Migration exerts a profound influence on the socialization of individuals, shaping values, norms, and behaviors across generations. This study examined the relationships between family functionality, social connectedness, antisocial behavior, and prosocial behavior through a structural equation model, and compared these processes among Turkish youth residing in Türkiye and European Union countries. The sample included 424 Turkish young people aged 18–25, with 207 born and raised in EU countries and 217 in Türkiye. Data were collected using the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale IV, Social Connectedness Scale, Adult Prosociality Scale, and the Antisocial Behavior Subscale of the Risky Behavior Scale. European Turkish youth reported higher prosocial behavior than peers in Türkiye. While total scores for family functionality did not differ significantly, balanced cohesion and flexibility were higher among European Turks, who also reported a more rigid, rule-bound family structure. Social connectedness and antisocial behavior partially mediated the relationship between family functionality and prosocial behavior. Multi-group analysis showed no significant differences between groups. The model was validated in both contexts, and migration status did not moderate the relationships. Overall, findings indicate a healthy family structure and socialization process among fourth-generation European Turkish youth, reflecting positive intergenerational effects of post-migration integration.
AbdulhamedR.LonkaK. (2025). Acculturation orientations among immigrant-origin youth: How is acculturation associated with self-esteem, sense of belonging, and discrimination?Journal of International Migration and Integration, 26(2), 669–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-024-01194-1
2.
AksoyE. (2010). Almanya’da yaşayan üçüncü kuşak Türk öğrencilerin kimlik algılamaları ve buna bağlı olarak karşılaştıkları ayrımcılık sorunları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(12), 7–38. https://izlik.org/JA85SG93WN.
3.
AksoyF. R. (2019). Fransa’daki Türk göçmenler üzerine sosyolojik bir araştırma [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü].
4.
AralT.JuangL. P. (2025). Ethnic-racial socialization through the lens of German young adults of Turkish, Kurdish, east, and Southeast Asian heritage. Journal of Community Psychology, 53(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.23166
5.
Arends-TóthJ.Van de VijverF. J. (2004). Domains and dimensions in acculturation: Implicit theories of Turkish–Dutch. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2003.09.001
6.
Aydın-KılıçZ. N.Tezel-ŞahinF. (2021). Analysis of the relations of immigrant families with their children and their adaptation process to Turkey. The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication, 11(3), 1190–1209. https://doi.org/10.7456/11103100/026
7.
BağcıB.SamurA. (2016). Çocuk ve Yetişkin Prososyallik Ölçeklerinin Geçerlik Güvenirlik Çalışması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi. Dergisi, 17(3), 59–79. https://izlik.org/JA38CH54HX.
8.
BandalosD. L.FinneyS. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In MarcoulidesG. A.SchumackerR. E. (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601858-15
9.
BarrS. C.HansonR.BegleA. M.KilpatrickD. G.SaundersB.ResnickH.AmstadterA. (2012). Examining the moderating role of family cohesion on the relationship between witnessed community violence and delinquency in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(2), 239–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511416477
10.
BerryJ. W.PhinneyJ. S.SamL.VedderP. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55(3), 303–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00256.x
11.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
12.
CapraraG. V.StecaP.ZelliA.CapannaC. (2005). A new scale for measuring adults’ prosocialness. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.77
13.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling. A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
14.
ChengW. Y.CheungR. Y.ChungK. K. H. (2024). The role of family conflict and cohesion in adolescents’ social responsibility: Emotion regulation ability as a mediator. PLoS One, 19(9), e0311265. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311265
15.
CoeJ. L.DaviesP. T.Sturge-AppleM. L. (2018). Family cohesion and enmeshment moderate associations between maternal relationship instability and children’s externalizing problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(3), 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000346
DemirağH.KakışımC. (2018). Almanya’daki türklerin göç ve entegrasyon süreci: Birinci ve üçüncü kuşak karşılaştırması. Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları Dergisi/Journal of Social Policy Conferences, 75, 123–152. https://doi.org/10.26650/jspc.2018.75.0011
18.
DennyB.Gavidia-PayneS.DavisK.FrancisA.JacksonM. (2014). Strengthening Australian families: Socioeconomic status, social connectedness, and family functioning. Australian Social Work, 67(3), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2014.911927
19.
DorleijnM.NortierJ. (2008). The hand and the glove: Code and style as bilingual options among young people of Turkish and Moroccan descent in the Netherlands. In LytraV.JørgensenJ. N. (Eds.), Multilingualism and Identities across Contexts (pp. 109–128). Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism, 45. University of Copenhagen.
20.
DuncanS. C.DuncanT. E.StryckerL. A.ChaumetonN. R. (2002). Relations between youth antisocial and prosocial activities. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25(5), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020466906928
21.
DurgelE. S.LeyendeckerB.YagmurluB.HarwoodR. (2009). Sociocultural influences on German and Turkish immigrant mothers’ long-term socialization goals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(5), 834–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022109339210
22.
DuruE. (2007). Sosyal bağlılık ölçeğinin Türk kültürüne uyarlanması. Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi (EJER), 26, 85–94.
Eurostat. (2020). Statistics on migration, residence permits, citizenship and asylum for the enlargement countries: 2020 edition – The enlargement process in the EU. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2785/062113
EverriM.ManciniT.FruggeriL. (2016). The role of rigidity in adaptive and maladaptive families assessed by FACES IV: The points of view of adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(10), 2987–2997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0460-3
27.
GençtanırımD. (2014). University form of risk behaviors scale: Validity and reliability studies. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 5(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.67191
28.
GladdingS. T. (2011). Family therapy: History, theory and practice (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
29.
GökdemirO.DumludağD. (2021). Subjective well-being among ethnic minorities: The role of socio-economic and non-economic factors-Dutch case subjective well-being among ethnic minorities: The Dutch case. Efil Journal of Economic Research, 4(4), 65–82.
30.
GomesH. M. S.PeixotoF.Gouveia-PereiraM. (2019). Portuguese validation of the family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scale–faces IV. Journal of Family Studies, 25(4), 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2017.1386121
31.
González MorenoA.Molero JuradoM. (2023). The moderating role of family functionality in prosocial behaviour and school climate in adolescence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010590
32.
GubbelsJ.AssinkM.van der PutC. E. (2024). Protective factors for antisocial behavior in youth: What is the meta-analytic evidence?Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 53(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-023-01878-4
33.
GuerraR.BroekhuizenM. L.FrancotR. J. R. M.KolancaliP. (2025). Intergroup relations, acculturation orientations, and adaptation of Turkish immigrant descent parents across Europe. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 31(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000627
34.
HamiltonE.CarrA. (2016). Systematic review of self-report family assessment measures. Family Process, 55(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12200
HopwoodC. J.BurtS. A.MarkowitzJ. C.YenS.SheaM. T.SanislowC. A.MoreyL. C.AnsellE. B.McGlashanT. H.GundersonJ. G.ZanariniM. C.SkodolA. E. (2009). The construct validity of rule-breaking and aggression in an adult clinical sample. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43(8), 803–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2008.07.008
37.
Joyal-DesmaraisK.EuhH.ScharmerA.SnyderM. (2024). Understanding prosocial and antisocial behaviours: The roles of self-focused and other-focused motivational orientations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 54(7), 1610–1643. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3110
38.
KagitcibasiC. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221052759
39.
KagitcibasiC. ̧.AtacaB.DiriA. (2010). Intergenerational relationships in the family: Ethnic, socioeconomic, and country variations in Germany, Israel, Palestine, and Turkey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(5), 652–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110372193
40.
KaminskiJ. W.PuddyR. W.HallD. M.CashmanS. Y.CrosbyA. E.OrtegaL. (2010). The relative influence of different domains of social connectedness on self-directed violence in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(5), 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9472-2
41.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
42.
KohutH. (1977). The analysis of the self. International Universities Press.
43.
KoutraK.TrilivaS.RoumeliotakiT.LionisC.VgontzasA. N. (2013). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Greek version of the family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales IV package (Faces IV package). Journal of Family Issues, 34(12), 1647–1672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X12462818
44.
KoydemirS.ve SchützA. (2014). Almanya’daki Türk göçmenlerde yaşam doyumu: Kültürel kimlik ve benlik kurgularının rolü. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 5(42), 208–220. https://izlik.org/JA63DP66CP.
45.
LeeR. M.RobbinsS. B. (1995). Measuring belongingness: The social connectedness and the social assurance scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(2), 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.2.232
46.
MaccobyE. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1006–1017. https://doi.org/10.1037/10155-021
47.
MastrotheodorosS.CanárioC.Cristina GugliandoloM.MerkasM.KeijsersL. (2020). Family functioning and adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems: Disentangling between-and within-family associations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(4), 804–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01094-z
48.
McCoyK.CummingsE. M.DaviesP. T. (2009). Constructive and destructive marital conflict, emotional security and children’s prosocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(3), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01945.x
49.
McGinleyM.CarloG. (2007). Two sides of the same coin? The relations between prosocial and physically aggressive behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(3), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9095-9
50.
MuradS. D.JoungI. M. A.Van LentheF. J.Bengi-ArslanL.CrijnenA. A. M. (2003). Predictors of self-reported problem behaviours in Turkish immigrant and Dutch adolescents in the Netherlands. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 44(3), 412–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00131
51.
NelsenJ. (2011). Positive discipline: The classic guide to helping children develop self-discipline, responsibility, cooperation, and problem-solving skills. Ballantine Books.
52.
OECD. (2024). Nurturing social and emotional learning across the globe: Findings from the OECD survey on social and emotional skills 2023. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/32b647d0-en
OlsonD. H.GorallD. M. (2006). Faces IV & the circumplex model. Life Innovations.
56.
OlsonD. H.WaldvogelL.SchlieffM. (2019). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: An update. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(2), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12331
57.
Padilla‐WalkerL. M.CarloG.Memmott‐ElisonM. K. (2018). Longitudinal change in adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28(3), 698–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12362
58.
PeacockJ. (2022). Relationships between prosocial factors and college student health. Journal of American College Health, 70(2), 347–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1750413
59.
PhaletK.SchönpflugU. (2001). Intergenerational transmission in Turkish immigrant families: Parental collectivism, achievement values and gender differences. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32(4), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.32.4.489
60.
PinquartM. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873–932. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000295
61.
PinquartM.KauserR. (2018). Do the associations of parenting styles with behavior problems and academic achievement vary by culture? Results from a meta-analysis. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000149
62.
PirutinskyS.KorA. (2013). Relevance of the circumplex model to family functioning among Orthodox Jews in Israel. The New School Psychology Bulletin, 10(2), 25–38.
63.
PutnamR. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty‐first century the 2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x
64.
RabinowitzJ. A.OsigweI.DrabickD. A.ReynoldsM. D. (2016). Negative emotional reactivity moderates the relations between family cohesion and internalizing and externalizing symptoms in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 53, 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.09.007
65.
RenzahoA.MellorD.MccabeM.PowellM. (2013). Family functioning, parental psychological distress and child behaviours: Evidence from the victorian child health and wellbeing study. Australian Psychologist, 48(3), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9544.2011.00059.x
66.
ŞahinS. (2017). Almanya ve avusturya’da dördüncü kuşak gençleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 26, 281–291. https://izlik.org/JA36GE23HS.
67.
SandersM. R.KirbyJ. N.TellegenC. L.DayJ. J. (2014). The triple P-Positive parenting program: A systematic review and meta-analysis of a multi-level system of parenting support. Clinical Psychology Review, 34(4), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.04.003
68.
SkrobanekJ. (2009). Ethnicisation of youth with a Turkish ethnic background in Germany. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(4), 535–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830902765020
69.
SparkmanD. J.HamerK. (2020). Seeing the human in everyone: Multicultural experiences predict more positive intergroup attitudes and humanitarian helping through identification with all humanity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 79, 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2020.08.007
70.
TezcanT. (2024). The role of identification, intergroup contact, and group discrimination in shaping return and circular migration intentions: Recent Turkish immigrants in Germany and the Netherlands. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 27(8), 1885–1913. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241253217
71.
TurkdoganT (2019). The mediation role of the socialization in the relationship between family functioning and suicidal tendency. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 9(54), 795–820. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/813514.
72.
TurkdoganT.DuruE.BalkisM. (2018). Turkish adaptation of the family adaptability and cohesion scale IV. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 5(4), 631–644. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.409110
73.
TurkdoganT.DuruE.BalkisM. (2024). Circumplex model of family dynamics in Turkish families: A comparative typological perspective. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 55(1), 32–59. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.55.1.03
74.
TürkmenG. (2024). Categorical astigmatism: On ethnicity, religion, nationality, and class in the study of migrants in Europe. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 47(9), 1834–1857. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2024.2328326
75.
TwengeJ. M.CiaroccoN. J.BaumeisterR. F.DeWallC. N.BartelsJ. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56
76.
Van EickelsR. L.Tsarpalis-FragkoulidisA.ZempM. (2022). Family cohesion, shame-proneness, expressive suppression, and adolescent mental health—a path model approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.921250
77.
VerkuytenM.MartinovicB. (2012). Immigrants’ national identification: Meanings, determinants, and consequences. Social Issues and Policy Review, 6(1), 82–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2011.01036.x
78.
WitteN. (2018). Responses to stigmatisation and boundary making: Destigmatisation strategies of Turks in Germany. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(9), 1245–1443. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1398077
79.
WoodA. P.DaweS.GulloM. J. (2013). The role of personality, family influences, and prosocial risk-taking behavior on substance use in early adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 36(5), 871–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.07.003
