-2000. The Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 1, 42-59. doi:10.1080/14718800208405112

41.

Phalet

(2004). Moslim in Nederland: Religie en integratie [Muslim in the Netherlands: Religion and integration]. The Hague, The Netherlands: Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau.

42.

Phinney

J. S.

(1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 34-49. doi:10.1177/0272431689091004

43.

Phinney

J. S.

(1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.499

44.

Phinney

J. S.

(1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with adolescents and young adults from diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156-176. doi:10.1177/074355489272003

45.

Phinney

J. S.

Horenczyk

Liebkind

Vedder

(2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 493-510. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00225

46.

Phinney

J. S.

Ong

A. D.

(2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 271-281. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.271

47.

Pugh

L. A.

Bry

B. H.

(2007). The protective effects of ethnic identity for alcohol and marijuana use among Black young adults. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 187-193. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.13.2.187

48.

Raichevski

(1998). Balgarskite mohamedani [The Muslim Bulgarians]. Sofia, Bulgaria: Sofia University Press.

49.

Rudin

Eminov

(1993). Bulgarian nationalism and Turkish language in Bulgaria. In Fraenkel

Kramer

(Eds.), Language contact language conflict (pp. 44-71). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

50.

Saroglou

Galand

(2004). Identities, values, and religion: A study among Muslim, other immigrant, and native Belgian young adults after the 9/11 attacks. Identity, 4, 97-132. doi:10.1207/s1532706xid0402_1

51.

Schwartz

S. J.

Weisskirch

R. S.

Hurley

E. A.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Park

I. J. K.

Kim

S. Y.

. . . Greene

A. D.

(2010). Communalism, familism, and filial piety: Are they birds of a collectivist feather? Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 548-560. doi:10.1037/a0021370

52.

Smith

T. B.

Silva

(2011). Ethnic identity and personal well-being of people of color: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 42-60. doi:10.1037/a0021528

53.

Srebranov

(2006). Bulgarian Muslims from the Chech region and their linguistic self-identification. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 179, 131-143. doi:10.1515/IJSL.2006.030

54.

Steidel

A. G. L.

Contreras

J. M.

(2003). A new familism scale for use with Latino populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 312-330. doi:10.1177/0739986303256912

55.

Stoykov

(2002). Bulgarian dialectology. Retrieved from http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/jchorb/st/st_2_b_izt_3.htm

56.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1986). The Social Identity Theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel

Austin

W. G.

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

57.

Torres

Ong

A. D.

(2010). A daily diary investigation of Latino ethnic identity, discrimination, and depression. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 561-568. doi:10.1037/a0020652

58.

Turan

(1999). Pomaks, their past and present. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 19, 69-83. doi:10.1080/13602009908716425

59.

Turner

J. C.

(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

60.

Udel

Donenberg

Emerson

(2011). The impact of mental health problems and religiosity on African-American girls’ HIV-risk. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 217-224. doi:10.1037/a0023243

61.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Diversi

Fine

M. A.

(2002). Ethnic identity and self-esteem of Latino adolescents: Distinctions among the Latino populations. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 303-327. doi:10.1177/0743558402173005

62.

Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

Leung

(1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

63.

Verkuyten

(2005). The social psychology of ethnic identity. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

64.

Verkuyten

Nekuee

(1999). Subjective well-being, discrimination and cultural conflict: Iranians living in the Netherlands. Social Indicators Research, 47, 281-306. doi:10.1023/A:1006970410593

65.

Verkuyten

Yildiz

A. A.

(2009). Muslim immigrants and religious group feelings: Self-identification and attitudes among Sunni and Alevi Turkish-Dutch. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32, 1121-1142. doi:10.1080/01419870802379312

66.

Warhola

J. W.

Boteva

(2010). The Turkish minority in contemporary Bulgaria. Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity, 31, 255-279. doi:10.1080/0090599032000115484

67.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

68.

Yap

S. C. Y.

Settles

I. H.

Pratt-Hyatt

J. S.

(2011). Mediators of the relationship between racial identity and life satisfaction in a community sample of African American women and men. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 89-97. doi:10.1037/a0022535