Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

Social SciencesSocial Sciences
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

11 May 2026

19 Pages

The Cultural Integration Experiences of Syrian Migrants in Turkey: A Qualitative Study on Belonging, Adaptation, and Intercultural Communication

Department of Journalism and Reporting, Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University, Erzincan 24000, Türkiye
Soc. Sci.2026, 15(5), 311;https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15050311
This article belongs to the Special Issue Beyond Arrival: Policies and Practices of Refugee and Immigrant Integration
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

This study examines how Syrian migrants in Turkey—who generally have temporary protection status—adapt to their new environment, focusing on their sense of belonging, social acceptance, and social interaction. In this research, acculturation is considered not only as a one-way adaptation process but also as a multidimensional and mutually evaluated process that emerges through various variables such as the relationships migrants establish with the host society, their intercultural communication experiences, and their daily life practices. The study, conducted using a qualitative research design, is based on data obtained from in-depth interviews with semi-structured questions conducted with 20 Syrian migrants who have resided in various cities in Turkey for at least 5 years. The data emerging from the interviews were analyzed using descriptive-thematic analysis. The findings reveal that positive social contact and interaction within the social structure reinforce the sense of belonging; conversely, discrimination, exposure to exclusion, and legal uncertainty negatively affect acculturation processes. The study contributes to the literature by providing a context-sensitive analysis of acculturation, emphasizing the role of social interaction, belonging, and social acceptance in shaping migrants’ experiences.

1. Introduction

Individuals being forced to leave their countries for various reasons, or choosing to leave, is an event that has occurred throughout history. However, the turmoil, wars, and resulting instability occurring in many parts of the world today have made migration a global necessity. With the internal turmoil that began in Syria in 2011 turning into war, many Syrians have been forced to leave their country. The unsafe environment that emerged with the turmoil in Syria has caused approximately half of the 22 million population to migrate compulsorily (Altınışık and Şanlı 2024).
Syrians, who began to migrate en masse due to the effects of the war, sought safe havens in order to continue their lives. Thus, one of the first countries they sought refuge in was Turkey (Bose 2022). As a result, Turkey hosts approximately 3.2 million registered Syrian refugees under temporary protection (UNHCR 2026), making it home to the world’s largest group of migrants with temporary protection status (Armağan-Boğatekin and Ho 2025).
Migration and acculturation should be examined in connection with concepts such as daily life necessities, communication styles, belonging, identity, social acceptance, and intercultural communication. It is particularly noteworthy that the majority of studies conducted on Syrians focus on metropolitan areas, and that some of the areas of study also include structural integration policies, including issues related to education, labor market participation, legal status, and access to healthcare and housing (Bayram and Eryılmaz 2025; Kırdar et al. 2023; Mahmud and Soriano-Miras 2025; Özel and Erdur-Baker 2023; Öztürk et al. 2019; Şafak-Ayvazoğlu et al. 2021; Şimşek 2020). The existing literature indicates that there is a limited body of research that examines Syrian migrants’ daily life and communication experiences, social interactions, sense of belonging, migration experiences, cultural identity, and the process of social integration from a broad perspective using qualitative methods, and this study aims to address this gap by examining these dimensions through an in-depth qualitative approach. This study examines the acculturation experiences of Syrian migrants living in Turkey under temporary protection status within the framework of intercultural communication, belonging, identity, and social acceptance. This study asks how Syrian migrants’ acculturation processes in Turkey are shaped by social interactions, communication practices, and perceptions of belonging and identity, and argues that acculturation is not merely an individual adaptation process but a context-sensitive process negotiated through communication practices and social interactions. To address this question, the study employs a qualitative research design. This study is structured as follows. The next section presents the theoretical framework. This is followed by the materials and methods section outlining the research design, data collection, and analysis. The subsequent section presents the results, and the final sections discuss the findings and conclude the study.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Theoretical Background of Acculturation

When two different cultural structures come into direct or indirect contact with each other, the psychological, social, and cultural changes that occur in one or both of these cultural structures are referred to as acculturation (Sam and Berry 2010). Berry’s Acculturation Model, one of the leading theories in this field, explains this process with the questions: Do people want to maintain their original cultural identity where they live? Do they want to interact with the society they are visiting? The answers to these questions reveal the acculturation strategy of migrants. These strategies are integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization. Berry (1997) states that integration, which he defines as participation in the dominant culture while preserving cultural identity, is associated with positive psychological and social adjustment data. However, acculturation has been found to be linked to different variables. Therefore, while Syrian migrants in Turkey preserve their own culture, they may also engage in different acculturation strategies, such as integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization, in terms of their relationship with the host society. This situation, in which Syrian migrants maintain their own culture while engaging in different forms of interaction with the host society, shows that acculturation is an active process determined not only by individual attitudes but also by the attitudes of the host society.
In this context, Allport (1954) states in his Contact Hypothesis that the nature of the relationship between groups, whether contact is positive or negative, affects the acculturation process. According to Allport, positive contact increases under appropriate conditions such as a common goal between groups, institutional support, and interaction. This, in turn, increases acceptance. Where the necessary conditions for positive contact are absent, contact will lead to exclusion, discrimination, and more pronounced identities. This, in turn, produces negative outcomes. These dynamics are also reflected in the relationships of Syrian migrants in Turkey. Indeed, Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2006) meta-analysis and the work of Brown and Hewstone (2005) on groups with different identities, as well as the studies by Paolini et al. (2010) and Graf et al. (2014), show that negative contact negatively affects the acculturation process by increasing prejudice, discrimination, and negative attitudes.
This study argues that the acculturation process is not merely an individual adaptation process, but a multifaceted social transformation involving social, psychological, and intercultural communication dimensions. In this regard, Berry’s (1997) acculturation model forms the theoretical backbone of the research. Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis and Kim’s (2001) intercultural adaptation theory help explain migrants’ social acceptance and exclusion in the acculturation process, while Yuval-Davis (2006) and Antonsich’s (2010) conceptualizations contribute to understanding the multi-layered structure of belonging and interpreting the findings. These perspectives also provide a broader framework for understanding belonging, which will be further elaborated in the following sections. The themes that emerged from the interview data will be analyzed using these theoretical perspectives.

2.2. Belonging and Social Acceptance

Belonging is both a personal and relational process that emerges from the answers to the questions “Who am I?” and “Where do I belong?”, as well as from interactions between individuals and the host society. It also encompasses social acceptance along with legal citizenship. Yuval-Davis (2006) describes belonging as a dynamic process in which individuals define themselves and are defined by others, pointing to three levels linked to social positions, emotional ties, and ethical and political values. In this context, belonging is related not only to an individual’s sense of belonging but also to their acceptance by society. Therefore, the degree to which society recognizes and accepts the individual affects their level of belonging.
Similarly, Antonsich (2010) divides belonging into two components: “place-belongingness,” referring to personal and emotional ties to a place, and “politics of belonging,” referring to social recognition and acceptance. These components do not always align; even if a migrant has place-belongingness, prejudice and exclusion can weaken their sense of belonging. This situation can be observed among Syrian migrants in Turkey. At this point, social capital offers an analytical perspective for understanding belonging processes. Originally conceptualized by Bourdieu (1986) as a form of capital linked to social networks and resources, social capital has been further developed in different ways within the literature. In this regard, Putnam (1995, 2000) defines social capital as interpersonal connections that support social cohesion through trust, networks, reciprocity, and norms. For example, migrants’ neighborhood relationships contribute to both bonding social capital within the group and bridging social capital with the host community. Furthermore, Putnam (2000) states that bonding is important for “getting by” and bridging for “getting ahead.”

2.3. Intercultural Communication Practices

In the minds of migrants, perceptions of the host country are often formed through media content, without any physical contact. As a space where cultural meanings and everyday life practices are produced and circulated, the media contributes to the formation of mental images of the host society. In this sense, mediated representations may contribute to the development of familiarity and expectations towards places that individuals have not directly experienced. In this context, the media—especially television series—contributes to the formation of cultural images and expectations about the host country prior to migration, creating a space of “pre-acquaintance” for individuals (Buonanno 2008; Hall 1990). This literature generally shows that the experiences migrants gain through face-to-face communication and traditional media play a decisive role in their acculturation processes. However, media representations are not always objective and may also reproduce stereotypes or biased perspectives, which can shape migrants’ expectations in different ways.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design and Participants

This study was conducted using a qualitative research design and structured using a descriptive-thematic approach. The researcher approaches the study from an academic perspective and acknowledges their positionality within the Turkish social context, aiming to maintain analytical distance throughout data collection and analysis This study is guided by the following research question: how are the acculturation processes of Syrian migrants living in urban areas in Turkey shaped through daily social interactions and communication practices, alongside their perceptions of belonging and identity, based on data collected through interviews conducted in 2025? Instead of merely measuring events quantitatively, the qualitative research method aims to uncover the answers to the questions “what,” “why,” “when,” “where,” “who,” and “how” behind social behaviors and interactions, offering a powerful perspective for discovering and interpreting the complexity of social phenomena (Lim 2024, p. 200). The qualitative research method expresses the underlying meanings and interpretations of something rather than its numerical value. Therefore, qualitative research is particularly useful when statistical information is difficult to obtain or not considered meaningful. It is also preferred when one-on-one interviews are required (Kirk and Miller 1986, p. 5) or when the aim is to develop a new theory rather than test a hypothesis (Cherry 2000, p. 49). This approach is supported by the more recent methodological literature (Creswell and Poth 2018; Flick 2018).
Data was collected through interviews conducted using semi-structured questions. This approach aimed to obtain more detailed and reliable data. Participants were selected using purposive sampling. This allowed contact with individuals related to the topics of belonging, migration, and cultural identity. To obtain reliable information from participants, individuals who had been residing in Turkey for at least 5 years were preferred. This criterion was applied as an inclusion condition, and individuals with less than five years of residence were not included in the study. Participants were reached through purposive sampling using social and community-based networks, including university environments and urban social settings. The interviews were conducted face-to-face by the researcher in a limited number of urban settings during 2025. These settings provided access to participants from diverse regional backgrounds, as major urban environments in Turkey host individuals with experiences across different cities. Therefore, the data reflect participants’ multi-local experiences rather than site-specific comparisons. The study, conducted with 20 Syrian migrants, ensured richer data by including participants of different ages, genders, and educational levels. The interviews were conducted in 2025, and the data were analysed in the same period. Although Table 1 presents participants’ current places of residence, some interviewees had previously lived, studied, or temporarily resided in Erzincan before relocating to other cities. Therefore, references to Erzincan in the findings reflect earlier stages of participants’ integration experiences rather than their residence at the time of the interviews. Some participants were university students in Erzincan during a certain period, while others had different occupational and residential backgrounds. In many cases, participants’ family residences were located in different cities, and their presence in Erzincan was temporary. Their accounts therefore include experiences from both their places of origin and their temporary residence in Erzincan. The participants’ identity information was not disclosed, and they were coded using abbreviations such as P1–P20. The list of participants in the in-depth interviews is provided in Table 1:
Table 1. In-Depth Interview Participant List.

3.2. Data Collection Tool

The study is based on primary qualitative data obtained from in-depth interviews conducted with participants. The research data was collected using an interview form consisting of 18 open-ended questions developed by the researcher. Participant quotes are based on the transcription of interview recordings made with the participants’ permission. The interviews aimed to examine the social, cultural, and psychological experiences of migrants in Turkey from different perspectives. The interview form, prepared based on a literature review and expert opinions, was tested through pilot interviews before being finalized. The interviews, which lasted an average of 45–90 min, were conducted in Turkish and face-to-face.

3.3. Data Analysis Process

The data obtained from the participants were analyzed using the descriptive-thematic analysis approach with NVivo (version 14, Lumivero, Denver, CO, USA) software (Braun and Clarke 2006). The analysis was guided by a thematic analysis framework rather than a grounded theory design. The data were systematically coded and interpreted at a thematic level. The analysis process was carried out in three stages.
In the first stage, the interview recordings were transcribed and converted into written text. In the coding process conducted by two independent researchers, the interview transcripts were coded separately by the researchers, and then the codes were compared to ensure thematic consistency and reliability. Disagreements between coders were discussed until consensus was reached.
In the second phase, the data obtained from the 18 questions were reorganized, taking into account semantic overlaps and recurring themes. Similar or related questions were combined to form 10 focus questions. The participants’ responses to these 10 questions were analyzed using an iterative thematic coding process in NVivo (version 14, Lumivero, Denver, CO, USA) software, resulting in five main themes: (1) Belonging and Migration Experience, (2) Social Acceptance and Exclusion, (3) Cultural Identity and Preservation of Traditions, (4) Process of Adaptation to Turkish Culture and Society, and (5) Daily Life and Social Interaction.
In the third stage, the codes and themes were reviewed again in NVivo, and the necessary adjustments were made. Researcher memos were kept throughout the analysis, and an audit trail was created to ensure the traceability of analysis decisions. In addition, Participant × Code (Case × Node) matrices were prepared using NVivo’s Matrix Coding Query tool, and the density data obtained from these matrices were used only to support thematic interpretations, not for statistical generalization.
All themes are grounded in experiential narratives shared across the participant group, indicating widely distributed patterns rather than isolated individual accounts. Therefore, themes were interpreted analytically rather than on a frequency-based basis.

3.4. Reliability and Validity

The level of agreement was calculated as 86% according to the Miles and Huberman (1994) formula and 0.79 according to Cohen’s κ coefficient. In cases of disagreement between coders, discrepancies were discussed and resolved through consensus, and where necessary, codes were refined to ensure consistency.
Various methods were used to increase the validity of the study. First, member checking was applied; the codes and themes obtained were shared with five participants residing in different urban settings, and some theme names were revised based on the feedback received. In addition, data triangulation was performed; the statements of participants of different ages, genders, and educational levels were analyzed comparatively (Donkoh and Mensah 2023).
Researcher reflexivity was maintained throughout the process; to reduce the impact of bias, researchers kept analytical notes and recorded their positions and interpretations in a decision log. Throughout the analysis process, the level of thematic saturation was observed, and saturation was considered to have been reached after the 17th participant, as no new codes or themes emerged. Although thematic saturation was largely achieved by the seventeenth interview, the final interviews provided additional contextual depth and confirmatory insights that supported the consistency of the thematic interpretation.
As a result, the five themes obtained represent the participants’ experiences of belonging, cultural identity, social acceptance, and integration in Turkey in a multidimensional way and provide reliable answers to the research questions. The coding table is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Code scheme (abbreviated; link to findings) table *.
Ethical considerations were carefully addressed due to the vulnerable status of the participants. Ethical approval was obtained from the relevant institutional ethics committee (see the Institutional Review Board Statement at the end of the manuscript for details). Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and confidentiality and anonymity were ensured throughout the research process.

4. Result and Discussion

4.1. Sense of Belonging and Migration Experience

Belonging refers to being a citizen of a country and the emotional bond formed with the people or society of that country (Rydell et al. 2024, p. 4). The theme of belonging and migration that emerged in the study reveals how participants defined their feelings of belonging through their length of stay in Turkey, social relationships, language use, and perceptions of homeland.

Language Learning, Migration Duration, and Daily Interactions

It was observed that the majority of participants had been in Turkey for more than 10 years. This duration indicates that migrants have a settled perspective rather than a temporary one in Turkey. However, duration alone is not sufficient for assessing belonging. For example, there appears to be a strong relationship between migrants learning Turkish and socialization and belonging. It was found that participants with experience of living in refugee camps or areas with a high concentration of Syrians had more limited contact and social relationships with Turks. This also affects Turkish language learning. Indeed, P3 states that “We had Turkish lessons at school, but the reason my Turkish is weak is because everyone in the camp is Syrian,” while P8 emphasizes the impact of environmental factors on language learning with the statement, “In the camp in Hatay, everyone is Syrian, and also because Turks in Hatay speak Arabic, I couldn’t learn Turkish very easily. If my Turkish were better, I would have more Turkish friends.” These accounts suggest that spatial and social living arrangements may influence opportunities for interaction with members of the host society. In addition, participants living in city centers or attending university stated that they communicated more with Turks and thus improved their Turkish. P11’s statement, “I’ve been in Turkey for 6 years. I have many Turkish friends. I have them in my dorm and at work. When I arrived, I didn’t know any Turkish, but now my Turkish is good, and I don’t struggle anymore,” clearly shows the role of education and social life in developing language skills. Participants who speak Turkish fluently (e.g., P2, P5, P7, P11, P14, P19) stated that they learned Turkish in social settings through their own efforts and that they feel more confident because they can express themselves comfortably. In this respect, the findings may also have implications for how reception environments shape language learning trajectories and everyday experiences of social participation. This finding shows that language is a decisive factor in an individual’s social positioning and that there is a linear relationship between language proficiency and social acceptance (Giles and Johnson 1987, p. 71). Furthermore, migrants’ prolonged exposure to the culture and language of their host country also provides them with the opportunity to experience new worldviews (Nguyen and Benet-Martínez 2010). Consequently, every time language learners speak, read, or write the target language, they not only exchange information with members of the target language community, but also develop an understanding of who they are and how they relate to the social world. In this way, identity construction through language also emerges (Norton 2013, p. 4). Sociolinguistic perspectives emphasize that language is not only a means of communication but also a “socio-political structure that carries certain values” (Butcher 2008, p. 373).
A significant portion of the participants stated that they dream in Arabic, while some dream in Turkish or a mixture of both languages. P7 said, “I usually dream in Arabic, but sometimes I dream in Turkish, especially when I see my Turkish friends,” while P11 said, “If my Turkish friends are in my dream, I dream in Turkish. During exam time, since the exams are in Turkish, I see the questions in Turkish in my dreams.” According to Grosjean (2010, p. 128), bilingual individuals activate one language and push the other into the background depending on the environment, subject, or emotional context. In this situation, referred to as language mode, the participants’ use of Arabic or Turkish in their dreams may suggest which social and emotional environment they were more intensely connected to during that period.
Since language is a way for individuals to position themselves in the social world, it is also closely related to issues of identity (Lippi-Green 2012). Migrants generally feel a strong attachment to their native languages, which are linked to their cultural heritage. Therefore, learning a new language is seen as a disturbing process because it is considered “transforming oneself” (Besemeres and Wierzbicka 2007). For some, being able to speak the host country’s language means that the immigrant has assimilated (Lippi-Green 2012, p. 249). According to some, however, there is no direct connection between language and identity, because migrants generally feel responsible both to their homeland and to the country they have come to. They develop a “hybrid identity” by being influenced by the language and culture of both countries (Temple 2010; Pavlenko 2005). Practices such as learning Turkish, making Turkish friends, and speaking Turkish in dreams symbolize the individual’s desire to connect with Turkey, while speaking Arabic, spending time with Syrian communities, and having dreams in Arabic represent the emotional bond with their roots. However, Bhabha (1994, p. 114) states that hybridity is not a third way that resolves the tension between two cultures, but rather a concept that points to the transformation of the subject, i.e., the migrants.

4.2. Experience of Social Acceptance and Exclusion

Social acceptance is a tendency related to an individual’s perception of being embraced, valued, and included in social networks by the community in which they live and their feeling of being part of that environment. The process of individuals or groups being excluded from community life, not being accepted into social relationships, or being rejected is defined as social exclusion (Bobek and Sandström 2024, p. 1285).

The Spatial and Temporal Dimensions of Perceived Racism and Exclusion

The fact that participants lived in different cities led to different assessments. Therefore, Erzincan stands out in the assessments made across different cities. The vast majority of participants stated that they had not encountered racism in Erzincan and did not feel excluded. Many participants (P3, P17, P19) stated that they encountered more racism in cities with higher migration density and socioeconomic tension, such as Urfa, Gaziantep/Nizip, Hatay, and Mersin. This spatial division is consistent with recent research showing that acculturation is not experienced homogeneously within a single national context but rather varies depending on local social conditions and patterns of contact (Hopkins 2010). P1’s statement, “I haven’t seen racism in nine years. I generally don’t feel excluded,” P2’s statement, “I’ve never encountered it in Erzincan… I haven’t seen racism, nor do I feel excluded,” and P18’s statement, “I haven’t seen it, I’ve been here for 5 years but I haven’t seen racism… people don’t exclude me, I don’t feel that way,” point to a strong sense of local acceptance. These findings are consistent with those highlighted in the acculturation literature, which emphasizes that local communities are a critical determinant of cultural adaptation (Hadj Abdou and Katsiaficas 2023; Zhang et al. 2023; Zihnioğlu and Dalkıran 2022).
These differences may be explained by the varying social conditions and forms of intergroup contact across local contexts. In smaller and more socially cohesive settings such as Erzincan, more frequent and direct interactions may foster mutual familiarity and reduce prejudice. In contrast, in cities with higher migration density and socioeconomic tensions, limited or unequal forms of contact may contribute to experiences of exclusion. In this regard, Allport’s Contact Hypothesis suggests that positive intergroup contact is more likely to reduce prejudice when supported by conditions such as equal status, cooperation, and supportive social norms.
However, almost all participants stated that even if they did not experience racism firsthand, they were aware of the existence of racist discourse. Actions characterized as racism were generally observed at the level of discourse. Most participants state that they have been exposed to racist discourse such as “why didn’t you stay in your country” and “why didn’t you fight in your country.” For example, P3 states that a butcher said to him, “Why did you come here, go fight in your country… You ran away from the war,” and emphasizes that he prefers not to respond in order to avoid conflict. P11 states that during his university years, a friend belittled his war experience; P13 states that his landlord refused to rent him a house after learning he was Syrian. These individual incidents can be seen as a reflection of prejudice directed at the group. Indeed, in the literature, this situation is defined as perceived discrimination (de Freitas et al. 2018; Major et al. 2002). Perceived discrimination, which includes psychological changes arising from contact with a new culture, is shown to be an important part of migrants’ acculturation process (Berry 1997; Bierwiaczonek and Waldzus 2016; Sam and Berry 2010) and can be considered a social stress factor for migrants (Demes and Geeraert 2014).
Participants state that they did not encounter racist attitudes during their first years in Turkey, but that people’s attitudes began to change over time. P11 said, “At first, these attitudes did not exist… They started after 2017,” while P12 said, “Because when we first arrived, people felt sorry for us and thought we would return home soon. As time went on, people got bored,” pointing to changing social perceptions. P13 engages in self-criticism, stating, “There are Syrians who harm us; this is at the root of the racism we have seen in recent times… Turks become hostile towards all Syrians,” blaming certain Syrians for these reactions. P19 similarly states, “What I call racism emerged in recent years… There were no such things in the beginning.” These narratives support findings that perceived discrimination increases as temporary hospitality turns into permanence and economic and political tensions rise, negatively affecting integration processes (Quillian 1995, p. 590).
Another striking common theme is the “bad Syrians” narrative present in the discourse of almost all participants. Almost all participants use the phrase “Syrians who harm us” when explaining the exclusionary attitudes they have experienced or heard about. In this way, they develop a kind of in-group distancing strategy by separating the Syrians they label as bad from their own identity. P10 says, “Unfortunately, there are many Syrians who harm us… We are more disturbed by the harm they cause,” while P11 says, “Those who harass girls… Yes, they exist. I am warning you… because prejudice will form.” P18 clearly describes the mechanism of attributing the negative behavior of a small number of individuals to the entire group, stating, “There are 4 million Syrians in Turkey, 500 of them do bad things, but when Turks see this, they say Syrians are bad.” The “bad Syrians” discourse of Syrian participants is consistent with the Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner 1979), which states that being different from other groups justifies the group’s existence. People tend to attribute positive characteristics to members of their own group and negative characteristics to members of other groups (Hagendoorn 1995; Tajfel and Turner 1979). Discriminatory behaviors generally stem from the desire to support and legitimize one’s own group rather than from hostility toward other members of the group; being different from other groups justifies the group’s existence (Allport 1954; Jetten et al. 2004). This internal differentiation among migrants can be related to deservingness hierarchies in migration contexts, whereby individuals seek social recognition by distancing themselves from negatively stereotyped co-nationals, implicitly reproducing “good migrant/bad migrant” distinctions (Chauvin and Garcés-Mascareñas 2020; Gabrielli et al. 2022). Indeed, Bontenbal’s (2023) study states that some participants preferred to stay away from bad migrants because they were afraid of being lumped together with them.
In summary, participants’ experiences of social acceptance and exclusion, Berry’s (2006) acculturation strategies, Kim’s (2001) Stress-Adaptation-Growth Dynamic model, and Gudykunst’s (1998) Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory align with the notion that intercultural adaptation is a function of migrants’ ability to manage their fears, anxieties, and uncertainties. All of this demonstrates that acculturation is not a pure and unadulterated concept. These theoretical frameworks reveal that narratives are not merely “personal experiences”; they are also expressions of complex socio-psychological processes intertwined with cultural adaptation strategies, the host society’s prejudices and acceptance practices, and language, identity, and relationship management.

4.3. The Process of Adapting to Turkish Culture and Society

The forms and intensity of contact that migrants establish with society often have a decisive influence on their first impressions. Syrians’ perceptions of Turkey and Turks are shaped by the media before migration and by face-to-face communication in social life after migration. Therefore, the ways in which participants get to know Turkish society provide important data about the nature of the adaptation process.

Forming First Impressions: Face-to-Face Contact and Media Experiences

The vast majority of participants stated that they formed their first impressions of Turkish society through face-to-face communication. Direct contact at school, at work, and in daily life was seen to be more effective in understanding Turkish society. In this regard, P10 said, “I am a social person, and since I did not feel excluded, I got to know Turks by talking to them face-to-face in social settings,” while P4 emphasized close involvement with people through commercial activities. This finding is consistent with Allport’s (1954) Contact Hypothesis. Direct communication between cultures has been found to reduce prejudice and increase adaptation (Pettigrew and Tropp 2006). In particular, statements by P1 and P11 that they communicated with Turks in various settings such as the street, school, market, and workplace show that face-to-face contact is a fundamental tool in the adaptation process.
However, it is seen that the initial perception of Turks and Turkey formed before coming to Turkey was largely shaped by media representations. The large number of participants who follow Turkish TV series is noteworthy. For example, P15 stated that while in Syria, they “always watched Turkish channels” and that when they think of Turkey, the lifestyle they see in the series comes to mind. Similarly, P13 emphasized that before ever seeing Turkey, their image of it was entirely based on “Istanbul.” This suggests that individuals may develop mediated familiarity and expectations regarding places they have not directly experienced. It is also supported by approaches that argue that images of national identity and culture are constructed in specific ways through media discourse and conveyed to viewers (Wodak et al. 2009).
Turkish TV series have also been seen to sometimes cause misunderstandings in the perceptions of migrants. P12, in particular, stated that due to dubbed broadcasts, they thought Turks spoke Arabic, and recounted their surprise upon arriving in Turkey, asking, “What language do they speak?” It is noteworthy that P17 and P19 also experienced cultural shock when confronted with reality due to the linguistic manipulation of the series. This finding reveals that the media can create a distorted perception of reality among viewers and can be evaluated within the framework of cultivation theory (Gerbner 1969; Morgan et al. 2015).
In addition, this section analyzes whether Syrian migrants participate in the month of Ramadan—which is considered sacred by Turks—as well as religious holidays and other sacred days, including Islamic holy nights; it also examines whether they participate in Turkish national holidays and the nature of their participation.
It is evident that participants interact with the Turkish community during religious holidays. Participants who describe their relationships with Turks as positive during these holidays particularly highlight the month of Ramadan. For example, P2 emphasizes this two-way communication by stating, “During Ramadan, our neighbors bring us food, and we bring food to them. Our Turkish neighbor was the first to bring us food”; while P1’s remark, “…we may not always understand each other due to the language barrier, but if they come to us, we welcome them, and we are very happy,” indicates that migrants have expectations regarding good behavior.
Responses regarding national holidays reveal that migrants are knowledgeable about Turkey’s national calendar and symbolic days, but that their forms of participation in these days vary. The vast majority of participants stated that they knew about national holidays. For example, P2 states, “I know 23 April, 19 May, 29 October,” while P3 lists “19 May, 23 April, 15 July.” However, the level of participation is more heterogeneous: while most participants stated that they personally attended the ceremonies, others stated that they either did not participate at all or were involved in the process mainly through their siblings or children’s school years. This is consistent with the literature suggesting that migrants’ familiarity with national symbols is an indicator of cognitive/cultural integration, while active participation in ceremonies can be interpreted as an indicator of social or behavioral/social integration (Coopmans et al. 2015, 2016; Hamberger 2009; Laurentsyeva and Venturini 2017). Indeed, Coopmans et al. (2016) found that as migrants’ length of stay in the host country increased, their participation in national day celebrations also increased significantly and positively.

4.4. Cultural Identity and the Continuation of Traditions

Migration is a difficult process that creates conflict in individuals’ emotional worlds beyond financial hardship, causing people to question their cultural identities. During this process, migrants are in contact with both their own culture and the host culture. Therefore, continuing traditions, getting to know the host culture, and adapting are important concepts that affect migrants’ daily lives.

Perceptions of Cultural Similarity and the Continuation of Traditions

Most participants state that Turkish and Syrian cultures are similar. The data obtained shows that participants try to maintain their cultural identity while also striving to harmonize with Turks. Compared to European and Arab countries in particular, Turks are seen as culturally closer. It is noteworthy that Turkey is seen as closer even than Arab countries, with which it shares both ethnic and religious ties. P5 states, “For instance, both Turks and we dance the halay at weddings. If I were in Germany, I would feel like a stranger,” while P14 emphasizes cultural closeness by stating, “Turkey is not Switzerland. We have not experienced any difficulties in terms of culture and religion.” Similarly, P20 reinforces this perception by stating that Syria is not like Lebanon, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, saying, “Syrian culture and Turkish culture are very close to each other, not identical but very close.” Findings from various studies emphasize that such rituals both ensure the continuity of the culture of origin and create “common ground” with the host society, with religion and ritual practices reinforcing cultural affinity (Herzfeld 2016; Rottmann and Kaya 2021).
Many participants explain this cultural similarity through the fact that both Turks and Syrians are Muslim, their geographical proximity, and their shared history. For example, P3 states, “The most important thing is the religious bond. We lived together for 400 years before,” while P4 emphasizes the shared history of Turks and Syrians in the Ottoman Empire, saying, “We were together for hundreds of years until yesterday.” These statements are consistent with the finding in the literature that Syrians frequently refer to “ethnocultural, religious, and historical ties” when choosing Turkey as their destination for migration (Şahin-Mencütek et al. 2023). Indeed, the influence of Turks being Muslim on Syrian migrants feeling safer and more comfortable in Turkey is supported by various studies (Lazarev and Sharma 2017; Şafak-Ayvazoğlu et al. 2021). Participants’ statements that Turkey is “even closer than Arabia” (P19) or “even though Arabia is Arab, Syria resembles Turkey more than Arabia” (P13) show that cultural closeness cannot be explained solely by ethnic categories such as “Arabness.” Furthermore, it is seen that the perception of regional and historical closeness, along with shared actions, is more effective in the adaptation process.
The acculturation literature (Berry 1997; Berry et al. 2006) and interviews with participants also reveal that cultural identity is not fixed and static, but rather a structure that changes over time and is subject to debate. P2’s statement, “Since I came to Turkey, I’ve almost forgotten how to listen to Arabic songs; I only listen to Turkish songs. Turkish songs are very beautiful,” shows the influence of the host culture in terms of popular culture, while P10’s statement, “I got used to Turkish food, but my family couldn’t get used to it very much… Over time, Syrians are becoming different, but Turks are also changing over time. Turks are also beginning to recognize Syrian food, especially Syrian desserts,” shows that acculturation and the speed of acculturation differ across generations and that migrants also have an impact on the host society at the same time. This situation is consistent with the literature that suggests migrants adapt to the host culture while preserving their own culture, rather than abandoning their own culture and assimilating (Alba and Nee 2003; Choi and Tienda 2018; Hannemann et al. 2018). This is consistent with theoretical perspectives that go beyond the one-dimensional understanding of assimilation in immigrant integration models and instead consider forms of “cultural integration/hybridization/symbiotic adaptation” (Raja et al. 2024; Kuhnt and Obersneider 2025). P12’s statement, “I now feel closer to Turkish culture,” reveals the effect of cultural affinity on personal preferences. The findings of this study support the notion that music, weddings, food, and neighborly culture foster a sense of community. The literature also shows that participation in social and cultural activities positively affects Syrian migrants and supports integration by strengthening interaction with the host community (Giovanis et al. 2024). P17 refers to the change in family structure due to the forced migration brought about by the war, stating, “We inevitably cannot live the same way in Turkey as we did before. Our traditions in Syria are changing or disappearing over time. For example, we used to celebrate holidays as a large family… of course, that doesn’t happen anymore,” drawing attention to the spatial and emotional dimensions of the sociological change they are experiencing). Therefore, it suggests that the cultural identities of Syrian migrants are in an “intermediate” form, neither purely “Syrian” nor fully “Turkified,” but rather shaped as a “hybrid” space oscillating between two cultures, pointing to the hybrid identity formation described by Kim (2001) in the context of intercultural interaction.

4.5. Daily Life and Social Interaction

This theme examines participants’ experiences in their daily lives, such as what factors influenced their choice of neighborhood, their relationships with neighbors, and their socialization processes in public spaces.

Residential Patterns, Neighborly Relations, and Participation in Public Spaces

According to the information provided by participants, the environment they live in, where they reside, their neighborly relations, and their presence in public spaces are factors that shape the daily lives of Syrian migrants. What participants particularly complain about is the perception in the public eye that Syrians are concentrated in certain areas in a ghetto-like manner, despite the fact that they live anywhere without restrictions on space or neighborhood as their living area. The reason Syrians living together in certain neighborhoods prefer this is explained not by their desire to isolate themselves from Turks and society but by economic conditions, social support networks, and language problems. P10’s statement, “The goal is not actually to be together; because Syrians who have money can live alone in better neighborhoods,” clearly shows the relationship between economic level and spatial choices. Similarly, P3 cites financial necessity as the reason, stating, “Syrians live together because the places they live are cheap.” Indeed, as emphasized in the literature, this finding shows that it can be explained by the attractiveness of cheap housing opportunities, kinship and hometown ties, and social support networks, rather than voluntary ethnic ghettoization (Alba and Foner 2015; İnce 2018; Özgür 2020). According to the theory of spatial assimilation, migrants generally prefer to live with other people who share a similar background at first (e.g., settlements that provide cultural cohesion and institutional support), but as they learn the language, acquire new job skills, and adapt to the culture of the host country, they and subsequent generations “move up and out” over time. (Alba and Foner 2015; Lichter et al. 2015; Massey and Capoferro 2008).
Indeed, P11 mentions the necessity for Syrians to stay together due to the inability of older individuals to learn Turkish and their need for assistance. These statements align with the literature finding that Syrians are drawn to “ghetto-like” structures not by choice, but due to access to suitable housing, job opportunities, and community networks. Furthermore, P12’s interpretation of his father’s reluctance to live in the same neighborhood as other Syrians as “we will be blamed because of their bad deeds” shows that Syrians develop spatial strategies out of fear of stigmatization even within their own community. This is because it is assumed that the stigmatization of a neighborhood and its residents reduces their chances in many areas, such as the job market. This situation demonstrates that identity and social perception are also decisive factors in the positioning of immigrant groups (Schönwälder 2007, p. 91; Massey 2017).
The overwhelming majority of participants stated that their neighborly relations with Turks are good. Some even used the term “perfect.” P19’s statement that “we have perfect neighborly relations with Turks” is indicative of positive relations. Furthermore, P10’s statement, like many participants, emphasizing the month of Ramadan, “our neighbors share their meals with us during Ramadan,” points to the religious and cultural aspects of this solidarity and sincerity. Indeed, the WFP’s social integration study also indicates that personal interaction and neighborly relations are among the most important factors determining the host community’s attitudes toward migrants; Turkish citizens who have direct social ties with migrants are more supportive of social integration and, despite language barriers in neighborly relations, food sharing and increased contact, especially during Ramadan, support intercultural communication (World Food Programme 2020).
Although the vast majority describe their neighborly relations with satisfaction, some experiences that could be considered somewhat negative are also mentioned. P11’s statement, “When we first came to Turkey, some people didn’t want us, but as they got to know us, they began to feel affection for us,” shows that integration is a two-way process that takes time. Migrants’ participation in the community and their relationships with neighbors create social capital that fosters bonding within the group and bridging with the host group. This capital provides psychosocial support for migrants rather than an economic or material contribution and is also of vital importance in terms of belonging (Zhang et al. 2023, 2024).
It is noteworthy that participants did not shy away from public spaces; on the contrary, they reported feeling comfortable in a variety of environments. These findings highlight the role of social contact in shaping everyday interactions with the host society. P2’s statement, “We are in all kinds of social environments. I go to the mosque, I go to the cafe, I go to the cinema, and I go with my family,” shows that Syrians can be present in diverse public settings. Similarly, P20 emphasizes that intercultural relations are part of daily life, stating, “We go to football matches with friends every week, including Turkish friends.” Many participants also reported not experiencing significant difficulties, indicating their active presence in public spaces. Such participation suggests that migrants establish community life not only in private spheres but also in public spaces; thus, integration extends beyond physical settlement to include social and cultural participation (Benabdallah et al. 2025; Gao et al. 2024; Zhang et al. 2023).

5. Discussion

This study approaches acculturation not merely as an individual adaptation process, but as a multidimensional social transformation shaped by social, psychological, and intercultural communication dimensions. The findings indicate that the experiences of Syrian migrants in Turkey exhibit a dual structure: while economic hardships, language barriers, and prejudices complicate the adaptation process, daily interactions, neighborly relationships, and social participation support a sense of belonging and adaptation. This situation demonstrates that acculturation is not a linear process, but rather a context-dependent and negotiated one.
Consistent with Berry’s acculturation model, participants’ experiences point to different strategies depending on their social environments; integration, in the Turkish context, is seen to transform into experiences of hybrid identity in some cases due to the influence of cultural and religious affinity. Furthermore, the findings support Allport’s contact hypothesis, indicating that the nature of contact is a determining factor in migrants’ processes of exclusion or adaptation. Additionally, within the framework of Kim’s stress–adaptation–growth model, it is understood that experiences of social acceptance and exclusion are among the key determinants of the adaptation process.
The results generally align with the existing literature, which emphasizes the importance of social interaction and the host society’s attitudes in migrants’ adaptation processes. However, this study expands the literature by revealing that acculturation in the Turkish context is shaped within daily communication practices and local social relationships. In this regard, the study offers a communication-centered and context-sensitive interpretation of acculturation, illustrating how belonging, identity, and social interaction are intertwined in migrants’ experiences. Future studies examining this process with larger samples that include different age groups and the host society’s perspective could more comprehensively reveal the multidimensional nature of acculturation. The findings also directly address the research questions of the study, demonstrating how Syrian migrants develop social interaction and communication practices, how these practices shape their perceptions of belonging and identity, how experiences of social acceptance and exclusion influence psychosocial adaptation, and how social capital, cultural practices, and future orientations contribute to the acculturation process.

6. Conclusions

This study provides an in-depth examination of the acculturation processes of Syrian migrants residing in Turkey under temporary protection status and the socio-psychological determinants shaping these processes. The findings reveal that migrants who have stayed in Turkey for a long time and are in constant interaction with Turks in their daily lives have a stronger sense of belonging in terms of language learning and embracing Turkish culture. In addition, legal insecurity and uncertainty about citizenship and long-term residence make this sense of belonging conditional. This is reflected in social acceptance processes and relationship patterns. While positive contact increases trust and individual motivation, discrimination and exclusion trigger stress, defensive identity strategies, and social withdrawal. Family networks, community ties, and cultural practices nurture identity continuity, while camp life weakens social capital and limits integration opportunities. Furthermore, acculturation is not a linear process; individuals engage in continuous identity negotiations depending on their socioeconomic conditions and the presence of supportive social structures.
This study points to Turkey’s unique socio-cultural context, revealing an acculturation environment where the discourse of hospitality, legal fragility, and security-based policies coexist. Strengthening equal education, social participation, and legal protection can support healthier integration outcomes. Future research should incorporate the perspective of the host society and compare different living environments.
At the same time, these findings should be interpreted in light of certain limitations. First, the relatively young sample may have made the findings more reflective of experiences specific to this group. This is partly due to access through university circles and urban networks, and the reluctance of older participants to engage in interviews. Second, the interviews were conducted in Turkish, and differences in language proficiency may have limited the depth of some narratives. Third, the study focuses solely on Syrian participants and does not include the host community’s perspective. Finally, the cross-sectional design does not allow for tracking changes over time. Nevertheless, the findings may provide a basis for future longitudinal and comparative studies.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University, Turkey (protocol code 05/10 and date of approval 25 May 2022, and document verification code BSF4ZL9KMZ).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alba, Richard, and Nancy Foner. 2015. Strangers No More: Immigration and the Challenges of Integration in North America and Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alba, Richard D., and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. [Google Scholar]
  4. Altınışık, Mustafa Selim, and Esat Şanlı. 2024. The moderating role of perceived social support in the relationship between the impact of events and post-traumatic growth among Syrian refugees. Societies 14: 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Antonsich, Marco. 2010. Searching for belonging: An analytical framework. Geography Compass 4: 644–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Armağan-Boğatekin, Merve, and Ivy K. Ho. 2025. How Turkish citizens perceive Syrian refugees in Turkey: An agency and communion analysis. Narrative Inquiry 35: 47–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Bayram, Bora, and Ramazan Eryılmaz. 2025. The relationship between acculturation and second language learning in the context of sustainable multiculturalism: A case study of Russian immigrants and Syrian refugees in Türkiye. Sustainability 17: 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Benabdallah, Nawal, Jean-Claude Munyaka Baraka, and Jérôme Chenal. 2025. Public spaces and urban integration of migrants in Morocco: Challenges and opportunities for inclusive cities. African Cities Journal 5: 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Berry, John W. 1997. Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology 46: 5–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Berry, John W. 2006. Contexts of acculturation. In The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology. Edited by David L. Sam and John W. Berry. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–42. [Google Scholar]
  11. Berry, John W., Jean S. Phinney, David L. Sam, and Paul Vedder. 2006. Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review 55: 303–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Besemeres, Mary, and Anna Wierzbicka. 2007. Translating Lives: Living with Two Languages and Cultures. St Lucia: Queensland University Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bierwiaczonek, Kinga, and Sven Waldzus. 2016. Socio-cultural factors as antecedents of cross-cultural adaptation in expatriates, international students, and migrants: A review. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 47: 767–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Bobek, Alicja, and Lina Sandström. 2024. Pandemic stories from the margins: Migrant experiences of social exclusion during COVID-19. Critical Sociology 50: 1285–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Bontenbal, Ilona. 2023. The good, the bad and the advantageous: Migrants’ attitudes towards other migrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 94: 101802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Bose, Pablo S. 2022. The shifting landscape of international resettlement: Canada, the US and Syrian refugees. Geopolitics 27: 375–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. The forms of capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Edited by John G. Richardson. New York: Greenwood, pp. 241–58. [Google Scholar]
  19. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Brown, Rupert, and Miles Hewstone. 2005. An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Edited by Mark P. Zanna. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press, vol. 37, pp. 255–343. [Google Scholar]
  21. Buonanno, Milly. 2008. The Age of Television: Experiences and Theories. Bristol: Intellect. [Google Scholar]
  22. Butcher, Melissa. 2008. FOB Boys, VCs and Habibs: Using Language to Navigate Difference and Belonging in Culturally Diverse Sydney. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34: 371–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Chauvin, Sébastien, and Blanca Garcés-Mascareñas. 2020. Contradictions in the moral economy of migrant irregularity. In Migrants with Irregular Status in Europe. Edited by Sarah Spencer and Anna Triandafyllidou. IMISCOE Research Series; New York: Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Cherry, Andrew L. 2000. A Research Primer for the Helping Professions: Methods, Statistics, and Writing. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning. [Google Scholar]
  25. Choi, Kate, and Marta Tienda. 2018. Intermarriage and the lifecycle timing of migration. International Migration Review 52: 929–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Coopmans, Manja, Eva Jaspers, and Marcel Lubbers. 2016. National day participation among immigrants in the Netherlands: The role of familiarity with commemorating and celebrating. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42: 1925–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Coopmans, Manja, Marcel Lubbers, and Roza Meuleman. 2015. To whom do national days matter? A comparison of national belonging across generations and ethnic groups in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies 38: 2037–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Creswell, John W., and Cheryl N. Poth. 2018. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among five Approaches, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  29. de Freitas, Daniela Fonseca, Maria Fernandes-Jesus, Pedro D. Ferreira, Susana Coimbra, Pedro M. Teixeira, Andreia de Moura, Jorge Gato, Susana C. Marques, and Anne Marie Fontaine. 2018. Psychological correlates of perceived ethnic discrimination in Europe: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Violence 8: 712–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Demes, Kali A., and Nicolas Geeraert. 2014. Measures matter: Scales for adaptation, cultural distance, and acculturation orientation revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 45: 91–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Donkoh, Sylvester, and John Mensah. 2023. Application of triangulation in qualitative research. Journal of Applied Biotechnology and Bioengineering 10: 6–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Flick, Uwe. 2018. An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 6th ed. London: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gabrielli, Lorenzo, Blance Garcés-Mascareñas, and Olatz Ribera-Almandoz. 2022. Between discipline and neglect: The regulation of asylum accommodation in Spain. Journal of Refugee Studies 35: 262–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Gao, Feifan, Hanbei Cheng, Zhigang Li, and Le Yu. 2024. Revisiting the impact of public spaces on the mental health of rural migrants in Wuhan: An integrated multi-source data analysis. International Journal of Health Geographics 23: 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  35. Gerbner, George. 1969. Toward “cultural indicators”: The analysis of mass mediated public message systems. AV Communication Review 17: 137–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Giles, Howard, and Patricia Johnson. 1987. Ethnolinguistic identity theory: A social psychological approach to language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 68: 69–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Giovanis, Eleftherios, Sacit Hadi Akdede, and Oznur Ozdamar. 2024. Sociocultural influences on subjective well-being: Evidence from Syrian migrants in Turkey. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies 11: 253–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Graf, Sylvie, Stefania Paolini, and Mark Rubin. 2014. Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology 44: 536–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Grosjean, François. 2010. Bilingual: Life and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  40. Gudykunst, William B. 1998. Applying anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory to intercultural adjustment training. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 22: 227–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Hadj Abdou, Leila, and Caitlin Katsiaficas. 2023. Attitudes, Intergroup Relations, and Post-2014 Migrant Integration Experiences in Small- and Medium-Sized Towns and Rural Areas: A Cross-Country Perspective. Whole-COMM Working Paper. Available online: https://whole-comm.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Working-Paper-WHOLECOMM-WP5ComparativeWorkingPaper.pdf (accessed on 11 April 2026).
  42. Hagendoorn, Louk. 1995. Intergroup biases in multiple group systems: The perception of ethnic hierarchies. European Review of Social Psychology 6: 199–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Hall, Stuart. 1990. Cultural identity and diaspora. In Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. Edited by J. Rutherford. London: Lawrence & Wishart, pp. 222–37. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hamberger, Astrid. 2009. Immigrant integration: Acculturation and social integration. Journal of Identity and Migration Studies 3: 2–21. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hannemann, Tina, Hill Kulu, Leen Rahnu, Allan Puur, Mihaela Hărăguş, Ognjen Obućina, Amparo González-Ferrer, Karel Neels, Layla Van den Berg, Ariane Pailhé, and et al. 2018. Co-ethnic marriage versus intermarriage among immigrants and their descendants: A comparison across seven European countries using event-history analysis. Demographic Research 39: 487–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Herzfeld, Michael. 2016. Cultural Intimacy: Social Poetics and the Real Life of States, Societies and Institutions, 3rd ed. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  47. Hopkins, Daniel J. 2010. Politicized places: Explaining where and when immigrants provoke opposition. American Political Science Review 104: 40–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. İnce, Celal. 2018. Uluslararası Göç Bağlamında Türkiye’deki Suriyeli Göçmenlerin Mekânsal Yoğunlaşması. Ankara: İKSAD Publishing House. [Google Scholar]
  49. Jetten, Jolanda, Russell Spears, and Tom Postmes. 2004. Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86: 862–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  50. Kim, Young Yun. 2001. Becoming Intercultural: An Integrative Theory of Communication and Cross-Cultural Adaptation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Kirk, Jerome, and Marc Miller. 1986. Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kırdar, Murat Güray, İsmet Koç, and Meltem Dayıoğlu. 2023. School integration of Syrian refugee children in Turkey. Labour Economics 85: 102448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Kuhnt, Anne-Kristin, and Monika Obersneider. 2025. Migrants in interethnic partnerships: Between preferences and structural opportunities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 108: 102263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Laurentsyeva, Nadzeya, and Alessandra Venturini. 2017. The social integration of immigrants and the role of policy—A literature review. Intereconomics 52: 285–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Lazarev, Egor, and Kunaal Sharma. 2017. Brother or burden: An experiment on reducing prejudice toward Syrian refugees in Turkey. Political Science Research and Methods 5: 201–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. Lichter, Daniel T., Domenico Parisi, and Michael C. Taquino. 2015. Spatial assimilation in U.S. cities and communities? Emerging patterns of Hispanic segregation from Blacks and Whites. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 660: 36–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Lim, Weng Marc. 2024. What is qualitative research? An overview and guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal 33: 199–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Lippi-Green, Rosina. 2012. English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States, 2nd ed. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  59. Mahmud, Basem, and Rosa M. Soriano-Miras. 2025. The hell of the subcontract: Syrian refugees in Istanbul’s clothing industry. Genealogy 9: 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Major, Brenda, Wendy J. Quinton, and Shannon K. McCoy. 2002. Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 34: 251–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. Massey, Douglas S. 2017. Segregation and the perpetuation of disadvantage. In The Oxford Handbook of the Social Science of Poverty. Edited by David Brady and Linda M. Burton. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 369–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Massey, Douglas S., and Chiara Capoferro. 2008. The geographic diversification of American immigration. In New Faces in New Places: The Changing Geography of American Immigration. Edited by Douglas S. Massey. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 25–50. [Google Scholar]
  63. Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  64. Morgan, Michael, James Shanahan, and Nancy Signorielli. 2015. Yesterday’s new cultivation, tomorrow. Mass Communication and Society 18: 674–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  65. Nguyen, Angela-Minhtu D., and Verónica Benet-Martínez. 2010. Multicultural identity: What it is and why it matters. In The Psychology of Social and Cultural Diversity. Edited by Richard J. Crisp. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 87–114. [Google Scholar]
  66. Norton, Bonny. 2013. Identity and Language Learning: Extending the Conversation, 2nd ed. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar]
  67. Özel, Dilara, and Özdur Erdur-Baker. 2023. Struggles of refugee-receiving schools in Turkey. Social Sciences 12: 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  68. Özgür, Ertuğrul Murat. 2020. Immigration, residential segregation and integration: An assessment for Turkish cities. Journal of Geography 41: 221–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  69. Öztürk, Lamiha, Zehra Vildan Serin, and Hamdiye Altınoz. 2019. Challenges and obstacles for Syrian refugee women in the Turkish labor market. Societies 9: 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  70. Paolini, Stefania, Jake Harwood, and Mark Rubin. 2010. Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36: 1723–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  71. Pavlenko, Aneta. 2005. Emotions and Multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  72. Pettigrew, Thomas F., and Linda R. Tropp. 2006. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90: 751–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  73. Putnam, Robert D. 1995. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy 6: 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  74. Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. [Google Scholar]
  75. Quillian, Lincoln. 1995. Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review 60: 586–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  76. Raja, Rameez, Jianfu Ma, Rui Tao, Shakir Ullah, Xi Yuan Li, and Malik Muhammed Shafi. 2024. Social identity development in transnational marriages of international students in China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11: 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  77. Rottmann, Susan, and Ayhan Kaya. 2021. ‘We can’t integrate in Europe. We will pay a high price if we go there’: Culture, time and migration aspirations for Syrian refugees in Istanbul. Journal of Refugee Studies 34: 474–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  78. Rydell, Maria, Helena Colliander, Magnus Dahlstedt, and Sabine Gruber. 2024. Language as a key to society? Perceptions of language, belonging, and responsibility among migrants in Sweden. Nordic Journal of Migration Research 15: 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  79. Sam, David L., and John W. Berry. 2010. Acculturation: When individuals and groups of different cultural backgrounds meet. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5: 472–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  80. Schönwälder, Karen. 2007. Residential concentrations and integration: Preliminary conclusions. In Residential Segregation and the Integration of Immigrants: Britain, The Netherlands and Sweden. Edited by Karen Schönwälder. Discussion Paper No. SP IV 2007-602. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung gGmbH, pp. 91–101. [Google Scholar]
  81. Şafak-Ayvazoğlu, Ayşe, Filiz Kunuroğlu, and Kutlay Yağmur. 2021. Psychological and socio-cultural adaptation of Syrian refugees in Turkey. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 80: 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  82. Şahin-Mencütek, Zeynep, N. Ela Gökalp-Aras, Ayhan Kaya, and Susan B. Rottmann. 2023. Syrian Refugees in Turkey: Between Reception and Integration. Cham: Springer Nature. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  83. Şimşek, Doğu. 2020. Integration processes of Syrian refugees in Turkey: Class-based integration. Journal of Refugee Studies 33: 537–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  84. Tajfel, Henri, and John C. Turner. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Edited by William G. Austin and Stephan Worchel. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole, pp. 7–24. [Google Scholar]
  85. Temple, Bogusia. 2010. Feeling Special: Language in the Lives of Polish People. The Sociological Review 58: 286–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  86. UNHCR. 2026. Refugees and Asylum-Seekers in Türkiye. Geneva: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. [Google Scholar]
  87. Wodak, Ruth, Rudolf de Cillia, Martin Reisigl, and Karin Liebhart. 2009. The Discursive Construction of National Identity, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [Google Scholar]
  88. World Food Programme. 2020. Social Cohesion in Turkey: Refugees and the Host Community—Online Survey Findings, Rounds 1–5. Rome: United Nations World Food Programme Turkey Country Office. [Google Scholar]
  89. Yuval-Davis, Nira. 2006. Belonging and the politics of belonging. Patterns of Prejudice 40: 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  90. Zhang, Xin, Xudong Lu, Chunjie Huang, Wenbo Liu, and Guangchen Wang. 2024. The impact of social capital on migrants’ social integration: Evidence from China. Sustainability 16: 5564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  91. Zhang, Yixin, Chang You, Prachi Pundir, and Louise Meijering. 2023. Migrants’ community participation and social integration in urban areas: A scoping review. Cities 141: 104447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  92. Zihnioğlu, Özge, and Müge Dalkıran. 2022. From social capital to social cohesion: Syrian refugees in Turkey and the role of NGOs as intermediaries. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 48: 2455–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Identity Investment as a Pathway for Modifying Self-Sentiments and Well-Being
Previous
Analysis of the Effects of Institutional Characteristics and Student Enrollment on University Dropout Rates in South Korea
Next