Running head: ROMA ADOLESCENTS 1

Ethnic, Familial, and Religious Identity of Roma Adolescents in Bulgaria, Czech Republic,

Kosovo, and Romania in Relation to Their Level of Well-Being

Radosveta Dimitrova, dimitrova.radosveta@gmail.com

Stockholm University, Sweden

Fons J. R. van de Vijver

Tilburg University, the Netherlands, North-West University, South Africa, and University of

Queensland, Australia

Jitka Taušová

Palacký University, Czech Republic

Athanasios Chasiotis

Michael Bender

Tilburg University, the Netherlands

Carmen Buzea

Transylvania University of Brasov, Romania

Fitim Uka

European Center for Vocational Education, Kosovo

Ergyul Tair

Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to acknowledge the support by a COFAS FORTE (The Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare) Marie Curie Grant (Forte Projekt 2013-2669) to the first author. We are also extremely grateful to several people and organizations for their help in carrying out the study in Bulgaria (Eva Jecheva and the National Agency for Child Protection, Neli Filipova, Ivanina Noncheva, Stoyka Jekova, Svetla Atanasova, Neli Kiuchukova, Zvetan Terziev, Elena Ianeva, Venizslav Chobanov, Kamelia Mateva, Petko Petkov, Gospova, Velianova, Elena Chergova, Antoaneta Hristova, Venzislav Jordanov, Deyan Stamatov, Veselina Kukusheva, and Margarita Ahrianova), Romania (Dorel Agache, Stefan Aranyosi and Dorel Dima), the Czech Republic (Jarmila Višňovcová, Martin Kaftan, Monika Kynclová, Rostislav Halaš, Radka Jedličková, Marcela Hanáková, Jana Foltýnová, and Soňa Tarhoviská) and Kosovo (Genc Rexhepi, Argjend Abazi, Kastriot Hasaj, Enteela Kamberi, Erduana Dermaku, Miran Xhelili, Alma Sherifi, Hillari Alidema, Elina Morina and Blerton Jakupi).

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 2

Abstract

This study examines ethnic, national, familial, and religious identity and well-being of 632 Roma

minority and 589 majority adolescents (age: M = 15.98 years, SD = 1.34) in Bulgaria, the Czech

Republic, Kosovo, and Romania. Results indicated that Roma showed lower endorsement of

national identity but stronger religious identity than their majority counterparts. Path models

showed positive associations of familial and religious identities with well-being, whereas Roma

identity was negatively associated with well-being, particularly for Roma in Bulgaria and Kosovo

(countries with a less active policy toward improving conditions of Roma). In the latter countries,

Roma ethnic identity is less relevant and weakly associated with psychological well-being of youth.

Keywords: ethnic, national, familial, religious identity, Roma adolescents, well-being, Bulgaria, the

Czech Republic, Kosovo, Romania

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 3

Roma are Europe’s largest and most vulnerable minority, currently making up nearly 12

million people, a figure that is projected to grow in the coming years because of their relatively high

birth rates (Council of Europe, 2010). Roma youth in particular are vulnerable to discrimination,

social exclusion, marginalization, and poor well-being (European Union Agency for Fundamental

Rights, 2010). This study investigates ethnic, national, familial, and religious identity resources

underlying well-being in Roma youth in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Kosovo, and Romania. In all

four countries, Roma are the largest national minority groups characterized by severe

marginalization and discrimination. Roma youth are recognized within the European Union to be in

strong need of support; therefore, improving Roma well-being is one of the foremost policy issues

in the European Union Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (European

Commission, 2011). These four countries are currently introducing more inclusive and pluralistic

policies toward Roma. We are interested in differences in the current contextual conditions across

the four countries and in ramifications of these differences for identity and well-being of Roma

youth.

Roma are an important group to study because of their socio-political context and long

history of marginalization, accompanied by lack of formal education, high official unemployment,

and little to no access to health care and social services. Roma are often viewed as a threat by

mainstreamers (Ljujic, Vedder, & Dekker, 2012). They are the most prominent indigenous ethnic

minority in Europe that has lived there for centuries and, unlike other ethnic minority groups, does

not have a homeland or country to identify with. This unique constellation of characteristics

presumably has significant implications for their identity. Although frequent discussions of Roma in

the media give the impression that the Roma are well understood, there is a lack of empirical studies

of this group. Roma are an understudied population, mainly due to the fact that they are extremely

hard to reach. Roma are not well researched compared to other minorities and this holds a fortiori

for positive aspects of their functioning and positive youth development. The comparison of Roma

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 4

across four countries enables a comparison of the association of these various contexts with Roma

identity and well-being. As explained in more detail in the following sections, policies toward

Roma differ among these countries, with the Czech Republic being most active in implementing

actions toward improvement of Roma conditions, followed by Romania, Kosovo, and Bulgaria.

Finally, our study adds to the scarce literature on the joint influence of social identity components in

ethnic minority groups on adolescent well-being, in line with a growing recognition of the need to

examine multiple identities simultaneously and to conduct research on the psychological

consequences of additive or complex social identities (Sagiv, Roccas, & Hazan, 2012).

In all four countries, albeit to a different degree and following different policies, Roma have

traditionally suffered from severe discrimination and adverse policies carried out by the (former)

communist rule, which led to the extinction of many cultural traditions, including their nomadic

lifestyle. After the fall of the communist rule in the late ‘80s, Roma gained the status of national

minority with representatives in public and political life, although this status varies somewhat

across countries. Kosovo is an exception in that the country separated from Serbia in 1999 after the

civil war, and declared its independence in 2008. Many Roma lived in the part of Serbia that

became Kosovo; we also recruited participants from that area. Across all countries we investigated

here, Roma communities still face geographic isolation, segregation, impoverishment, and low

social standing. The Roma are a prime example of an ethnic group in which consequences of

extreme oppression can be studied. We are particularly interested in how Roma derive well-being

from their ethnic, national, familial, and religious identity because identifying resources for well-

being may reveal important intervention tools. This study extends a prior line of research

(Dimitrova, Chasiotis, Bender, & van de Vijver, 2013, 2014; Dimitrova, Ferrer-Wreder, & Trost,

2015) by examining multiple identity resources for well-being of Roma to outline new intervention

avenues to enhance well-being in Roma youth. In the following, we provide a brief overview of

major approaches to the study of identity before presenting our study.

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 5

Identity is Multifaceted

A core developmental task for ethnic minority youth is to develop multiple social identities

in a variety of contexts. We briefly review developmental, social, and cross-cultural perspectives

that have investigated social identity and its relevance in young people’s lives. All these

perspectives identify contextual, environmental, and cultural factors that explain changes and

differences in social identification. Developmental perspectives focus on identity formation

(Phinney, 1989). The establishment of a coherent sense of identity is a primary

developmental milestone, with identity achievement (firm commitment after identity

exploration) and identity diffusion (neither engagement in exploration nor commitment),

proposed as the possible polar outcomes of this development (Erikson, 1968;

Marcia, 1980).

When adolescents live in a multicultural environment involving many social reference

groups, they will develop multiple social identities. Social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 2001) and self-

categorization theories (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) acknowledge the

importance of societal context for identity formation, particularly for ethnic minority groups. For

example, work on social identity in the United States has investigated ethnicity and gender as two

significant social categories of identification (Fuligni, 2007). Identification with ethnic

group and gender has also been associated with a range of developmental

outcomes in terms of well-being, behavioral and academic adjustment

(Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004).

Cross-cultural psychologists have identified dimensions along which cultures of the world

might be distinguished, such as individualism–collectivism (Hofstede, 1980). Although there is

discussion as to the dimensionality of these concepts, there is some agreement that the principal

distinction between individualism and collectivism is related to identity (Triandis, Bontempo, Asai,

& Luca, 1988). The central theme of individualism is the conception of individuals as primarily

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 6

autonomous beings who are separate from groups, whereas collectivism sees individuals primarily

as linked to groups or collectives (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990).

What is common to all theoretical perspectives presented above is that they view identity as

a multifaceted construct. By drawing on this view of identity, we investigate multiple identifications

relevant to the study of identity of Roma minority youth across four different cultural contexts. Our

work is related to the notion of collective identity involving multiple identifications and the

relevance of identification with specific social categories (Ashmore et al., 2004). We focus on three

identities: familial, religious, and ethnic identity. These identities are relevant to ethnic minority

youth (Dimitrova et al., 2013, 2014) as they represent significant others (the familial group) and

larger social groups (ethnic and religious). There is quite some literature suggesting that ethnic

belonging, religion, and family provide important sources of identification (e.g., Kiang, Yip, &

Fuligni, 2008), that are positively related to individual well-being, specifically in ethnic minority

groups (Lopez, Huynh, & Fuligni, 2011; Smith & Silva, 2011).

Identity of Roma Youth

Ethnic and national identity. Ethnic identity is defined as the potential process of

maintaining positive/negative attitudes and feelings of ethnic group belonging (Erikson, 1968;

Phinney, 1989; Phinney & Ong, 2007). Research has consistently found that ethnic identity is

positively related to psychological well-being and psychosocial adjustment in various groups

(Rivas-Drake et al., 2014; Smith & Silva, 2011). Importantly, ethnic identity can refer to the

heritage immigrant or ethnic minority group culture as well as to the dominant mainstream culture.

We distinguish between ethnic heritage and national identity. The latter reflects the degree of

identification with the (host) culture of settlement, including feelings of belonging and commitment

to the host society (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997). Similarly, the most widely applied model of

acculturation refers to a two-dimensional process in which ethnic heritage culture maintenance and

national host culture adoption are negotiated (Berry, 1997). Whereas in the identity literature there

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 7

has been emphasis on the role of ethnic identity for well-being, the prevailing view in the

acculturation literature is that the combination of both preserving one’s ethnic heritage culture and

adopting the national culture (labeled integration) is the most beneficial for ethnic minority groups

(Berry, 1997). We set out to assess both ethnic and national identity as correlates of psychological

adjustment in Roma minority groups.

The scarce literature on identity of Roma reveals mixed findings. In many Central and

Eastern European states, Roma tend to identify with the national mainstream culture (Prieto-Flores,

2009), which could represent a consequence of extreme oppression of their Roma identity. This

tendency has been observed among Roma in Western Europe and in other parts of the world

(Marushiakova & Popov, 2010). However, Roma in Eastern Europe have also been reported to

show low national and ethnic identities. The low level of endorsement of both identities, in the

acculturation literature known as marginalization, is presumably a coping strategy to deal with

much adversity in Eastern Europe, which is further amplified by ethnic tensions and assimilation

policies (Dimitrova et al., 2014). Alternatively, such marginalization could imply an emphasis on

more individualistic strategies of social mobility in light of the rapidly changing political and

economic landscape of Eastern Europe as suggested by socio-psychological conceptualizations of

acculturation (Bourhis, Moïse, Perreault, & Senécal, 1997). In recent years, some European

countries have adopted more tolerant multicultural policies towards the Roma. It has been suggested

that countries with multicultural policies for ethnic cultures allow for a stronger endorsement of

ethnic identities (Bourhis et al., 1997). Roma living in countries with active policies aimed at

improving the conditions of their group may thus show higher levels of Roma ethnic identity

(Walsh & Krieg, 2007).

Familial identity. Familial identity represents the degree of identification with the familial

group, the sense of familial group membership. The family is a core identification domain for youth

that provides a sense of obligation, relatedness, and commitment (Lopez et al., 2011). Strong family

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 8

ties and family attachment are particularly salient for ethnic minority groups and influence the way

they live their lives (Spilimbergo & Ubeda, 2004). Similarly to ethnic and religious identity, a

strong familial identity among ethnic minority groups and family attachment are associated with

positive adjustment and health-protective behaviors that buffer against negative effects of stress

(Fuligni & Flook, 2005; Maimon, Browning, & Brooks-Gunn, 2010). Historically, the family has

been the core component of the Roma community and main vehicle for preservation of Roma

traditions and values. Strong identification with the family acts as a resource for Roma to buffer

severe discrimination and oppression. In an earlier study it was confirmed that familial identity, a

component of social identity that is not challenged in a hostile mainstream context, is strong among

both Bulgarian Roma youth and their mothers (Dimitrova et al., 2014).

Religious identity. Religious identity concerns the sense of group membership to a religion

or set of religious convictions, and their importance for individual identity (Nesbitt & Arweck,

2010). It has been suggested that religious identity is salient among ethnic minority adolescents,

regardless of their specific religious affiliation (Lopez et al., 2011; Wallace, Forman, Caldwell, &

Willis, 2003). In line with social identity theory, it has been proposed that ethnic minorities tend to

emphasize other social identities in order to preserve their positive sense of self (Tajfel & Turner,

2001). Findings on the religious identity of Roma are mixed. A weak religious identification among

Roma in Eastern and Central Europe has been observed as a reaction to anti-religion policies during

the communism era (Tomova, 2000). Yet, compared to mainstreamers, Roma have been found to

demonstrate higher religiosity and an overall stronger religious identity as important sources of

identification and well-being (Dimitrova et al., 2013, 2014).

Age and gender effects on multiple identities. Prior work suggests age and gender effects

on the social identities we are interested in. Linear stage models describe a general increase in

ethnic identity, with an initial period of unawareness of ethnicity issues, followed by a process of

exploration and an increasing sense of ethnic group belonging (Phinney, 1989). In line with these

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 9

models, older adolescents have a clearer and more firmly defined sense of their ethnicity than

younger adolescents (French, Seidman, Allen, & Aber, 2006), although findings are mixed for

religion. Evidence has been found for a linear decrease in religious behaviors (Arnett & Jensen,

2002), for stability in the centrality of religious beliefs (Stoppa & Lefkowitz, 2010), and for an

increase in intrinsic religious commitment (Lee, 2003). Findings regarding gender effects indicate

that ethnic group identification is more important for girls (Yip & Fuligni, 2002), and that girls are

more involved with their family and religious community and exhibit a stronger religious

commitment than boys (Stoppa & Lefkowitz, 2010). However, lack of gender differences with

regard to salience and strength of ethnic or national identity are also documented (Liebkind, 1997).

Since most previous work was US based, it is not clear yet whether these age and gender

differences would also emerge in Roma minority groups across the Eastern European countries of

our study. Only one study we are aware of examined age and gender effects in multiple identities of

Roma youth, finding that ethnic, familial, and religious identity was stronger in older than younger

Roma participants, whereas no gender differences in these identities emerged (Dimitrova et al.,

2013). We build on this work by examining differences across multiple identities in Roma minority

and mainstream youth comparing age groups and genders.

Consequences of multiple identities. Finally, prior research has documented strong,

positive correlations between ethnic, familial, and religious identity among ethnic minority youth

(Dimitrova et al., 2014; Kiang, Yip, & Fuligni, 2002). How these identities come together may have

important implications for well-being and adjustment: From the social psychological perspective on

identity, positive feelings toward one's group are known to enhance overall well-being (Tajfel &

Turner, 2001). Ethnic minority groups may develop a strong ethnic and a weak national identity;

this combination may optimally enhance their well-being in the face of perceived group threat and

discrimination (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999). Research on acculturation has shown that

ethnic minority groups who feel connected with both their ethnic and national culture (labelled

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 10

integration) typically exhibit positive acculturation outcomes, including well-being (Berry, Phinney,

Sam, & Vedder, 2006). It is clear that the strength of group identification is a central issue for

adolescents and the degree to which they have a sense of belonging to one or more cultural groups

is dependent on their family and extended community or social contexts (Liebkind, 2006). We

follow this line of research by examining how ethnic, national, familial, and religious identity

endorsement is associated with positive outcomes among Roma youths. In so doing, we extend the

literature by investigating samples of understudied Roma groups in four European countries which

local context is briefly presented below.

The Roma Minority

Although precise estimates are difficult to establish, the Roma number from seven to twelve

million people (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2010). Discrepancies in estimates

of the size of their population are primarily due to the absence of census information on ethnic

origin in the majority of the European Union and ethnic mimicry, which refers to the refusal to

disclose one’s ethnic identity to secure access to better opportunities, and to avoid stigmatization

and prejudice (Prieto-Flores, 2009). Roma are Europe’s largest minority, living mainly in Central

and Eastern Europe and having a long history of marginalization (Vermeersch & Ram, 2009). We

use Roma as a term for diverse Roma populations, while acknowledging the variety of identity

distinctions within this ethnic group (see Park, 2008). Our study goals specify differences among

Roma in different countries and their specific local characteristics. Although the main focus of this

study is on a marginalized social group, the Roma, scholars have also acknowledged the need for

including mainstream or dominant group comparisons (Yuval-Davis, 2006). This study

acknowledges this argument by taking into account a reference group of mainstream youth. The

target groups are early to middle adolescent Roma in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Kosovo, and

Romania. Early to middle adolescence is a relevant developmental period for making valid

distinctions in identity statuses and for ethnic minority youth - to develop their own identity, while

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 11

evaluating the collective values of their cultural heritage and the values of the dominant society

(Crocetti, Rubini, Luyckx, & Meeus, 2008). Early to middle adolescence is a crucial stage of future

orientation: youth have to plan their further education or occupation by leaving the “protected”

school environment, making essential vocational choices, and are therefore more likely to

experience multiple identity negotiations and explorations.

The Czech Republic. Although recent official census data report approximately 5,000

Roma in the Czech Republic (Czech Statistical Office, 2013), their actual numbers are estimated to

be between 150,000 and 400,000 people (European Commission, 2013). Improving conditions of

Roma in a variety of settings is an official government strategy with social policy measures and

activities aimed at supporting the Roma language, culture, and identity (Civil Society Monitoring

Report Czech Republic, 2013). The development of this strategy is the responsibility of the

Department for the Protection of Minorities, in which the Council for Roma Community Affairs is

the most important, being composed by Roma delegates only who contribute to decision making

and formulating new policies for Roma. The Czech government financially supports the education

of Roma children at primary and secondary level, the research into Roma language, cultural

activities, music and theatre festivals, and issues information about the Roma in mainstream media

(European Commission, 2013).

Romania. The Roma group comprises 619,007 people out of the 23,000,000 national

population in Romania (Romania census, 2011), although some reports estimate higher numbers

ranging from 1,800,000 to 2,500,000 (European Commission, 2003). Roma gained the status of a

national minority with visible representatives in Romanian public and political life; yet, they are

still the socially and economically most disadvantaged group in the country. There are generally

two types of attitudes toward the Roma among the mainstream Romanians. On the one hand,

Romanians disapprove of the xenophobic discourse and expulsion of Romanian Roma migrants

from Western Europe. On the other hand, they are concerned about the confusion between

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 12

Romanian and Roma ethnicity. For instance, in 2010 a bill was proposed to the parliament to

replace the word "Roma" with the pejorative "Tzigane", which was ultimately rejected (Wolfe-

Murray, 2010). However, Romania was among the first to sign the Decade of Roma Inclusion

(2005-2015) in line with the political commitment by European governments to eliminate

discrimination against Roma and promote the Strategy of Inclusion of Romanian Citizens

Belonging to the Roma Minority for the period 2012-2020. The National Agency for Roma (NAR),

a central public administration body, is responsible for applying and monitoring intervention

measures for the improvement of Roma conditions.

Kosovo. In 1991, before the civil war, the number of Roma individuals was between

100,000 and 150,000. Current estimates point to 40,000 Roma among the national population of

two million (Tcherenkov & Laderich, 2004). Roma are Muslims, the dominant religion in Kosovo,

contrary to the Christian religious affiliation of Roma in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and

Romania. Roma are the most vulnerable group that after the armed conflict in Kosovo either

remained marginalized or emigrated. After becoming independent from Serbia, the government of

Kosovo developed an institutional action plan for the Roma, which covers education, employment,

health, and social affairs, as well as returns and reintegration. While Albanian and Serbian are the

official languages, the Romani language, alongside with Turkish and Bosnian, is an official

language at the municipal level. There are several TV and radio stations broadcasting in the Romani

language, including a weekly programme supported by a website in Romani. However, very few

plans targeting the improvement of the situation of Roma have been implemented, due to the lack or

non-provision of financial resources and the devastating postwar reality. Some reports state that

local policies and laws primarily address the needs of other ethnic groups in the country, rather than

those of Roma (European Roma Rights Centre, 2011).

Bulgaria. Roma estimates in Bulgaria range between 325,343 and 800,000 people out of the

national population of nearly 7 million (National Statistics Institute, 2011). They are exposed to

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 13

geographic isolation and segregation, along with a lack of access to adequate social and educational

services (Amnesty International, 2007). Bulgaria has a historical record of ethnic tensions with its

ethnic minorities that experienced severe assimilation campaigns during the communist rule. In

contrast to other countries, Bulgaria adopted a policy of strict repression of ethnic identity of Roma,

involving their sedentarization, closing down Roma theaters and newspapers, and banning the use

of their language (Csepeli & Simon, 2004). Official policies targeting the improvement of Roma

conditions are scarce. In fact, the latest monitoring report in Bulgaria concluded that regardless of

the large number of strategic documents and operational programs that have been adopted, a

political will was lacking to factually improve the situation of Roma (Civil Society Monitoring

Report Bulgaria, 2013).

It can be concluded that policies toward Roma differ among the countries investigated here,

with the Czech Republic being most effective in Roma integration, followed by Romania, Kosovo,

and Bulgaria. Although it is not easy to directly assess implications of these different contexts for

identity of youth, we set out to explore whether there might be differences in Roma youth’s

multiple identities and well-being across countries.

Hypotheses

The present study investigated ethnic, national, familial, and religious identity and well-

being in Roma adolescents across four Eastern European countries by testing five hypotheses. First,

we expected group differences in identities and well-being such that compared to their mainstream

peers, Roma adolescents would have a weaker national identity (Hypothesis 1a), stronger religious

identity (Hypothesis 1b), and lower levels of well-being (Hypothesis 1c). Second, we expected

mean level differences in ethnic and national identity within the Roma samples, such that Roma

ethnic identity would be more endorsed by Roma youth in countries with more explicit policies

toward improving conditions of Roma (Hypothesis 2a) and that national identity would be more

endorsed by Roma youth in countries with less active Roma policies (Hypothesis 2b). Third, we

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 14

explored age effects in line with prior work (French et al., 2006; Phinney, 1989; Stoppa &

Lefkowitz, 2010), suggesting that older compared to younger adolescents would report more

pronounced ethnic, national, familial, and religious identities (Hypothesis 3). We did not advance

predictions about specific gender effects on salience of identity domains due to inconsistencies in

findings of previous studies. We also expected specific associations among Roma ethnic and

national identities across countries. We hypothesized a positive association between Roma ethnic

and national identity for Roma youth in countries with more pronounced integration policies

(Hypothesis 4a) and a negative association for countries with more pronounced assimilation

practices and high levels of discrimination (Hypothesis 4b). Lastly, we expected positive

associations between specific identity domains and well-being. Specifically, and in concordance

with previous findings (Dimitrova et al., 2014), we expected that familial identity would have the

strongest and most consistent relations with well-being in the Roma group (Hypothesis 5). We

regard familial identity as the most salient identity domain, specifically for Roma youth, as this

domain is not challenged by the social context they live in. Therefore, particularly in the Roma

minority context, family ties and attachment to close family members will have the strongest

contribution to well-being.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were 1221 adolescents of whom 632 Roma and 589 mainstreamers (age: M =

15.98 years, SD = 1.34). The Roma samples consisted of 194 youth in Bulgaria, 153 in the Czech

Republic, 150 in Kosovo, and 135 in Romania (see Table 1). In addition to the Roma participants,

there were 155 Bulgarian, 142 Czech, 150 Albanian, and 142 Romanian mainstream youth as

reference groups. Twenty-seven percent of the total sample indicated to be Muslim (mainly Roma

and Albanian youth from Kosovo), 38% Christian Orthodox, and 12% Catholic, and 22% did not

report any religious affiliation. Data on family socioeconomic status (SES) were computed by

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 15

creating a composite score of occupation levels (unskilled, semi-professional, and professional job)

of both parents. This score was coded in three levels of low, middle, and high SES. The samples

differed in age, with the Czech mainstreamers having a lower mean age than the other groups [F(7,

1194) = 56.09, p < .001], and gender with more girls in the Roma-Bulgarian group than in the other

samples, χ²(7, N = 1207) = 41.11, p < .001. For further analyses, we dichotomized age in early (11

to 14 years old) and middle (15 to 18 years old) adolescence (see also Verkuyten et al., 2012).

Participants were recruited from January to June 2012 in public schools in major towns with

a large number of Roma in Bulgaria (Sofia, Simeonovgrad, Harmanli, Haskovo), the Czech

Republic (North Bohemia: Lovosice, Most, Krupka, Teplice; Central Bohemia: Prague; South

Moravia: Olomouc, Brno, Prostejov; Czech Silesia: Ostrava), Kosovo (Pristina), and Romania

(Brasov). Prior to the data collection, local school authorities were contacted and informed about

the purpose and methods of the study to acquire their consent. In addition, local community

organizations working with Roma families were informed about the study to obtain their support to

facilitate participation. Upon agreement by schools to take part in the study, parental and student

consent was obtained. All contacted schools agreed to participate and the participants’ response rate

was very high (up to 98%) due to long term collaboration with the research team and incentives

(small gifts) to participants. Participants came from school grades 7 to 11, which were reflecting the

general secondary school population in the respective countries for the target age range. Students

filled out the questionnaire in a group setting during regular school hours. The participating schools

were typical of the ethnically mixed population of Roma and mainstream students in their regions.

Roma and their mainstream peers were enrolled in the same schools.

Measures

Sociodemographic questionnaire. Participants in all countries provided information on

their nationality, ethnicity, age, gender, religion, and occupation of both parents.

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 16

Identity measures. Identity measures for the present study have been developed in previous

studies on Bulgarian samples of Roma youth to comprehensively assess their ethnic, national,

familial, and religious identity (Dimitrova et al., 2013, 2014). The four identity scales were created

by generating items following identity components of self-categorization, attachment, evaluation,

importance, and behavioral involvement (Ashmore et al., 2004). Some items were also adapted

from previously used measures of ethnic (Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure, MEIM; Phinney &

Ong, 2007), familial, and religious identity (Kiang at al., 2008). We used four scales, each

consisting of 21 items. The stems of the items were identical for each of the four scales, with targets

(nation, Roma, family, and religion) varying per scale. Respondents were asked to indicate their

answers on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from completely disagree to completely agree.

The Roma Ethnic Identity Scale contained items, such as “I see myself as Roma” (self-

categorization), “I feel strongly connected to Roma people” (attachment), “I am proud to be a

member of the Roma community” (evaluation), “Being Roma is a significant part of my life”

(importance) and “I spend much time trying to find out more about the Roma culture (e.g., history,

traditions and customs)” (behavioral involvement). The scale had excellent internal consistencies

with values between .92 and .96 across Roma samples.

The National Identity Scale included items like “I see myself as

Bulgarian/Czech/Albanian/Romanian” (self-categorization), “I feel strongly connected to

Bulgarian/Czech/Albanian/Romanian people” (attachment), “I am proud to be a member of the

Bulgarian/Czech/Albanian/Romanian community” (evaluation), “Being

Bulgarian/Czech/Albanian/Romanian is a significant part of my life” (importance) and “I spend

much time trying to find out more about the Bulgarian/Czech/Albanian/Romanian culture (e.g.,

history, traditions and customs)” (behavioral involvement). The internal consistencies ranged

from .90 to .95 for Roma and from .86 to .93 for mainstream youth.

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 17

The Familial Identity Scale included statements such as “I see myself as member of my

family”, “I feel strongly connected to my family”, “I am proud to be a member of my family”,

“Being part of my family is a significant part of my life” and “I spend much time with my family”.

The scale showed high internal consistencies ranging from .91 to .97 in the Roma and from .87

to .95 in the mainstream groups.

The Religious Identity Scale comprised statements, such as “I see myself as member of my

religious community”, “I feel strongly connected to my religious community”, “I am proud to be a

member of my religious community”, “Being part of my religious community is a significant part

of my life”, and “I have spent much time exploring my religious community (e.g., its rituals, history

and traditions)”. Internal consistencies ranged from .91 to .95 for the Roma and from .92 to .98 for

the mainstream youth.

Well-Being. We applied a conceptualization of well-being from a positive youth

development perspective; we were interested in specific types of positive evaluations, such as life

satisfaction, interest and engagement, as well as emotional reactions to life events, such as joy,

happiness, excitement. Consequently, well-being was measured by the Satisfaction with Life Scale

(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) and the Positive Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, &

Tellegen, 1988). The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) consists of five items addressing global

life satisfaction. On a 7-point Likert scale, respondents express the extent to which they

agree/disagree with statements such as “The conditions of my life are excellent” and “So far, I have

gotten the important things I want in life.” Internal consistencies were between .71 and .91 (Roma

youth) and .70 and .79 (mainstream youth). The Positive Affect Schedule (PA) consists of 10 items

describing positive mood states (e.g.,” strong, excited, interested”). For the present sample, internal

consistencies ranged from .72 to .96 (Roma youth) and from .65 to .89 (mainstream youth).

Results

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 18

In line with our first set of predictions, we investigated identity and well-being differences

across groups by performing two separate analyses of variance. First, a MANCOVA was carried out

with group (2 levels: Roma and mainstream), age (2 levels: early and middle adolescents), and

gender as independent variables and national, familial, and religious identity, life satisfaction and

positive affect as dependent variables, and SES as covariate. SES was treated as a covariate as the

groups in this study differed in family socioeconomic status, with Roma youth across all countries

having a lower SES than their mainstream counterparts, χ²(8, N = 1101) = 410.59, p < .001. Lower

SES was found to be related to lower levels of mainstream identity [F(2, 1066) = 9.99, p < .001, η2

= .024], familial identity [F(2, 1066) = 30.28, p < .001, η2 = .052], satisfaction with life [F(2, 1066)

= 80.20, p < .001, η2 = .128], and positive affect, F(2, 1066) = 22.56, p < .001, η2 = .040. Second, a

repeated measures ANOVA investigated group differences of Roma ethnic identity among Roma

samples, which included between-group factors (four Roma groups in each country, age, and

gender) and one within-group factor (Roma and national identity). We report Cohen’s d and, in case

more groups are involved, (partial) η2 values as effect sizes. Finally, we examined and tested

associations between identity and psychological well-being in the Roma group by employing a

Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes (MIMIC) model (Jöreskog & Goldberger, 1975) by means of

structural equations modeling in AMOS (Arbuckle, 2009). In this model the four identities were

used to predict a latent factor, labeled well-being that was measured by life satisfaction and positive

affect. Fit indices adopted to interpret the model fit were the χ2 test, the Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation [RMSEA; recommended value ≤ .08], the Comparative Fit Index [CFI;

recommended value ≥ .90] (Marsh, Hau, & Grayson, 2005) and the Standardized Root Mean Square

Residual [SRMR; recommended ≤ .08] (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Group Differences, Age and Gender Effects on Identity and Well-Being

The first set of hypotheses refers to ethnic group, age, and gender effects in identity and

well-being. We present main effects as well as interaction effects for the expected relations among

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 19

these variables. With regards to main effects and as expected, results revealed that Roma

adolescents showed a weaker national identity [F(1, 1091) = 42.95, p < .001, d = -.56] and a

stronger religious identity compared to their mainstream peers, F(1, 1091) = 26.09, p < .001, d

= .27. Also in line with expectations, overall Roma adolescents reported considerably lower levels

of well-being in terms of less life satisfaction [F(1, 1091) = 135.30, p < .001, d = -1.16] and less

positive affect [F(1, 1091) = 16.53, p < .001, d = -.45] compared to mainstreamers, although an

inspection of the means in Table 1 suggests that this is probably not entirely true for youth in the

Czech Republic and Romania. We provide a possible interpretation of this pattern in the discussion.

Additionally, as predicted (Hypothesis 3), age effects were observed for national [F(1, 1091) =

30.47, p < .001, d = .39] and religious identity [F(1, 1091) = 37.60, p < .001, d = .35], with higher

scores for middle compared to early adolescents. Life satisfaction [F(1, 1091) = 10.41, p < .001, d =

.27] and positive affect scores were lower for middle compared to early adolescents, F(1, 1091) =

17.37, p < .001, d = .29. There were also gender effects for positive affect, with lower scores for

girls compared to boys, F(1, 1091) = 13.22, p < .001, d = .21.

With regard to interaction effects, no significant interactions with gender emerged, but

significant age by group interactions were found. National identity [F(1, 1091) = 10.47, p < .001, d

= .74] and positive affect [F(1, 1091) = 4.78, p < .01, d = .52] were significantly higher for

mainstream compared to Roma middle adolescents, whereas religious identity was stronger for

Roma middle adolescents compared to their mainstream peers, F(1, 1091) = 33.19, p < .001, d

= .64. No significant age by ethnic group interactions for familial identity and life satisfaction were

found.

Mean Differences of Identity among Roma Youth

According to our second hypothesis, we expected mean level differences in ethnic and

national identity within the Roma samples, such that Roma ethnic identity would be more endorsed

than national identity by Roma youth. Results did not show significant within-group effects.

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 20

However, there was a significant identity by group interaction, F(3, 474) = 5.75, p < .001, η2 = .035.

Post hoc Bonferroni multiple comparisons showed that national identity was significantly higher in

Roma in Kosovo compared to Roma in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Romania. Also, Roma

ethnic identity was lower among Roma in Romania compared to Roma in Bulgaria, the Czech

Republic, and Kosovo (see Table 1). The second hypothesis was not globally supported, but an

inspection of means in Table 1 suggests it might hold for some national contexts (e.g., the Czech

Republic) and not others (Romania; we return to this issue in the discussion).

Associations among Identity and Well-Being Variables

According to our fourth hypothesis, we expected significant positive associations among

all identities in all groups. Tables 2 and 3 present bivariate Pearson correlations among all study

variables for both Roma and mainstream youth in each country. As can be seen there, results are in

line with expectations that all identities were positively correlated. We ran a multigroup analysis

involving the Roma groups in all countries. The fit of this MIMIC model was not entirely adequate

as indicated by fit indices of the structural weights model, χ²(19, N = 1221) = 127.34, p < .001,

RMSEA = .095, SRMR = .08 and CFI = .937. As indicated by salient modification indices, we

released invariance constraints on familial and Roma ethnic identity. The resulting partial structural

weights model yielded a slightly better fit, χ²(25, N = 1221) = 132.59, p < .001, RMSEA = .083,

SRMR = .08 and CFI = .938. As can be seen in Figure 1, our hypothesis regarding the structural

relations between familial identity and well-being was largely confirmed. Regression coefficients of

familial identity were significantly positive and very strong in Kosovo and Bulgaria; in the Czech

Republic and Romania the values were lower and in the latter country the coefficient just failed to

reach significance. It is interesting that there are important group differences with regards to Roma

identity. Roma identity was negatively related to well-being for Roma youth in Bulgaria and

notably in Kosovo and unrelated in the Czech Republic and Romania. So, Roma identity was not

positively related to well-being in any country and was even negatively related in two countries.

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 21

Religious identity was positively related to well-being across all Roma groups. It should be noted

that the regression coefficients of national identity were very low in comparison to those for

familial and religious identity; the regression coefficients were not significant in any country,

indicating the marginal role (if any at all) of mainstream identity in well-being of Roma youth.

It has been reported that multiple identity relations can differ across developmental periods

(Verkuyten et al., 2012). Therefore, we reran the multigroup path model separately for early and

middle adolescents. We found full invariance of all parameters in Figure 1, suggesting that the

associations between the variables in our model are not different across the age groups.

In summary, religious and familial identity were positively related to well-being for Roma in

the four countries studied, whereas national identity and Roma identity did not show such positive

relations and could even be negatively related to well-being. Multiple identities and their relations

with well-being remained invariant in different developmental periods from early to middle

adolescence. Furthermore, strong relations were found among ethnic, national, familial, and

religious identity.

Discussion

The objective of this paper was to compare how multiple identities are related to well-being

in Roma adolescents living in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Kosovo, and Romania. Resources

available to Roma communities and policies to improve their conditions vary significantly across

these countries. Our study suggests that differences in identity endorsement might reflect

differences in these national policies, combined with other societal and local factors.

With regard to our first prediction, we expected group differences in national and religious

identity and well-being of Roma youth compared to their mainstream peers. Results were in line

with the expectation that Roma would show weak national identities across countries. Globally, we

found low scores on well-being, in line with the marginalized nature of the group. Roma minority

youth tended to show lower levels of positive affect and life satisfaction than their mainstream peers

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 22

across all national contexts. Results largely supported our expectations, although the support was

better in Bulgaria and Kosovo than in the Czech Republic and Romania. It might be that Roma

youth in these latter countries are doing better than other Roma youth, possibly because of more

favorable national policies or better socio-economic conditions.

In line with our second prediction, we expected mean level differences in ethnic and national

identity within the Roma samples such that Roma ethnic identity would be stronger than national

identity. Relevant frameworks, such as the Rejection-Identification Model (RIM; Branscombe et al.,

1999) and the Rejection-Disidentification Model (RDIM; Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, & Solheim,

2009), seem to be based on the interaction of ethnic and national identities, where a reduction of

national identity, often after discrimination experiences, is associated with an enhanced ethnic

identity. We do not find evidence for these dynamics in Roma. We could not detect significant

within-group effects among these two identity domains. It seems that in the case of Roma groups,

ethnic background may no longer provide a positive source of identification and that both ethnic

Roma and national identities have low endorsement levels. This finding is particularly interesting

from a developmental perspective because research that supports RIM and RDIM models has

mostly relied on adult samples. On the one hand and in line with prepositions of these models,

ethnic identification in light of discrimination may not really protect self-esteem in these youth,

because both national and ethnic identities undergo similar formation processes and they are equally

challenged during adolescence. On the other hand, ethnic identity could be expected to be more

stable than national identity for immigrant and minority adults. One plausible explanation would be

that the dynamics that are expected from the RIM and RDIM models do not hold during

adolescence. However, the lack of within-group differences in ethnic and national identity,

considering country profiles with regard to policy towards Roma, calls for caution in considering

how country specifics relate to our findings. Possibly, there is much more complexity at work in

each of the country contexts and the relations between these contexts and identity among Roma

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 23

represented here. A direct assessment of these relations would be particularly valuable to pursue in

future research. In addition, the pattern of low identification with both the ethnic and national group

is known in acculturation research as marginalization. Other findings among Roma have also

reported a marginalized identity characterized by low levels of endorsement of both national and

ethnic identities, arguably as a reaction to a marginalization of their community (Dimitrova et al.,

2014). Therefore, the strength and salience of both ethnic and national identities for Roma minority

appear to be moderated by contextual factors of severe marginalization. Another possibility, as

anticipated in the introduction, may be that marginalized identities could reflect more individualistic

strategies of social mobility in light of recent economic changes in the societies our samples are

living (Bourhis et al., 1997). This possibility is in line with our findings that other identity domains

(i.e., familial, religious) emerge as more important correlates of well-being than ethnic (or national)

sense of belonging.

A significant identity by group interaction showed that national identity was higher for

Roma youth in Kosovo compared to their peers in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Romania. The

higher score on national identity of Roma in Kosovo might be related to the history of this recently

formed state, possibly indicating that all citizens are proud of the independence of their country and

its culture. The mainstreamers in Kosovo also seem to have a high score on national identity. Roma

ethnic identity was found to be the lowest for Roma youth in Romania compared to their peers in

Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Kosovo. This pattern is not in line with the argument that ethnic

identity should be higher in countries with more integration oriented policies (which are stronger in

Romania than in Bulgaria and Kosovo). Yet, the low mean is in line with our field observations and

knowledge of the research site in Romania (Brasov). In Brasov, there is a dwindling population

speaking Romani language, and a decreasing number of Roma perform traditional occupations and

maintain ethnic customs. It is unclear whether this trend still reflects the massive discrimination

faced by Roma in Romania in the past.

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 24

In line with our third prediction and prior research (French et al., 2006; Phinney, 1989), we

found associations and interactions between age, ethnic background and multiple identities. An

interesting age-related finding was that national identity was more pronounced for mainstream

compared to Roma middle adolescents, whereas religious identity was significantly stronger for

Roma middle compared to mainstream adolescents. It may well be that middle adolescence is a

more relevant developmental period for ethnic minority than mainstream youth to evaluate different

identity options because they need to negotiate between cultural values of their heritage and

dominant society (Crocetti et al., 2008). Roma middle adolescents have to consider and reconsider

different identity alternatives - probably to a greater extent than mainstream middle adolescents. A

rival explanation could be the gradual ethnic identity endorsement accompanied by an increasing

knowledge and awareness of identity alternatives (Cross & Madson, 1997) as well as national

identity shift over time due to increasing and accumulating exposure to the mainstream culture

(Sam, Vedder, Liebkind, Neto, & Virta, 2008). It is also worth to note that the relations between

multiple identities and well-being of Roma across all four countries were invariant across age

groups. In fact, we could confirm that ethnic, national, familial, and religious identities are related

to well-being for both early and middle adolescents in the same way.

In addition, our results reveal that gender is not systematically related to any identity. On

average, ethnic, national, familial, and religious identity salience was similar for girls and boys. It

thus seems that the underlying process of establishing identity is similar for boys and girls in our

Roma groups. A similar absence of gender differences among Roma was reported in prior work

(Dimitrova et al., 2013, 2014). Our findings are in line with many studies that failed to report

gender differences (e.g., Nesdale, Rooney, & Smith, 1997; Virta & Westin, 1999).

With regard to our fourth prediction, we expected a significant positive association between

Roma ethnic and national identity for youth in countries with more pronounced integration policies

and a negative association for countries with more pronounced assimilation practices. This

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 25

prediction was partly supported by significantly positive associations being strongest for Roma in

Romania and Kosovo, followed by Bulgaria, whereas no significant results emerged for the Czech

Republic. These findings reflect the complexity in contextual diversity in addition to what official

reports had provided on policy implementation among Roma. Possibly, in countries with weak

integration policies (like Bulgaria and Kosovo), Roma youth integrate ethnic and national identities

as a coping strategy. Confirming expectations, we did not find a significant relation in Romania and

the Czech Republic. Yet, in the latter country, Roma identity was endorsed more than national

identity, confirming the lack of integration between these identities in countries with more

pronounced assimilation policies. Finally, we also observed strong, positive correlations between

Roma ethnic and religious identity, particularly for the Roma in Bulgaria and Kosovo.

Lastly, we expected to observe overall positive effects of ethnic, familial, and religious

identity on well-being. We based our reasoning on prior research providing strong evidence for

advantages of simultaneously studying multiple social identities that are salient for youth as they

provide a coherent picture of how ethnic, familial, and religious domains jointly influence well-

being (Verkuyten et al., 2012). This hypothesis was largely confirmed for the Roma, where the

strongest and most consistent association between familial identity and well-being was observed.

Past research has shown that familial identity is the most salient identity for Roma in Bulgaria

(Dimitrova et al., 2013, 2014) and this study shows the same to be true for Roma in the Czech

Republic, Kosovo, and Romania. This finding supports the notion that familial identity can be

regarded as a psychological resource to face challenges for Roma youth, and replicates the

frequently reported observation that the family is crucial within the Roma community. Conceivably,

the extended family system characterizes this community as a salient resource in the collectivist

Roma settlements, whereas ethnic heritage identity cannot be directly anchored on an existing social

structure due to the fact that Roma do not have a country or state to identify with.

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 26

Relations among identity domains and well-being vary across countries. In fact, the

association between Roma identity and well-being was positive in the Czech Republic and

Romania, and negative in Kosovo and Bulgaria. The negative association between Roma identity

and well-being in Roma youth in Bulgaria and Kosovo could be associated with policies aimed at

improving the overall conditions of Roma, which are stronger in the Czech Republic and Romania

than in Kosovo and Bulgaria. This pattern was most pronounced for Roma youth in Kosovo, where

it appears that being Roma is associated with worse psychological outcomes. Possibly, adverse

circumstances may be responsible for the negative association between Roma identity and well-

being in our Roma participants in Bulgaria and Kosovo. Not all aspects of social identity contribute

to well-being. For Roma youth, only those identity aspects that are resources to deal with adversity

(notably family and religion) contribute to their well-being. Neither their (enforced) national

identity nor their (marginalized) Roma identity appear to provide adequate resources, which is an

exceptional finding as links between ethnic identity and well-being are often reported (Smith &

Silva, 2011). We conclude that the link between identity and well-being can be moderated by

contextual conditions and a strong endorsement of a specific identity is not necessarily linked with

more well-being when this identity is strongly rejected by society.

Limitations and suggestions. Our study is not without limitations. First, we lacked in-depth

information on local Roma ethnic communities, which could be critical in further understanding

multiple identities. Qualitative data including interviews and focus group discussions on different

identity and how these are embedded in everyday life of Roma youth in different countries would

be helpful in that regard. A second important limitation concerns the sample selection. By necessity,

we focused on Roma youth who attended public schools. However, dropping out of school is

particularly common among Roma students (Decade of Roma Inclusion, 2005-2015). Therefore,

students who drop out of school are clearly at risk for marked discrimination and poor well-being.

We cannot generalize our findings to all Roma youth and specifically to those who might be at

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 27

greater risk for compromised adjustment and overall well-being. Another limitation concerns that

we could not directly assess how public policies, the education system, and other policies directed

at Roma have been implemented in local communities. An examination of direct effects of

indicators of Roma policy (European Commission, 2011) on identity and well-being of Roma youth

would be particularly valuable. Additionally, we did not measure perceived discrimination

experiences. Although we know that discrimination has been part and parcel of the history of these

four groups, we could not assess the individually experienced discrimination of youth in our

sample, which could have complemented the information on identity. Relatedly, our cross-sectional

study design limits our ability to establish the nature of associations, which could well be

bidirectional. On a final note, future studies can benefit from a cultural (emic) perspective in order

to further explore the concept of well-being in cultural groups in terms of values and lifestyle

embedded in everyday life of Roma communities.

Our findings stress the need to pay close attention to multiple identities and to address

contextual conditions to advance our knowledge about how Roma youth identity is related to well-

being. Our study has also practical implications. The beneficial effects of familial and religious

identity point to the importance of positive identification resources for well-being of Roma youth.

This observation can serve as the starting point in designing targeted education and policies to

promote positive development of Roma communities in Europe. For example, interventions and

policies could include opportunities for the Roma to enact their religious and familial identity (e.g.,

their familial bonds, religious customs and traditions) that are associated with an improved sense of

well-being. Intervention programs that start from the group’s strengths may be more appealing to

Roma and may have longer lasting effects. The findings and implications of this study are relevant

both to understanding Roma adolescents’ multiple identity processes and to advance our

understanding of these processes related to well-being and adjustment of such underrepresented

ethnic minority group across Europe.

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 28

References

Amnesty International (2007). Europe: Discrimination against Roma. Retrieved from

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR01/012/2007

Arbuckle, J. (2009). Amos 19. Crawfordville, FL, USA: AMOS Development Corporation.

Arnett, J. J., & Jensen, L. A. (2002). A congregation of one: Individualized religious beliefs among

emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 451–467.

doi:10.1177/0743558402175002

Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for

collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological

Bulletin, 130, 80-114. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80

Bartkowski, J. P., Xu, X., & Levin, M. L. (2008). Religion and child development: Evidence from

the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Social Science Research, 37, 18-36.

doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.02.001

Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation,

identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 303-332. doi:

10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00256.x

Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46, 5-34.

doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x

Bourhis, R., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation

model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369-386.

doi:10.1080/002075997400629

Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination

among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135-149. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.135

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 29

Civil Society Monitoring Report Bulgaria (2013). Implementation of the national Roma integration

strategy and decade action plan in 2012. Retrieved from

http://www.romadecade.org/cms/upload/file/9270_file4_bg_civil-society-monitoring-

report_en.pdf

Civil Society Monitoring Report Czech Republic (2013). Implementation of the national Roma

integration strategy and decade action plan in 2012. Retrieved from

http://www.romadecade.org/cms/upload/file/9270_file6_cr_civil-society-monitoring-

report_en.pdf

Council of Europe (2010). Statistics. Retrieved from

http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/romatravellers/default_en.asp

Crocetti, E., Rubini, M., & Meeus, W. (2008). Capturing the dynamics of identity formation in

various ethnic groups: Development and validation of a three-dimensional model. Journal of

Adolescence, 31, 207–222. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9222-2

Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological

Bulletin, 122, 5-37. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5

Csepeli, G., & Simon, D. (2004). Construction of Roma identity in Eastern and Central Europe:

Perception and self-identification. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30, 129-150.

doi:10.1080/1369183032000170204

Czech Statistical Office (2013). Population and housing census. Retrieved from

http://vdb.czso.cz/sldbvo/#!stranka=podle-

tematu&tu=30628&th=&v=&vo=null&vseuzemi=null&void=

Decade of Roma Inclusion (2005-2015). Decade declaration. Retrieved from

http://www.romadecade.org/about-the-decade-decade-in-brief

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 30

Dimitrova, R., Ferrer-Wreder, L., & Trost, K. (2015). Intergenerational transmission of ethnic

identity and well-being of Roma minority adolescents and their parents. Journal of

Adolescence, 45, 296-306. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.10.014

Dimitrova, R., Chasiotis, A., Bender, M., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2014). Collective identity and

well-being of Bulgarian Roma minority adolescents and their mothers. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 43, 375-386. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0043-1

Dimitrova, R., Chasiotis, A., Bender, M., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2013). Collective identity and

well-being of Roma adolescents in Bulgaria. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 502-

513. doi:10.1080/00207594.2012.682064

Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY, USA: Norton.

European Commission (2003). EU support for Roma communities in Central and Eastern Europe.

Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/brochure_roma_oct2003_en.pdf

European Commission (2011). An EU framework for national Roma integration strategies up to

2020. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/discrimination/docs/com_2011_173_en.pdf

European Commission (2013). Roma Integration Concept for 2010 – 1013. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/roma_czech_republic_strategy_en.pdf

European Roma Rights Centre (2011). Abandoned minority. Roma rights history in Kosovo.

Retrieved from http://www.errc.org/cms/upload/file/abandoned-minority-roma-rights-

history-in-kosovo-dec-2011.pdf

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2010). Addressing the Roma issue in the EU.

Retrieved from http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/roma/roma_en.htm

French, S. E., Seidman, E., Allen, L., & Aber, J. L. (2006). The development of ethnic identity

during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1-10. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.1

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 31

Fuligni, A. J. (Ed.). (2007). Contesting stereotypes, creating identities: Social categories, social

identities, and educational participation. New York, NY, USA: Russell Sage Foundation.

Fuligni, A. J., & Flook, L. (2005). A social identity approach to ethnic differences in family

relationships during adolescence. In R. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and

behavior (pp. 125–152). San Diego, CA, USA: Elsevier.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.

Beverly Hills, CA, USA: Sage.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

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, 58, 105-128. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00384.x

Jöreskog, K. G., & Goldberger, A. S. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and

multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association,

70, 631-639.

Kiang, L., Yip, T., & Fuligni, A. J. (2008). Multiple social identities and adjustment in young adults

from ethnically diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 643–670.

doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00575.x

Lee, J. J. (2003). Religion and college attendance: Change among students. Review of Higher

Education, 25, 369–384. doi:10.1353/rhe.2002.0020

Liebkind, K. (1997). Acculturation and stress: Vietnamese refugees in Finland. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 27, 161-180. doi:10.1177/0022022196272002

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 32

Liebkind, K. (2006). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 78–96).

Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Ljujic, V., Vedder, P. H., & Dekker, H. (2012). Romaphobia among Serbian adolescents: The role of

national in-group attitudes and perceived threat. Political Psychology, 33, 911–924.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00927.x

Lopez, A. B., Huynh, V. W., & Fuligni, A. J. (2011). A longitudinal study of religious identity and

participation during adolescence. Child Development, 82, 1297-1309. doi:10.1111/j.1467

Maimon, D., Browning, C. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Collective efficacy, family attachment,

and urban adolescent suicide attempts. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51, 307-324.

doi:10.1177/00221465103778788624.2011.01609.x

Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent

psychology (pp. 159-187). New York, NY, USA: Wiley.

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit evaluation in structural equation

modeling. In A. Maydeu-Olivares, & J. McCardle (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics: A

Festschrift to Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275–340). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Erlbaum.

Marushiakova, E., & Popov, V. (2010). Roma identities in Central, South-Eastern and Eastern

Europe. In H. Kyuchukov & I. Hancock (Eds.), Roma identity (pp. 39-52). Prague, Czech

Republic: NGO Slovo.

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

Nesbitt, E., & Arweck, E. (2010). Issues arising from an ethnographic investigation of the religious

identity formation of young people in mixed-faith families. Fieldwork in Religion, 5, 7-30.

Nesdale, D., Rooney, R., & Smith, L. (1997). Migrant ethnic identity and psychological distress.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 569-588. doi:10.1177/0022022197285004

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 33

Park, J. Z. (2008). Second-generation Asian American pan-ethnic identity: Pluralized meanings of a

racial label. Sociological Perspectives, 51, 541-561. doi:10.1525/sop.2008.51.3.541.

Phinney, J. S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. Journal

of Early Adolescence, 9, 34-49. doi:10.1177/0272431689091004

Phinney, J. S., & Devich-Navarro, S. M. (1997). Variations in bicultural identification among

African American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence,

7, 3–32. doi:10.1207/s15327795jra0701 2

Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current

status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 271-281.

doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.271

Prieto-Flores, O. (2009). Does the canonical theory of assimilation explain the Roma case? Some

evidence from Central and Eastern Europe. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32, 1387-1405.

doi:10.1080/01419870903006988.

Rivas-Drake, D., Syed, M., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Markstrom, C., French, S., Schwartz, S. J., Lee,

R. M., & Ethnic and Racial Identity Study Group (2014). Feeling good, happy, and proud: A

meta-analysis of positive ethnic-racial affect and adjustment. Child Development, 85, 77-

102. doi:10.1111/cdev.12175

Romania Census (2011). Population and housing. Retrieved from

http://www.insse.ro/cms/files/statistici/comunicate/alte/2012/Comunicat%20DATE

%20PROVIZORII%20RPL%202011.pdf

Sagiv, L., Roccas, S., & Hazan, O. (2012). Identification with groups: The role of personality and

context. Journal of Personality, 80, 345-374. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00733

Sam, D., & Berry, J. W. (Eds.) (2006). Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology.

Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 34

Sam, D. L., Vedder, P., Liebkind, K., Neto, F., & Virta, E. (2008). Immigration, acculturation and

the paradox of adaptation in Europe. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5,

138–158. doi:10.1080/17405620701563348

Smith, T. B., & Silva, L. (2011). Ethnic identity and personal well-being of people of color: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 42-60. doi:10.1037/a0021528

Spilimbergo, A. & Ubeda, L. (2004). Family attachment and the decision to move by race. Journal

of Urban Economics, 55, 478–497. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2003.07.004

Stoppa, T. M., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2010). Longitudinal changes in religiosity among emerging

adult college students. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 23–38. doi:10.1111/j.1532-

7795.2009.00630.x

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (2001). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In M. A. Hogg & D.

Abrams (Eds.), Relations: Essential readings. Key readings in social psychology (pp. 94-109).

New York, NY, USA: Psychology Press.

Tcherenkov, L., & Laderich, S. (2004). The Roma. Basel, Switzerland: Schwabe Verlag.

Tomova, I. (2000). Attitudes toward Roma in Bulgaria. In V. Rusanov (Ed.), Aspects of ethno-

cultural situation in Bulgaria (pp. 281-318). Sofia, Bulgaria: Open Society Foundation.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and

collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-in-group relationships. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323-38. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.323

Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and

collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.1006

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering

the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 35

Verkuyten, M., Thijs, J., & Stevens, G. (2012). Multiple identities and religious transmission: A

study among Moroccan-Dutch Muslim adolescents and their parents. Child Development,

83, 1577–1590. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01794.x.

Vermeersch, P., & Ram, M. H. (2009). The Roma. In B. Rechel (Ed.). Minority rights in Central

and Eastern Europe (pp. 61-73). London and New York: Routledge

Virta, E. & Westin, C. (1999). Psychosocial adjustment of adolescents with immigrant background

in Sweden. Occasional Papers, No. 2. Stockholm, Sweden: Centre for Research on

International Migration and Ethnic Relations, Stockholm University

Wallace, J. M., Forman, T. A., Caldwell, C. H., & Willis, D. S. (2003). Religion and U.S. secondary

school students: Current patterns, recent trends, and sociodemographic correlates. Youth and

Society, 35, 98-125. doi:10.1177/0044118X03254564

Walsh, C., & Krieg, B. (2007). Roma identity: Contrasting constructions. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 39,

169-186. doi:10.1353/ces.0.0007

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of

positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Wolfe-Murray, R. (2010). There's room for 'Roma' and 'Romanian'. The Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/08/roma-romanian-name

Yip, T., & Fuligni, A. J. (2002). Daily variation in ethnic identity, ethnic behaviors, and

psychological wellbeing among American adolescents of Chinese descent. Child

Development, 73, 1557–1572. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00490

Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women’s

Studies, 13, 193–209. doi:10.1177/1350506806065752

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 28

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Roma and Mainstream Adolescents in Four Countries

Bulgaria The Czech Republic Kosovo Romania

Roma

n = 194

Bulgarian

n = 155

Roma

n = 153

Czech

n = 142

Roma

n = 150

Albanian

n = 150

Roma

n = 135

Romanian

n = 142

Age

Mean (SD) 16.11 (1.37) 16.57 (.88) 15.03 (1.23) 14.80 (1.03) 15.73 (1.30) 16.47 (1.36) 16.79 (1.13) 16.35 (.65)

Gender, %

Female 58 40 46 47 44 64 43 68

Male 42 60 54 53 56 36 57 32

SES, %

Low 97 27 65 52 98 45 86 29

Middle 3 21 8 25 2 40 4 44

High 0 52 27 23 0 15 0 27

Identity

Roma 3.20 (.70)a - 3.58 (.78)a - 3.64 (.61)a - 2.68 (.89)b -

National 3.33 (.62)c 3.95 (.64) 2.91 (.71)c 3.15 (.77) 3.45 (.61)d 4.06 (.48) 3.13 (.79)c 3.39 (.65)

Familial 3.56 (.73) 4.25 (.55) 3.84 (.70) 3.97 (.68) 3.88 (.53) 4.41 (.43) 3.49 (.86) 4.08 (.59)

Religious 3.12 (.54) 3.26 (.82) 2.91 (.72) 1.86 (1.02) 3.73 (.55) 3.71 (.75) 3.05 (.79) 2.83 (.87)

Well-being

Satisfaction with life 2.45 (1.53)e 4.95 (1.14)f 4.40 (1.23)e 4.47 (1.07)f 3.08 (1.24)e 4.98 (.95)f 4.63 (1.32)e 5.31 (.98)f

Positive Affect 2.16 (1.11)g 3.20 (.84)h 2.85 (.71)g 2.73 (.75)h 2.90 (.66)g 3.31 (.49)h 3.29 (.79)g 3.11 (.75)h

Note. Means with different subscripts differ significantly across groups at p < .001.

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 37

Table 2

Correlations Among All Study Variables for Roma Adolescents in Four Countries

Bulgaria The Czech Republic Kosovo Romania

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

1.ROI - - - -

2. NI .35* - .11 - .54* - .42* -

3. FI .43* .83* - .58* .42* - .70* .63* - .42* .74* -

4. RI .70* .51* .49* - .38* .25* .39* - .81* .61* .82* - .64* .81* .75* -

5. SL .23* .62* .68* .40* - .36* .28* .39* .25* - .14 .09 .21* .07 - .13 .23* .35* .24* -

6. PA .27* .60* .73* .29* .69* - .10 .15 .19* .16 .24* - -.00 .19* .19* .13 .43* - .20* .11 .12 .23* .19* -

ROI = Roma Identity, NI = National Identity, FI = Familial Identity, RI = Religious Identity, SL = Satisfaction with Life, PA = Positive Affect.

*p < .001.

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 38

Table 3

Correlations Among All Study Variables for Mainstream Adolescents in Four Countries

Bulgaria The Czech Republic Kosovo Romania

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. NI - - - -

2. FI .54* - .44* - .48* - .41* -

3. RI .53* .31* - -.03 .33* - .43* .40* - .53* .45* -

4. SL .24* .31* .07 - .25* .34* .20* - .20* -.06 .18* - .21* .44* .26* -

5. PA .25* .21* -.06 .40* - .10 .20* .15 .20* - .23* -.03 .21* .26* - .19* .29* .06 .38* -

NI = National Identity, FI = Familial Identity, RI = Religious Identity, SL = Satisfaction with Life, PA = Positive Affect. *p < .001.

ROMA ADOLESCENTS 28

Figure 1

Path Model of Identity and Well-Being for Roma Groups

National identity Roma identity Familial identity Religious identity

Well-being

Life satisfaction Positive affect

BG: -.17*RO: .08CZ: .17KV: -.67***

BG: .84***RO: .24† CZ: .37*KV: .62***

BG: .08*RO: .24*CZ: .22*KV: .13*

BG: .81***RO: .43***CZ: .47***KV: .61***

BG: .79***RO: .45***CZ: .49***KV: .68***

BG: .34***RO: .45***CZ: .17***KV: .21***

BG: .34***RO: .37***CZ: .34***KV: .23***

BG: .24***RO: .48***CZ: .19***KV: .25***

BG: .46***RO: .59***CZ: .25***KV: .28***

BG: .02RO: .07CZ: .06KV: .04

BG: .25***RO: .53***CZ: .15***KV: .21***

BG: .34***RO: .44***CZ: .17***KV: .20***

ROMA ADOLESCENTS40

Note. BG = Bulgaria, CZ = the Czech Republic, KV = Kosovo, RO = Romania. †p < .10; *p <

.05; ***p < .001.