Abstract
Belonging has regularly been related to discrimination, most studies originally focusing on the contrasting effect of education (and later also employment, language proficiency and social contacts) in explaining belonging through discrimination (e.g. the integration paradox). Yet, few studies focus on ‘feeling at home’ as indicator of belonging among recently arrived refugees nor do they investigate dynamics or include refugee-specific (reception period and mental health) characteristics as determinants. Employing longitudinal survey data on 2484 recently arrived Syrian refugees in the Netherlands to explain their ‘feeling at home’ during the initial period after arrival, results showed the positive impact of changes in mental health, being active during reception and changes in social contacts on changes in Syrians’ feeling at home in the Netherlands. Like in previous studies, higher education was negatively related to Syrians’ feeling at home. Indicating indirect effect for the refugee-specific characteristics we found that those with a better mental health generally perceived discrimination less, resulting in feeling at home in the Netherlands more strongly. Also, among this relatively new group of refugees, perceived discrimination directly and indirectly explains the dynamics in feeling at home. As such, policies targeted at newcomers’ integration can ultimately be effective if being allowed to belong by receiving society members is an integral part of this.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Belonging, i.e. ‘the experience of being part of a bigger community’ (Simonsen, 2018, p. 6), has been identified as a basic human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and in recent years, various studies focused on (im)migrant and refugee belonging (among others: Yuval-Davis, 2006, Huizinga and van Hoven, 2018, Antonsich, 2010, Duyvendak, 2011, Gualda Caballero, 2011). Focusing on newcomers’ belonging is especially interesting since they have to find a balance between old (origin country) and new (receiving country) belongings (Marsico & Tateo, 2017). Doing so can be particularly challenging for refugees, due to their forced migration, possible trauma, lack of resources and the fact that they cannot return, all of which could make belonging in the host country even more important. Yet, belonging, ‘seems to be undervalued as a desirable outcome of (refugee) integration’ (Huizinga and van Hoven, 2018, p. 310), which could be because it is a more subjective rather than an objective integration outcome (such as language proficiency or employment). Nevertheless, newcomers’ belonging is not only considered essential for a well-functioning society, e.g. one is more likely to dedicate oneself to a society one feels part of (Antonsich, 2010; Geurts et al., 2020; Grzymala-Kazlowska & Phillimore, 2018; Verkuyten, 2016), but has also been proven to be important for newcomers themselves (Huizinga and van Hoven, 2018, van Liempt & Staring, 2020b; Dromgold-Sermen, 2022; Correa-Velez et al., 2010; Fozdar & Hartley, 2014) and has even been indicated as ‘the ultimate mark of living in an integrated community’ (Ager & Strang, 2008, p. 178).
At the same time, belonging is a complex matter, since it is considered to be ‘relational and conflicted’ (Huizinga and van Hoven, 2018, p. 310), and, as expressed by Yuval-Davis (2006, p. 525), conditional on in- and exclusion. As has been continuously shown, feeling like one belongs is only possible if one is allowed to (perceived acceptance) and thus not being denied belonging (perceived discrimination) (Gualda Caballero, 2011). In this respect, perceived discrimination has been found one of the major stressors for resettlement in general (Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2003; Mestheneos & Ioannidi, 2002), undermining people’s feelings of attachment and obstructing integration in other domains. Next to being identified as an antecedent, perceived discrimination has also been shown to be the result of integration over time (Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2003) or partly explaining the relationship between other determinants and belonging (Benner & Graham, 2013; Berry & Sam, 1997).
A fair amount of research has already been done into newcomers’ belonging and the role of discrimination. Most studies originally focused on the contrasting effect of education (and later also employment, language proficiency and social contacts) in explaining belonging through discrimination, e.g. the integration paradox (among others: Van Doorn et al., 2013, Hochman & Davidov, 2014, Schulz & Leszczensky, 2016, Steinmann, 2019, Ten Teije et al., 2013 and De Vroome et al., 2011 and Warriner, 2007). However, there are numerous reasons to build on and further expand this. First, newcomers’ belonging is most often conceptualized as host country identification or attitudes towards host society members (Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2009; Ten Teije et al., 2013; De Vroome et al., 2014; Schulz & Leszczensky, 2016) instead of feelings of belonging (see: Geurts et al., 2020 for exception). Second, newcomers experience the biggest changes during the first years after migration (Diehl et al., 2016b). Yet, few studies focus on recent (refugee) arrivals’ experiences with discrimination and belonging (see Diehl et al., 2016b; Steinmann, 2019; Geurts et al., 2020 on recent migrants for exceptions). However, issues of discrimination and belonging might especially be challenging for recently arrived refugees, who have been disrupted and displaced and have to find their way in growingly unwelcoming host societies (Fozdar & Hartley, 2014). Rather than explaining attitudes towards host society members or host society identification as belonging outcomes, ‘feeling at home’ might be of particular importance among recently arrived refugees (Kale et al., 2019), since the need to find a safe home is what put refugees in their position in the first place, and returning is often impossible.Footnote 1 In addition, what happens during the first years after arrival might be of specific importance for the further course of refugees’ lives in the host society. Rather than focusing on one point in time, studying changes in belonging during this initial period through panel analyses could be of use to investigate integration dynamics, thereby further unravelling its underlying mechanisms (see also Diehl et al., 2016b; Geurts et al., 2020 on recent migrants). While previously studied determinants of discrimination and belonging (like education, employment, language proficiency, social contact and length of stay) might also be relevant explaining refugees’ feeling at home (Baldwin-White et al., 2017), recently arrived refugees are a specific group for which specific determinants might be of additional interest. These refugees possibly experienced trauma and have come into contact with policy intensively. However, little is known about the impact of such refugee-specific characteristics, especially on more ‘subjective’ aspects of integration such as belonging, given that the focus of policy in particular is most often on objective integration indicators (Shaw et al., 2021). Nevertheless, to be able to explain belonging among the understudied group of recent arrivals, refugee-specific characteristics (such as experiences during reception and mental health) might additionally be relevant.
Building on and further extending earlier studies, we aim to contribute to the existing literature by (1) concentrating on the specific challenges of the understudied group of recently arrived refugees for whom ‘feeling at home’ might be of particular importance for various reasons, through (2) employing two-wave panel data collected shortly after arrival, thereby investigating dynamics and the underlying mechanisms, (3) including additional refugee-specific characteristics as determinants of feeling at home (next to the more ‘traditional’ participation characteristics) and investigating their indirect effects through perceived discrimination. Using Syrian refugees in the Netherlands as an example, as they form by far the largest group of refugees that have arrived in the Netherlands during the recent years (CBS, 2020), the questions that arise are: (1) Can refugee-specific characteristics be associated with changes in Syrians’ feeling at home in the Netherlands? (2) Does perceived discrimination mediate the relationship between these characteristics and feeling at home? Answering these will provide insight two important domains of successful resettlement and the climate of the resettlement context (Te Lindert et al., 2008), as well as help us to better unravel the direct and indirect impact of various refugee specific characteristics, assisting us in understanding whether and which mechanisms are at play when explaining feeling at home among the understudied group of refugees that have recently settled.
Theoretical Considerations
Resettlement and (Changes in) Belonging among Syrians in the Netherlands
The concept of belonging has grown in popularity, yet belonging has been found difficult to define (Antonsich, 2010, Huizinga and van Hoven, 2018, Dromgold-Sermen, 2022). Most scholars agree that belonging does not have to be exclusive – one can experience it across multiple scales and places (Morley, 2001). As a result, scholars theorize about belonging across civic, social and emotional dimensions (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Yuval-Davis, 2006; Antonsich, 2010; Dromgold-Sermen, 2022). As highlighted by Lähdesmäki et al. (2016), cited in Simonsen (2018, p. 6), emotional belonging ‘involves ideas of connection and embeddedness related to the experience of being part of a bigger community’. In this regard, emotional attachment is defined as ‘place-belongingness’ (Antonsich, 2010) or a ‘sense of home’ (Yuval-Davis, 2006), ‘in which home represents a symbolic space of security, familiarity, comfort or refuge’ (Antonsich, 2010, p. 646, Huizinga and van Hoven, 2018, p. 310). In its most basic sense, to belong thus means to find a place where an individual can feel ‘at home’ (Antonsich, 2010; Duyvendak, 2011; Yuval-Davis, 2006).
Feeling at home can be understood as ‘a psychological sense where self-identity attaches to a particular place—in the migration context the new country of destination’ (Raijman & Geffen, 2018, p. 144). In this regard, belonging can be understood to ‘go beyond the functional or structural levels of integration’ (Gualda Caballero, 2011, p. 21) and a strong sense of belonging to the host society, e.g. feeling at home, can be interpreted as successful integration (at least subjectively) (Gualda Caballero, 2011, p. 21). Yet, though belonging is considered essential (see also: Antonsich, 2010, Geurts et al., 2020, Grzymala-Kazlowska & Phillimore, 2018, Verkuyten, 2016), the challenges of ensuring a sense of belonging among refugees are rarely acknowledged (Fozdar & Hartley, 2014). Nevertheless, refugees have been disrupted and displaced and consequently, to come to feel at home can be challenging ‘especially for refugees who often do not speak the language, have distinct cultural backgrounds, and have suffered from unsafe situations before arrival’ (van Liempt & Staring, 2020b, p. 309). At the same time, the need to find a safe home is what put refugees in their position in the first place, and returning is often impossible, which is why this definition of belonging as ‘feeling at home’ is significant especially among this group (Kale et al., 2019).
This study focuses on Syrian refugees in the Netherlands in particular. Though the Syrians in this study have been in the Netherlands rather shortly, various changes have been taking place regarding their lives in the Netherlands over the years. In general, their command of Dutch has improved, most have completed their civic integration, and are more likely to have paid work, though often based on temporary contracts and on a ‘low professional level’ (Dagevos et al., 2020). As such, we are interested in whether changes in belonging can also be observed and if so, how to explain these.
The Role of Perceived Discrimination
Belonging, as mentioned before, is conditioned on social, political processes of in- and exclusion that make it possible for someone to feel at home, labeled by Yuval-Davis (2011) as the ‘politics of belonging’ (see also: Antonsich, 2010, Yuval-Davis, 2006). As described by Picton and Banfield (2020); politics of belonging can be understood as the interaction between those who wish to belong and those determining who is allowed to belong. Belonging, as Antonsich (2010, p. 652–653) argues, cannot be understood separately from these politics, which reflects the basic idea that how you categorize yourself always happens in relation to how others see you (Simonsen, 2018, van Liempt & Staring, 2020b). As Ridgeway argued: ‘we forget how much people care about public acknowledgement of their worth’ (2014, p. 2). Feeling at home is thus not merely an individual affair, but also a social one (van Liempt & Staring, 2020b; Antonsich, 2010) and ‘conceptually, this necessary condition of recognition should be regarded as an intrinsic part of the integration process’ (Klarenbeek, 2021, p.23). If one feels rejected or discriminated against by those s/he/they wishes to belong to, this will most likely be negatively related to their attachment (Antonsich, 2010; Jayaweera & Choudhury, 2008). It is thus necessary to examine such forms of in or- exclusion as a condition for belonging (van Liempt & Staring, 2020b).
When it comes to (being allowed) belonging, discussions about the settlement and integration of newcomers are becoming increasingly heated across Western-Europe and in the Netherlands, illustrated by the recent election win of the anti-Islamic party PVV (Kirby and Holligan. 2023). Nevertheless, Dutch citizens used to be more positive about housing ‘real’ refugees (Onraet et al., 2021), resulting in a several ‘welcoming’ initiatives at the start Syrians’ arrival. This was however combined with concerns about participation and religious extremism, displayed through protests near reception centers (van Liempt & Staring, 2020a; Mensink, 2018). These responses, and the socio-political processes of belonging, can be linked to the concept of ‘deservingness’: ‘placing our focus on the cruelty of how solidarity is extended’ (Tošić & Streinzer, 2022, p. 137). Even when it comes to ‘real’ refugees, some might be understood to be more deserving (to belong) than others and be treated as such (Ambrosini, 2023; Dupont et al., 2019).
Such discrimination or non-acceptance have been shown to be related to disengagement among newcomers. Experimental and longitudinal evidence has shown that, as proposed in the ‘rejection-identification model’, experiencing more discrimination leads to stronger ethnic group identification but weaker host society identification and more negative attitudes towards the majority group (Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2009; Tolsma et al., 2012; Verkuyten, 2016; Geurts et al., 2020; Ten Teije et al., 2013; Steinmann, 2019). Qualitative studies also showed that for recent migrants, the experience of personal discrimination played a strong role in (not) belonging to the host society (Geurts et al., 2021) and that belonging should be understood as somewhat aspirational for newcomers, mostly dependent on acceptance by the majority (Fozdar & Hartley, 2014; Mestheneos & Ioannidi, 2002). Following these previous findings, we investigate changes in belonging among recent arrivals in the Netherlands and expect; higher perceived discrimination over time to result in lower belonging over time (H1).
The Integration Paradox
Empirically, belonging and discrimination are most often linked in studies on the integration paradox; regularly examining the negative mediating relationship between various participation characteristics (such as education, employment, language proficiency, social contacts and length of stay), discrimination and some form of belonging. Various studies showed that in contrast to participation in various domains being beneficial for integration in other domains, those participating more ‘successfully’ on average feel less connected to the host society, partly due to experiences of discrimination. Participation might thus cause newcomers turning away from the host society, rather than becoming more oriented toward it (Borsje, 2014; De Vroome et al., 2014, van Doorn et al., 2013, Geurts et al., 2020, Steinmann, 2019, Verkuyten, 2016, Tolsma et al., 2012). This opposes the classic assimilation theory (similarly argued by Tolsma et al., 2012, Geurts et al., 2020), expecting those who participate more successfully to eventually be incorporated in the host society (Gordon, 1961).
The first logic behind this paradox concerns sensitivity or awareness; newcomers with a higher structural position are more likely to possess better skills in the host country’s language (Van Tubergen & Kalmijn, 2009) and be involved in and understand public and political debates (Diehl & Blohm, 2001), which can increase awareness of unfair treatment (van Doorn et al., 2013, Ten Teije et al., 2013, Steinmann, 2019). Next to sensitivity, the exposure logic presumes that newcomers with a higher structural position are also more exposed to discrimination, due to greater participation in the host society (van Doorn et al., 2013).
As we aim to explain feeling at home among a relatively new group of recently arrived refugees, we build on previous studies by including the more traditionally used participation characteristics of discrimination and belonging (education, having paid work, relations with Dutch nationals, language and length of stay) as control variablesFootnote 2.
Refugee-Specific Determinants
Recently arrived refugees are a specific group who possibly experienced trauma and have come into contact with policy intensively. To be able to explain belonging among this understudied group, refugee-specific characteristics might be of additional interest next to the more classical participation indicators. Little is known about the relationships between such characteristics and belonging, but since we understand belonging as a (subjective) integration outcome (Gualda Caballero, 2011), we assume similar mechanisms are at play as with other integration outcomes, e.g. language and work (see for example: Bakker et al., 2014, Hainmueller et al., 2016, Hallas et al., 2007, Kosyakova & Brenzel, 2020).
In this study, we highlight experiences during reception and refugees’ mental health as refugee-specific characteristics. Considering the post-migration policy characteristics length of reception stay and number of reception centers, it can be expected that if one had to stay in reception longer (H2a) or had to relocate more often (H3a), one will have had less opportunity to participate and engage in the host society (Larruina & Ghorashi, 2016; Bakker et al., 2014), possibly resulting in feeling less at home over time. On the contrary, engaging in activities during reception may result in more strongly feeling at home over time (H4a), because those engaging in activities have started to rebuild lost resources relevant to the host society and could thereby strengthen belonging (Bakker et al., 2018; Ryan et al., 2008). Since (especially recently arrived) refugees are known to struggle with mental health problems (Beiser, 2006) and poor health can serve as a barrier to successful settlement (Phillimore, 2011; Walther et al., 2019), growing mental health problems (H5a) might hamper engaging in and developing feelings of belonging to the host society over timeFootnote 3.
At the same time, these characteristics can be linked to perceived discrimination. Whereas we could expect length of reception (H2b) and number of reception centers (H3b) to result in less perceived discrimination over time, since the opportunity to be exposed to discrimination will be less for these persons, being active during reception (H4b) and having increasing mental health problems (H5b) might result in more strongly perceiving discrimination over timeFootnote 4 due to higher sensitivity (van Doorn et al., 2013, Ten Teije et al., 2013, Steinmann, 2019, Wodtke, 2012, Tuppat & Gerhards, 2021) and/or exposure (De Maio & Kemp, 2010; Viruell-Fuentes, 2007; Lincoln et al., 2021). If there is an association between these characteristics and perceived discrimination, it can be expected that perceived discrimination partly explains the relationship between these characteristics and feeling at home among Syrians in the Netherlands. All hypothesized paths are displayed in Fig. 1.
Conceptual model displaying the hypothesized paths for the main explanatory variables in this study
Data and Methods
For this study, we made use of two waves of the survey ‘New Permitholders in the Netherlands’ (NSN2017 and NSN2019), gathered as part of a larger project (Longitudinal cohort study permit holders) at the request of four Dutch ministriesFootnote 5. The target population for the first wave consisted of Syrians aged 15 and older who received a (temporary) residence permit between January 1st, 2014, and July 1st, 2016. Their children (if born in the Netherlands) and family members who reunited in 2014/2015 were also part of the target population. A single random cluster sample was drawn from the target population by Statistics Netherlands. Before inviting respondents, the survey was tested thoroughly by a research agency with experts in the field/culture and translated into Modern Standard Arabic to prevent divergence of interpretationFootnote 6. In total, 3209 Syrians completed the first survey, corresponding to a response rate of 81%. The second survey was completed by 2544 out of the 2944 people re-approached by Statistics Netherlands, resulting in a response rate of 86%. Both survey files were weighted to ensure equal distribution in the sample compared to the population and the combined survey file was enriched with register data from Statistics NetherlandsFootnote 7. For this study, we made use of a balanced panel, meaning only respondents who participated in both waves were included (N = 2544). Moreover, we excluded those who were classified as missing on the dependent variable feeling at home (1.0%) and mediating variable perceived discrimination (1.5%) in either wave 1 or wave 2, resulting in a final sample of 2484 respondentsFootnote 8 of which 34% were female, 25% was a family migrant and the mean age was 35.
Measures
To indicate Syrian’s feeling of belonging in the Netherlands we included feeling at home as categorical dependent variable in this study (see also: Raijman & Geffen, 2018, Geurts et al., 2020). Respondents were asked ‘Do you feel at home in the Netherlands?’ and could choose from three answer categories (1 = yes, 2 = sometimes yes, sometimes no, 3 = no) which were reversed coded, so a higher score indicates feeling at home more strongly.
The mediating variable perceived discrimination was constructed based on two items, similar to those included in previous studies (Ten Teije et al., 2013; Geurts et al., 2020). The first item concerned group discrimination; respondents were asked ‘Some people say that migrants are discriminated against by the Dutch. Do you think this never happens, almost never, occasionally, often or very often?’, answer categories ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). The second item concerned individual discrimination; respondents were asked ‘Have you ever been discriminated against by Dutch people? How often has that happened: never, almost never, occasionally, often or very often?, answer categories ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). The two items were combined in a mean scale (α = .72) and a higher score indicated more perceived discrimination.
As for the explanatory variables, refugee-specific characteristics were measured through length of reception stay (in months), the number of reception centers one has stayed in (0–9) and engaging in one or more activities (such as language learning, volunteering of work) during the reception period (1 = yes, 0 = no). We included mental health (0-100, the higher the better the mental health) based on the MHI-5 scaleFootnote 9.
As for the control variables, educational level was included as a categorical variable based on the highest education one was enrolled in either in Syria, another country, or the Netherlands, including their enrolment in 2017; (0 = no education or did not finish primary school (ref), 1 = primary school, 2 = lower secondary education, 3 = higher secondary education, 4 = higher education). Having paid work was dichotomized into those employed (1) versus those who were not employed (0). Those employed included self-employed, employed full-time, or employed part-time and those not employed included those unemployed as well as those not in the labor force. Social contact with people without a migration background was based on the item ‘How often do you have contact with: Dutch friends or acquaintances’ for which the answer categories ranged from 1 (every day) to 5 (never or less than once a year). These were recoded into a dummy variable (1 = weekly or more frequent, 0 = monthly or less frequent). To include Dutch language proficiency, respondents were asked ‘How well do you speak the Dutch language?’, they could answer this with a self-reported score (1–10), for which a higher score represents stronger proficiency and ≥ 5.5 is considered sufficientFootnote 10. Length of stay in the Netherlands was included as categorical variable, indicating the year of arrival (1 = 2010–2014 (ref), 2 = 2015, 3 = 2016).
For the demographic controls, gender was included as a dichotomous variable (0 = male, 1 = female), as was being a family migrant (0 = no, applied for a permit themselves; 1 = yes, arrived through family reunification). Age was included as categorical variable (1 = 18–24 years (ref), 2 = 25–34 years, 3 = 35–44 years, 4 = 45 years and older.
Method
As most changes in integration tend to take place during the first period after arrival and these changes can be of specific importance for the further course of refugees’ lives in the host society, we investigate the dynamics in explaining Syrians’ belonging. To test the formulated hypotheses, we build our model in steps; first testing the relationships between the explanatory characteristics and feeling at home independently from each other, to explore the individual effect of each characteristic. After, we include all variables in one model and add control variables. Last, perceived discrimination is added to indicate mediation. We test these dynamic associations applying a hybrid model (Allison, 2009) in Stata (version 16). A hybrid model is a combination of a fixed effects (FE), between effects (BE) and random effects model (RE), which are well known for analysing panel data. Although a FE approach brings us closest to a causal interpretation, the disadvantage is that non-time-varying characteristics (such as length of and being active during reception, which were only measured at T1) cannot be included. Within a hybrid model, both the effects of time-varying (such as mental health) and non-time-varying characteristics can be estimated (Schunck & Perales, 2017).
The hybrid model estimates within-person (FE) and between-person (BE) effects for the time-varying characteristics and random effects (RE) for the non-time-varying characteristics. The within-person effects reflect the effect of change over time and the between effects represent differences between persons in the outcome measure. As the random-effects are estimated only for the non-time-varying variables, these can also be interpreted as between effects (Brüderl & Ludwig, 2019). Models were estimated with the specification of a robust standard error (Schunck & Perales, 2017). To conclude on the mediation of perceived discrimination for the refugee-specific characteristics, we additionally test a random-effects model utilizing the khb method. Since the average partial effect in ordered choice models is not constant across outcomes (Greene & Hensher, 2010), traditional methods of mediation are not sufficient here. Nevertheless, the khb method ‘is a general decomposition method unaffected by the rescaling bias that arises in cross-model comparisons in nonlinear models’ (Kohler et al., 2011, p. 420).
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the variables in the analyses, displaying the group differences for 2017 and 2019. Focusing on the key variables in our study, the table shows that overall, not much changed with regards to Syrians’ belonging. Over 78% already felt at home in 2017, relatively shortly after arriving in the Netherlands. This has slightly changed to over 79% in the two years after wave 1. Only around 1% indicated to not feel at.
home in the Netherlands in 2017 and/or 2019. Perceived discrimination slightly increased; from 1.75 in 2017 to 1.82 in 2019. On average, eight months were spent in reception, respondents generally lived in three different reception centers, and most were active during this period; 80% did at least one activity. Overall, Syrians’ mental health improved slightly in 2019. Education was only measured up to 2017 and thus kept constant, about 31% of the Syrians had been enrolled in higher education up to 2017. There was quite some change with regards to Syrians’ having paid work. While only 11% were employed in 2017, this changed to 34% in 2019. We notice a slight decrease in those who are in weekly or more frequent contact with Dutch people without a migration background, from 61% in 2017 to 58% in 2019. At the same time, Syrians’ Dutch language proficiency slightly increased from a 4.8 (insufficient) on average in 2017 and 5.6 (just sufficient) in 2019. The majority of the Syrians in this study (64%) arrived in the Netherlands in 2015.
Changes in Syrian’s Belonging in the Netherlands
The fact that there is little variation in feeling at home within the group of Syrian refugees in the Netherlands does not mean that scores within individuals have not changed. Looking at the individual changes in feeling at home, Table 2 shows that there have been quite some. Between 2017 and 2019, 12.6% made a positive change and have come to feel more at home in the Netherlands. At the same time, 11.9% changed negatively, feeling at home in the Netherlands less strongly over time. We cannot establish a clear trend however, since the largest share of respondents did not change with regards to how strongly they feel at home in the Netherlands.
Explaining (Changes in) Syrian’s Belonging in the Netherlands
While there is no clear trend when it comes to developments in Syrians’ belonging in the Netherlands at the descriptive level, the crucial next step is to test the expected patterns explaining both positive and negative developments using multivariate analyses. The results of the hybrid models are presented in Table 3Footnote 11. Model 1 represents the independent associations between the explanatory variables and Syrians’ feeling at home separately. In model 2, results for the full model including all explanatory and control variables in one model are displayed to see whether the associations remain independent of other variablesFootnote 12. In model 3, perceived discrimination is added to the full model represented in model 2. To explain changes in Syrians’ belonging, we discuss the results of models 1 and 2. To gain insight into the mediating role of perceived discrimination we discuss the results of model 3 in the next section. Results are presented in odds ratios and can be interpreted as follows: below one means lower odds, above one means higher odds. In our model, the reference category for the odds ratios is the first category: not feeling at home. Therefore, the odds ratios represent the odds of being in the “sometimes” or “yes” categories compared to the “not” category at a specific time point. This is why we can interpret the results as lower or higher odds to feel more at home over timeFootnote 13.
When it comes to the direct association between the refugee-specific characteristics and changes in feeling at home, we find that for those who reported better mental health over time the odds to feel more at home in the Netherlands are higher (eb = 1.051 in Model 2), confirming H5a. Model 2 also shows a positive association for those who were active during the reception period and their feeling at home (eb = 1.394), confirming H4a, but this significant difference is not found when the other variables are not added (Model 1). We did not find a significant association between length of reception stay and Syrians’ feeling at home in the Netherlands (rejecting H2a) and having stayed in more different reception centers and Syrians’ feeling at home in the Netherlands (rejecting H3a).
For reasons of readability, the effects of control variables are presented in the Online appendix, Table A1. Results indicate that for those in higher education before or in 2017, the odds are lower to feel more at home in the Netherlands. For those who engaged in more contact with Dutch people without a migration background over time, the odds to feel more at home in the Netherlands are higher. Regarding the demographic controls, it was shown that for females the odds are higher to feel at home in the Netherlands compared to males. The same is true for older Syrians; for those between 35 and 44 years and those over 45 years, the odds to feel at home are generally higher than for those between 15 and 24 years. All in all, there is some evidence that various refugee-specific characteristics (being active during reception and changes in mental health) and more traditional participation characteristics (e.g. education and changes in social contacts) can explain changes in Syrian’s feelings of belonging in the Netherlands.
Mediation by Perceived Discrimination
Following previous studies including discrimination as a mediator in models explaining belonging, we examined whether the impact of the various refugee-specific characteristics can partly be explained by perceived discrimination. For mediation to be possible, a significant relation must be established between the mediating and outcome variable. Our results indicate a negative direct relationship between Syrians’ perceived discrimination and feeling at home in the Netherlands (H1 confirmed). For those who perceive more discrimination over time, the odds to feel more at home in the Netherlands are lower (eb = 0.409 in Model 1, eb = 0.443 in Model 3). This is in line with earlier findings and confirms the need for acceptance (or absence of discrimination) by others to be able to feel like one belongs to a place.
As changes in perceived discrimination are related to changes in Syrians’ feeling at home, traditional methods of mediation (i.e. comparing estimates) are not sufficient ‘because of a rescaling of the model that arises whenever the mediator variable has an independent effect on the dependent variable’ (Kohler et al., 2011, p. 421). Therefore, it has been argued that the ‘khb method’ should be used to estimate indirect effects (Kohler et al., 2011)Footnote 14,Footnote 15. Estimates from the xtologit models using the khb method are provided in Table 4.
Looking at the direction and significance of the indirect effects (i.e. whether the impact of the explanatory variables can be explained by perceived discrimination), a positive indirect is found for mental health (diff = 1.009 (0.001)***). The total effect is 1.157 times larger than the full effect and 13,58% of the full effect is due to perceived discrimination. Stated differently, those who score higher on mental health tend to perceive less discrimination than those who score lower on mental health and as a result feel at home in the Netherlands more strongly, confirming H5b. The direct effect of being active during reception does decrease when perceived discrimination is added to the model, but this difference is not significant. Perceived discrimination thus mediates the relationships between mental health and feeling at home, but no significant indirect effects were found for the other refugee-specific characteristics, rejecting H2b, H3b and H4b. All findings are displayed in Fig. 2.
Final model illustrating the results for the main explanatory variables in this study. Full lines equal significant relations, dotted lines equal insignificance
Because previous studies found differences between perceiving discrimination individually versus perceiving discrimination towards co-ethnics (Schildkraut, 2005; Geurts et al., 2020), we checked whether using these as separate instead of a combined variable would make a difference by testing additional models (Online appendix A2.1 and A2.2). This yielded largely similar results, endorsing our initial approach to combine these in one mediating variable.
Discussion and Conclusion
Belonging, seen as one of the basic human needs, is gaining ground in research into the resettlement of migrants and refugees. Previous research has indicated the importance of in/exclusion as conditional to belonging (Yuval-Davis, 2006; Gualda Caballero, 2011), most often studying the link between various participation characteristics, perceived discrimination and various forms of belonging for migrants that have been settled in the host society for quite some time (De Vroome et al., 2014; Ten Teije et al., 2013; Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2009). Building on and further extending previous studies, we focused on explaining belonging among recently arrived Syrian refugees in the Netherlands and contributed to the existing literature in three ways: (1) we concentrated on the specific challenges of the understudied group of recently arrived refugees for whom ‘feeling at home’ might be of particular importance for various reasons, through (2) employing two-wave panel data collected shortly after arrival, thereby investigating dynamics and the underlying mechanisms, (3) including additional refugee-specific characteristics as determinants of feeling at home (next to the more ‘traditional’ participation characteristics) and investigating their indirect effects through perceived discrimination.
Results show that a large share of Syrian refugees already felt at home in the Netherlands shortly after arrival. In 2017, over 78% reported to feel at home, which has only slightly changed to over 79% in 2019. Although there are concerns about newcomers’ belonging with regards to social cohesion and political order, this relatively high percentage of Syrians’ feeling at home shortly after arrival is not as surprising, as we know that, in general, the degree of institutional and political trust among refugees is strong compared to other migrants and the population without a migration background (Noyon et al., 2020). In contrast to the country they have fled, refugees tend to experience safety and a functioning and democratic constitutional state in the host country (Noyon et al., 2020; Dagevos, 2020), which may amplify their feeling of belonging. There were some individual developments: for about 13% there was a positive change regarding belonging, about 12% experienced negative change.
To gain more insight into these developments, refugee-specific characteristics were included as explanatory variables (next to the more ‘traditional participation characteristics, included as control variables). Assuming the full hybrid model, we conclude that both (changes in) refugee-specific and participation characteristics can be associated with (changes in) Syrians’ feeling at home in the Netherlands. Better mental health was positively associated with feeling more at home in the Netherlands over time. Next to being conducive for participation (Phillimore, 2011; Walther et al., 2019), mental health can thus also be related to this more subjective outcome of successful integration. The same holds true for engaging in activities during reception, as an active interpretation of the reception period can positively impact refugees’ feeling at home (Bakker et al., 2018; Ryan et al., 2008). Complying with and elaborating on earlier studies on migrants’ and settled refugees’ belonging, we found that those who were enrolled in higher education tend to feel at home less strongly (Tolsma et al., 2012; De Vroome et al., 2014; Steinmann, 2019). A positive association was found for social contacts, indicating those who engage in more contact with Dutch people without a migration background over time tend to feel at home more strongly (Lubbers et al., 2007; Raijman & Geffen, 2018; Beirens et al., 2007; Correa-Velez et al., 2010).
As we know belonging is conditional on in/exclusion, we expected perceived discrimination to play a role in explaining the relationships between the refugee-specific characteristics and feeling at home. Following previous integration paradox studies (De Vroome et al., 2014, van Doorn et al., 2013, Geurts et al., 2020, Steinmann, 2019, Verkuyten, 2016, Tolsma et al., 2012), results showed perceived discrimination was also negatively associated with recently arrived Syrians’ feeling at home in the Netherlands. We found a mediation for mental health, showing that those who score higher on mental health tend to perceive discrimination less strongly and consequently, the odds for them to feel more at home in the Netherlands are higher. These results can be explained by higher sensitivity among those who score lower on mental health or because they experience more discrimination due to their mental health problems, i.e., are more exposed to discrimination (van Doorn et al., 2013, Ten Teije et al., 2013, Steinmann, 2019, Wodtke, 2012, Tuppat & Gerhards, 2021). Joining previous studies in this field, we conclude that, already during the very first years after arrival, it is those who score higher on mental health, next to those making progress in different areas of participation, whose feeling of belonging is impacted through discrimination.
While we have focused on belonging by including feeling at home as our outcome variable, a limitation of this study is that this outcome was based on one item only. While most studies advocate for multi-item scales, especially to measure complex constructs, few showed single items can be sufficient (Scarpello & Campbell, 1983; Hyland & Sodergren, 1996, van Doorn et al., 2013). As we cannot comment on the sufficiency of our feeling at home measure based on statistical comparison, we acknowledge it might be better to measure feeling at home by a combination of items rather than the one item we included. However, this was the item available to us in the data, which, according to us, captures a type of belonging which can be of particular importance among recent arrivals because of it capturing actual feelings of belonging rather than identification or attitudes (Antonsich, 2010; Duyvendak, 2011; Yuval-Davis, 2006).
Another limitation of this study is that it might be that due to the strict way of testing for significant relations over time, some of the hypotheses had to be rejected. The FE approach is a ‘strict’ way of establishing causal relationships as it is dependent on the time points at which the respondents were studied. In this study, this means the FE approach only considers changes occurring between wave 1 and wave 2. Thereby, when analyzing within-effects, respondents who have not changed on the dependent variable or explanatory variable are excluded. We might be too quick to conclude – based on the available data – that these characteristics do not matter for Syrians’ feeling at home if we only look at the FE estimations. Moreover, the bandwidth on which we show changes is very small since the time between the two waves of data collection was only two years. While we did find some significant associations explaining changes in feeling at home, the short period could have made a difference in the impact of, for example finding paid work on feeling at home. When aiming to explain changes over time, such sensitivities should be considered. It would be ideal for future studies to include additional waves to better distinguish the impact of various characteristics on such developments and the causality of the relations. Moreover, as the output of the xtologit models using the khb method is ‘experimental’, future studies could try to substantiate results presented in this study among different refugee or immigrant groups. While our results provide an indication of mediation by perceived discrimination for a wider variety of variables, validation remains valuable.
Given the timeframe in which the respondents answered the questionnaire, all respondents were on a temporary residence permit and were most likely studying for their civic integration courses. These courses, focused on egalitarianism, citizenship and identity formation, and the fact that there must be decided upon their permit, could play a role in the development of socially desired responses, even though they were assured that their participation would not impact any of this positively or negatively. At the same time, there are no indications that it played a major role. Respondents were randomly selected and there was a divergence of responses among many other variables at risk of bias.
Despite the drawbacks mentioned, this study provides important insights into recently arrived refugees’ belonging. While some challenges might be more specific for this group of recent arrivals, several of the mechanisms found might also be applicable to other groups of migrants, partly experiencing similar challenges. Complying with and further elaborating earlier findings, the results of this study are twofold. One the one hand, we showed the interesting but complex direct relations between various refugee-specific and participation characteristics and Syrian’s belonging, indicating the importance of being active during reception, mental health, education and social contacts. On the other hand, we showed the mediating role of perceived discrimination for mental health.
Altogether, while policy attention should (remain to) be targeted at enhancing newcomers’ participation in various areas and their mental health, it should be noted that making such investments while neglecting discrimination can undermine the development of newcomers’ belonging (see also: Verkuyten, 2016). Since current integration policies largely refrain from addressing discrimination, a direct implication of our results is that recognition and acceptance by host society members is just as much part of newcomer’s integration and should be targeted through policy, also regarding those who are ‘successfully participating’ more generally, which will have positive consequences for both newcomers and receiving societies (Geurts et al., 2021, van Doorn et al., 2013, Verkuyten, 2016). As stated by others before (Correa-Velez et al., 2010; Dagevos et al., 2021), policies and programs targeted at newcomers’ integration can ultimately be effective if embedded within a broader socially inclusive society.
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from DANS (Data Archiving and Networked Services). Restrictions apply to the availability of these data.
Code Availability
The code/syntax that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, R. Damen, upon reasonable request.
Notes
Even considering the fact that the initial assumption is that refugees will stay temporarily, and they will get a temporary permit in most countries at first, we also know that a large share of refugees will remain in the host countries, also when return is eventually possible. Emphasizing the importance of ‘feeling at home’ for this group in particular.
We did not include legal factors, which are often included as residence status because the group of respondents in this study does not vary according to the type of residence status (they all have a temporary residence permit). Nor is naturalization relevant here, because no one had yet been naturalized at the time of the surveys.
This is not to say that mental health issues are specific to refugees but due to their experiences before, during and after fleeing, it can be considered a relevant determinant.
At the same time, stronger perceived discrimination might also result in mental health issues. It is however outside the scope of this study to investigate this reversed causal relation.
The data collection was led by The Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP). There was collaboration with Statistics Netherlands (CBS), the Research and Documentation Center (WODC), the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), and the research agency Labyrinth.
See Kappelhof (2018) for more details on the sampling, survey design and implementation.
Information about whether someone was a family migrant and the length of stay in months were taken from the registers.
The missing values of the indicator variables educational level (n = 42) and year of arrival (n = 4) were estimated using multiple imputation in Stata. Imputed values in wave one were copied to wave 2 to make sure these variables were kept constant over time. Other variables did not have missing values.
The Mental Health Inventory 5 (MHI-5) is a measuring instrument that gives an impression of people’s state of mind in the last four weeks (Rumpf et al., 2001). Respondents were asked how often (0 = never, 5 = constantly) they felt: very nervous, depressed and gloomy, calm, so bad that nothing could cheer you up and happy. A sum score was calculated based on these answers. For each person, the values of all questions were multiplied by 4, resulting in a minimum score of 0 and maximum score of 100.
This measurement provides a global indication of Dutch language proficiency as it is based on Syrians own assessment. Nevertheless, previous experiences with survey research among migrant groups show that this type of self-reported measurement provides plausible results in showing the differences in Dutch language proficiency within and between groups (Dagevos and Miltenburg 2018, Dagevos and Ode 2011).
As our main interest here in to explain dynamics and coefficients of the between-effects ‘are (in most cases) substantively of no interest’ (Brüderl & Ludwig, 2019, p. 192), we opted to only display the within-person estimates for the time-varying characteristics and not the between-person estimates.
Since our primary interest is in dynamics and we want to capture the unique contribution of the explanatory variables to changes in feeling at home, we decided not to include T1 measures as control variables.
These odds ratios indicate the multiplicative change in the odds of being in a higher category for a one-unit change in the independent variable, while holding other variables constant. This interpretation applies to the entire sample, regardless of whether individuals have changed over time.
The khb method can be estimated using a user-written program in Stata. As it does not support hybrid models, xtologit models using the khb method were estimated in this study which fits via maximum likelihood the random-effects model (StataCorp, 2013). Estimates of these random effects models will somewhat differ from those displayed in Table 3, as they indicate a combination of within and between-person differences for all characteristics.
Khb has been thoroughly tested and understood to perform well across different model types (Smith et al., 2019). This evidence provides a solid base for the khb output for xtologit, which should be understood at ‘experimental’ but can indicate significant mediation.
References
Allison, P. D. (2009). Fixed effects regression models. SAGE.
Ambrosini, M. (2023). Moral economy and deservingness in immigration policies. The case of regularisations in Italy. Ethnicities, 23(2), 306–330.
Antonsich, M. (2010). Searching for belonging – an analytical framework. Geography Compass, 4(6), 644–659.
Bakker, L., Dagevos, J., & Engbersen, G. (2014). The importance of resources and security in the socio-economic integration of refugees. A study on the impact of length of stay in asylum accommodation and residence status on socio-economic integration for the four largest refugee groups in the Netherlands. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 15(3), 431–448.
Bakker, L., Bekkers, R., Reitsma, J., Sederel, C., Smets, P., & Younes, Y. (2018). Vrijwilligerswerk: stimulans voor tijdige participatie en integratie? Monitor- en evaluatie onderzoek vrijwilligerswerk door asielzoekers en statushouders die in de opvang verblijven. Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid/Significant.
Baldwin-White, A. J. M., Kiehne, E., Umaña-Taylor, A., & Marsiglia, F. F. (2017). In pursuit of belonging: Acculturation, perceived discrimination, and ethnic–racial identity among latino youths. Social Work Research, 41(1), 43–52.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497.
Beirens, H., Hughes, N., Hek, R., & Spicer, N. (2007). Preventing social exclusion of refugee and asylum seeking children: Building new networks. Social Policy and Society, 6(2), 219–229.
Beiser, M. (2006). Longitudinal research to promote effective refugee resettlement. Transcultural Psychiatry, 43(1), 56–71.
Benner, A. D., & Graham, S. (2013). The antecedents and consequences of racial/ethnic discrimination during adolescence: Does the source of discrimination matter? Developmental Psychology, 49(8), 1602.
Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. Handbook of cross-cultural Psychology, 3(2), 291–326.
Borsje, B. (2014). Een alternatieve integratieparadox: De invloed van verblijfsduur op ervaren groepsdiscriminatie, gemeten onder de vier grootste niet-westerse vluchtelingengroepen in Nederland. Utrecht University.
Brüderl, J., & Ludwig, V. (2019). Applied Panel Data Analysis Using Stata. https://www.ls3.soziologie.uni-muenchen.de/studium-lehre/archiv/teaching-marterials/panel-analysis_april-2019.pdf.
CBS-2020. Asiel en integratie 2020. Cohortonderzoek asielzoekers en statushouders. Statistics Netherlands.
Correa-Velez, I., Gifford, S. M., & Barnett, A. G. (2010). Longing to belong: Social inclusion and wellbeing among youth with refugee backgrounds in the first three years in Melbourne, Australia. Social Science & Medicine, 71(8), 1399–1408.
Dagevos, J. (2020). Syrische statushouders over vrijheid in Syrië en Nederland In De stand van vrijheid: vrijheid in Nederland 75 jaar na de bevrijding, edited by F. Demant, J. Van Kooten, M. Olde Monnikhof and K. Putters, 72–84. Amsterdam/The Hague: Nationaal Comité 4 en 5 mei/The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.
Dagevos, J., Miltenburg, E., de Mooij, M., Schans, D., Uiters, E., & Wijga, A. (2020). Syrische statushouders op weg in Nederland. De ontwikkeling Van Hun positie en leefsituatie. The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.
Dagevos, J., Schans, D., & Uiters, E. (2021). Uitvoering. Een analyse van het op statushouders gerichte beleid en wat nodig is om dit beleid te verbeteren. The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.
De Maio, F. G., & Kemp, E. (2010). The deterioration of health status among immigrants to Canada. Global Public Health, 5(5), 462–478.
De Vroome, T., Coenders, M., Van Tubergen, F., & Verkuyten, M. (2011). Economic participation and national self-identification of refugees in the Netherlands. International Migration Review, 45(3), 615–638.
De Vroome, T., Martinovic, B., & Verkuyten, M. (2014). The integration paradox: Level of education and immigrants’ attitudes towards natives and the host society. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(2), 166–175.
Diehl, C., & Blohm, M. (2001). Apathy, adaptation or ethnic mobilisation? On the attitudes of a politically excluded group. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 27(3), 401–420.
Diehl, C., Lubbers, M., Mühlau, P., & Platt, L. (2016b). Starting out: New migrants’ socio-cultural integration trajectories in four European destinations. Ethnicities, 16(2), 157–179.
Dromgold-Sermen, M. S. (2022). Forced migrants and secure belonging: A case study of Syrian refugees resettled in the United States. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(3), 635–654.
Dupont, P. L., Anderson, B., & Vicol, O. (2019). Working for benefits: Deservingness and discrimination in the British social security system Available at https://ethos-europe.eu/sites/default/files/5.5_uk.pdf.
Duyvendak, J. (2011). The politics of home: Belonging and nostalgia in Europe and the United States. Springer.
Fozdar, F., & Hartley, L. (2014). Civic and ethno belonging among recent refugees to Australia. Journal of Refugee Studies, 27(1), 126–144.
Geurts, N., Lubbers, M., & Spierings, N. (2020). Structural position and relative deprivation among recent migrants: A longitudinal take on the integration paradox. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(9), 1828–1848.
Geurts, N., Davids, T., & Spierings, N. (2021). The lived experience of an integration paradox: Why high-skilled migrants from Turkey experience little national belonging in the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(1), 69–87.
Gordon, M. M. (1961). Assimilation in America: Theory and reality. Daedalus, 90(2), 263–285.
Greene, W. H., & Hensher, D. A. (2010). Modeling ordered choices: A primer. Cambridge University Press.
Grzymala-Kazlowska, A., & Phillimore, J. (2018). Introduction: Rethinking integration. New perspectives on adaptation and settlement in the era of super-diversity. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(2), 179–196.
Gualda Caballero, E. (2011). Factors explaining the integration, identity and sense of belonging to Spanish society among youth immigrants in Huelva. Migraciones Internacionales, 6(2), 9–39.
Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., & Lawrence, D. (2016). When lives are put on hold: Lengthy asylum processes decrease employment among refugees. Science Advances, 2(8), e1600432.
Hallas, P., Hansen, A. R., Stæhr, M. A., Munk-Andersen, E., & Jorgensen, H. L. (2007). Length of stay in asylum centres and mental health in asylum seekers: A retrospective study from Denmark. BMC Public Health, 7(1), 288.
Hochman, O., & Davidov, E. (2014). Relations between second-language proficiency and national identification: The case of immigrants in Germany. European Sociological Review, 30(3), 344–359.
Huizinga, R. P., & Van Hoven, B. (2018). Everyday geographies of belonging: Syrian refugee experiences in the Northern Netherlands. Geoforum, 96, 309–317.
Hyland, M. E., & Sodergren, S. C. (1996). Development of a new type of global quality of life scale, and comparison of performance and preference for 12 global scales. Quality of life Research, 5(5), 469–480.
Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., Horenczyk, G., & Schmitz, P. (2003). The interactive nature of acculturation: Perceived discrimination, acculturation attitudes and stress among young ethnic repatriates in Finland, Israel and Germany. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(1), 79–97.
Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., & Solheim, E. (2009). To identify or not to identify? National disidentification as an alternative reaction to perceived ethnic discrimination. Applied Psychology: An International Review.
Jayaweera, H., & Choudhury, T. (2008). Immigration, faith and cohesion: Evidence from local areas with significant muslim populations. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Kale, A., Stupples, P., & Kindon, S. (2019). Feeling at home: A multisensory analysis of former refugee and host society residents’ integration in Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand. Emotion Space and Society, 33, 100615.
Kappelhof, J. (2018). Survey Onderzoek Nieuwe Statushouders in Nederland 2017. Verantwoording Van De opzet en uitvoering van een survey onder Syrische statushouders. The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.
Kirby, P. (2023). and A. Holligan. November 23. Dutch election: Anti-Islam populist Geert Wilders wins dramatic victory Retrieved November 23, 2023, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67504272.
Klarenbeek, L. (2021). Relational integration: From integrating migrants to integrating relations. University of Amsterdam.
Kohler, U., Karlson, K. B., & Holm, A. (2011). Comparing coefficients of nested nonlinear probability models. The Stata Journal, 11(3), 420–438.
Kosyakova, Y., & Brenzel, H. (2020). The role of length of asylum procedure and legal status in the labour market integration of refugees in Germany. SozW Soziale Welt, 71(1–2), 123–159.
Lähdesmäki, T., Saresma, T., Hiltunen, K., Jäntti, S., Sääskilahti, N., Vallius, A., & Ahvenjärvi, K. (2016). Fluidity and flexibility of belonging uses of the concept in contemporary research. Acta Sociologica, 59(3), 233–247.
Larruina, R., & Ghorashi, H. (2016). The normality and materiality of the dominant discourse: Voluntary work inside a Dutch asylum seeker center. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 14(2), 220–237.
Lincoln, A. K., Cardeli, E., Sideridis, G., Salhi, C., Miller, A. B., Da Fonseca, T., Issa, O., & Ellis, B. H. (2021). Discrimination, marginalization, belonging, and mental health among Somali immigrants in North America. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 91(2), 1–14.
Lubbers, M. J., Molina, J. L., & Mccarty, C. (2007). Personal networks and ethnic identifications: The case of migrants in Spain. International Sociology, 22(6), 721–741.
Marsico, G., & Tateo, L. (2017). Borders, tensegrity and development in dialogue. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 51(4), 536–556.
Mensink, W. (2018). Verdeeldheid en verbinding. Terugblik op de Rol Van De civil society bij de komst van vluchtelingen. The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.
Mestheneos, E., & Ioannidi, E. (2002). Obstacles to refugee integration in the European Union member states. Journal of Refugee Studies, 15(3), 304–320.
Morley, D. (2001). Belongings: Place, space and identity in a mediated world. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 4(4), 425–448.
Noyon, S. M., Van Der Meer, M., Kulu-Glasgow, I., & Schans, D. (2020). Steun Voor De Nederlandse rechtsstaat onder statushouders. Research and Documentation Centre.
Onraet, E., Van Hiel, A., Valcke, B., & Assche, J. V. (2021). Reactions towards asylum seekers in the Netherlands: Associations with right-wing ideological attitudes, threat and perceptions of asylum seekers as legitimate and economic. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(2), 1695–1712.
Phillimore, J. (2011). Refugees, acculturation strategies, stress and integration. Journal of Social Policy, 40(3), 575–593.
Picton, F., & Banfield, G. (2020). A story of belonging: Schooling and the struggle of students of refugee experience to belong. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 41(6), 841–853.
Raijman, R., & Geffen, R. (2018). Sense of belonging and life satisfaction among post-1990 immigrants in Israel. International Migration, 56(3), 142–157.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2014). Why status matters for inequality. American Sociological Review, 79(1), 1–16.
Rumpf, H. J., Meyer, C., Hapke, U., & John, U. (2001). Screening for mental health: Validity of the MHI-5 using DSM-IV Axis I psychiatric disorders as gold standard. Psychiatry Research, 105(3), 243–253.
Ryan, D., Dooley, B., & Benson, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives on post-migration adaptation and psychological well-being among refugees: Towards a resource-based model. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(1), 1–18.
Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there? Personnel Psychology, 36(3), 577–600.
Schildkraut, D. J. (2005). The rise and fall of political engagement among latinos: The role of identity and perceptions of discrimination. Political Behavior, 27, 285–312.
Schulz, B., & Leszczensky, L. (2016). Native friends and host country identification among adolescent immigrants in Germany: The role of ethnic boundaries. International Migration Review, 50(1), 163–196.
Schunck, R., & Perales, F. (2017). Within-and between-cluster effects in generalized linear mixed models: A discussion of approaches and the xthybrid command. The Stata Journal, 17(1), 89–115.
Shaw, S. A., Funk, M., Garlock, E. S., & Arok, A. (2021). Understanding successful refugee resettlement in the US. Journal of Refugee Studies, 0(0), 1–19.
Simonsen, K. B. (2018). What it means to (not) belong: A case study of how boundary perceptions affect second-generation immigrants’ attachments to the nation. Wiley Online Library.
Smith, E. K., Lacy, M. G., & Mayer, A. (2019). Performance simulations for categorical mediation: Analyzing khb estimates of mediation in ordinal regression models. The Stata Journal, 19(4), 913–930.
StataCorp. (2013). Xtologit. Stata.
Steinmann, J. P. (2019). The paradox of integration: Why do higher educated new immigrants perceive more discrimination in Germany? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(9), 1377–1400.
Te Lindert, A., Korzilius, H., Van De Vijver, F. J., & Kroon, S., and J. Arends-Tóth. 2008 Perceived discrimination and acculturation among Iranian refugees in the Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(6): 578–588.
Ten Teije, I., Coenders, M., & Verkuyten, M. (2013). The Paradox of Integration Social Psychology, 44(1): 278–288.
Tolsma, J., Lubbers, M., & Gijsberts, M. (2012). Education and cultural integration among ethnic minorities and natives in the Netherlands: A test of the integration paradox. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(5), 793–813.
Tošić, J., & Streinzer, A. (Eds.). (2022). Ethnographies of deservingness: Unpacking ideologies of distribution and inequality. Berghahn Books.
Tuppat, J., & Gerhards, J. (2021). Immigrants’ first names and Perceived discrimination: A contribution to understanding the Integration Paradox. European Sociological Review, 37(1), 121–135.
Van Doorn, M., Scheepers, P., & Dagevos, J. (2013). Explaining the Integration Paradox among small immigrant groups in the Netherlands. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 14(2), 381–400.
van Liempt, I.,R. Staring (2020a). Nederland papierenland. Syrische statushouders en hun ervaringen met participatiebeleid in Nederland. The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.
Van Liempt, I., & Staring, R. (2020b). Homemaking and places of restoration: Belonging within and beyond places assigned to Syrian refugees in the Netherlands. Geographical Review, 111(2), 308–326.
Van Tubergen, F., & Kalmijn, M. (2009). A dynamic approach to the determinants of immigrants’ language proficiency: The United States, 1980–2000. International Migration Review, 43(3), 519–543.
Verkuyten, M. (2016). The integration paradox: Empiric evidence from the Netherlands. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(5–6), 583–596.
Viruell-Fuentes, E. A. (2007). Beyond acculturation: Immigration, discrimination, and health research among mexicans in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 65(7), 1524–1535.
Walther, L., Kröger, H., Tibubos, A. N., Ta, T. M. T., Von Scheve, C., Schupp, J., Hahn, E., & Bajbouj, M. (2019). Psychological distress among refugees in Germany – a representative study on individual and contextual risk factors and the Potential Consequences of Poor Mental Health for Integration in the host country. DIW.
Warriner, D. S. (2007). Language learning and the politics of belonging: Sudanese women refugees becoming and being American. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(4), 343–359.
Wodtke, G. T. (2012). The impact of education on intergroup attitudes: A multiracial analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75(1), 80–106.
Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Belonging and the politics of belonging. Patterns of Prejudice, 40(3), 197–214.
Yuval-Davis, N. (2011). The politics of belonging: Intersectional contestations. Sage.
Funding
The survey used for this study is part of a larger project (Longitudinal cohort study permit holders), conducted at the request of and funded by four Dutch ministries.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study design. Data preparation and analysis were performed by dr. Damen, who has also written the first draft of the manuscript. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript making sure it was continuously improved before submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
At the time of the data collection ethics approval was not obliged at the research institutes conducting this project. The methods department was consulted and general measures that are required for ethics approval were taken. For data collection there was collaboration with an experienced and trusted research and consultancy firm.
Consent
Respondents in this study were provided information on the larger research project and the two surveys as well as on their rights concerning participation. Anonymous participation was voluntary, and respondents consented to their answers being analysed and reported before taking part in the survey(s).
Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Damen, R., Dagevos, J. & Huijnk, W. Feeling at Home? A Dynamic Analysis of the Impact of Discrimination, Refugee-Specific, and Participation Characteristics on Recently Arrived Refugees’ Belonging. Int. Migration & Integration (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-024-01135-y
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-024-01135-y