Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi European Journal of Science and Technology Sayı 15, S. 237-251, Mart 2019 No. 15, pp. 237-251, March 2019 © Telif hakkı EJOSAT’a aittir Copyright © 2019 EJOSAT Araştırma Makalesi www.ejosat.com ISSN:2148-2683 Research Article Review on the Social, Collective and National Identity Areas of Third Generation Turkish Young Adults Living in Germany Adnan Kulaksızoğlu1*, Besra Taş2 1 Biruni Üniversitesi, Faculty of Education, Psychological Counseling and Guidance Department, Istanbul/Turkey (ORCID: 0000-0001-9620-0856) 2 İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim Üniversitesi, Faculty of Education, Psychological Counseling and Guidance Department, Istanbul/Turkey (ORCID: 0000-0002-1273-4429) (First received 26 August 2018 and in final form 4 March 2019) (DOI: 10.31590/ejosat.535156) ATIF/REFERENCE: Kulaksizoglu, A. & Tas, B. (2019). Review on the Social, Collective and National Identity Areas of Third Generation Turkish Young Adults Living in Germany. European Journal of Science and Technology, (15), 237-251. Abstract It is stated that the largest portion of immigrant origin living in Germany consists of people of Turkish origin. It is mentioned that Germany has a population of 82.4 million in 2016. Of these, 18.6 million are of immigrant origin. Migrants from Turkey are 2.8 million. These constitute 3.4 percent of the general population. Turkish people living in Germany, while maintaining their religious, national and ethnic identities on the one hand, form collective identities on the other. Immigrants who want to adapt to Germany among the Turkish people living in Germany aim to develop a collective identity in order to adapt more easily. Turkish people who live in Germany or come to Turkey as workers shows much difference in terms of culture, value and religion compared to the individuals who live in Turkey. This is because they are immigrants. As a result of the study, it is seen that there is a significant difference between the gender variable and the scale total score and the collective sub-dimension. Nevertheless, when the question "What are the problems of citizens of Turkish origin living in Germany?" is asked, the answers related exclusion, discrimination and cultural differences are collected. When the most suitable nationality is asked to the participants, all participants answered as “I am Turkish.” Nonetheless, it is seen that the participants with German citizenship, Turkish citizenship and Turkish and German citizenship are involved. Therefore, it is possible to suggest that the participants’ citizenship status has not changed their answer regarding the most suitable nationality. Keywords: National Identity, Third Generation, Turkish Young Adults, Germany. * Corresponding Author: Biruni University, Faculty of Education, Psychological Counseling and Guidance Department, Istanbul/Turkey, ORCID: 0000-0001-9620-0856, akulaksizoglu@biruni.edu.tr http://dergipark.gov.tr/ejosat 237 Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi 1. Introduction Turkish people started to come to Germany as workers in 1960s. Since then, the Turkish population in Germany has been in a continuous increase. In 2002, Germany had a population of 82 million, and the population of Turkish people there had reached 2.5 million, including 500,000 Turkish, who were German citizens until 2002. 32% of Turks in Germany are under 18 years old and 71% are under 35 years old. Most Turkish youth living in Germany in 2000s are born in Germany (Goldenberg, 2000:9). It is stated that Germany's population will be 82.4 million in 2016. Of these, 18.6 million are of immigrant origin. 9.6 million of immigrant individuals have German citizenship. The oldest of the foreigners of immigrant origin are of Turkish descent. Migrants from Turkey are 2.8 million. These constitute 3.4 percent of the general population. In the second place, there are 1.9 million immigrants from Poland. The reasons why the Polish people come to Germany are different. It is stated that these reasons are mostly asylum, defection, family, education and work. (Schu, 2017). Whether they are German citizens or not, Turkish people living in Germany have difficulty because they do not know the language of the country they live in sufficiently or they are unemployed, they have economic troubles or they cannot adapt to the German society for one reason or another. Another reason why individuals, especially young people, have problems is their parents' attitudes towards them. In traditional Turkish society, strong parent-child relationships are very common in the family. In the study regarding the relationships between the attitude and problems of parents, Kulaksızoğlu (2002/2003) revealed that 71% of third generation Turkish young adults state that they miss their relatives in Turkey even though 83% of them were born in Germany. This shows that the family ties and kinship relations of Turkish society are strong. 43.3% of participants stated that they are afraid of sexual diseases. Germany, which experienced a more open and comfortable relationship of girls and boys than Turkey, is a country of young people begin sexual activity at an early age. The increasing prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases and the lack of treatment of certain diseases frighten young people who have active sexual life. Öztunç, Bilge and Bilge (2015) found that there is a difference in gender and income level variables in terms of personality disorders in their study on whether there is a difference between the interaction of gender, income level and personality disorders. In some Turkish families in Germany, parents may show excessive protection or pressure and control over the child. Researches that study parent-child relationship between child rearing attitudes and children's responses have focused on two different parental attitudes: democratic attitude and authoritarian attitude. Parents who demonstrate democratic attitudes towards children recognize and value them as separate individuals and encourage an independent personality development. Parents who behave in a democratic way respect the child as a person and pave the way for appropriate behavior according to the level of development. The child is granted equal rights within the family. The child's needs are met and unrequited love is shown. Parents who behave democratically use their reward and punishment in an intelligent way to control their children's behaviors and have healthy expectations about their behavior (Sprinhall ve Collins, 1884:218). Parents who have authoritarian attitude set standards for their child's behavior. He believes that the words of parents should be accepted as truth. In authoritarian families, the parent is strict, rigorous and controlled. Children are taught to be respectful to authority (Sprinthall and Collins, 1984:217). Children who grow up with authoritarian attitudes are children who do not think flexibly and behave in an emotional way. This structure of thinking alienates the person to his/her environment and those who grow up with an authoritarian attitude are more likely to get along well with those who think like themselves (Daresh, 1978:479). It is widespread that the Turkish population's personality disorders can be explained by demographic characteristics that people have. It is a matter of curiosity as to how the attitudes of child-rearing are in Turkish families living in Germany, whether their attitudes change with their stay in Germany or with their parents' education. 1.1. Identities of Turkish Immigrants Living in Germany Definition of immigrant in Germany include “Migranten” (Immigrant), “Zuwanderer” (A resident from a different area), “Person mit Zuwanderungsgeschichte” (A resident with history) and “’Person mit Migrationshintergrund” (A person with immigration history) in the federal departments. Individuals with a migrant background are defined as people who have an immigrant history and whose parent settles in Germany after 1949 and people who are raised or born in Germany (InterIkultur, 2011). Turkish people living in Germany, while maintaining their religious, national and ethnic identities on the one hand, form collective identities on the other. Immigrants who want to adapt to Germany among the Turkish people living in Germany aim to develop a collective identity in order to adapt more easily. The collective identity means to carry an individual’s own identity and to develop an identity which belongs to the society he/she lives in. Turkish people who live in Germany or come to Turkey as workers shows much difference in terms of culture, value and religion compared to the individuals who live in Turkey. This is because they are immigrants. Sackmann, Schultz, Prümm, Peters (2005) state that immigrants are classified into their roots and nationalities, while explaining the collective identities of immigrants. This leads to the immigrants defining themselves and “self-reflection” occurs. However, collective identity is not only due to immigration process. What is decisive for the self-definition of immigrants is their self-positioning in the new society. Collective identity is the goal of immigrants to integrate themselves with the new society as well as to preserve their national roots. Furthermore, the formation of collective identity differs from ethnic, religious and national identity (Quoted by Akkaş, 2009/2010, p. 113f). 1.2. Purpose of the Study e-ISSN: 2148-2683 238 European Journal of Science and Technology This study aims to examine the personal, social, collective and national identity fields of third generation Turkish young adults living in Germany and mostly in the ages of 15-30. 2. Method 2.1. Research Methodology This study aims to examine the personal, social, collective and national identity areas of Turkish people living in Germany. In this study, the screening model is based on quantitative research methods. Screening models are studies of a whole group of the universe or a group or sample taken from this universe in order to reach a general opinion about the universe in a phase consisting of a large number of elements (Karasar, 2015). The research has a quantitative methodology because numerical data is obtained as the result of the scale used in the research. 2.2. Data Collection Tool In the study, Personal Information Sheet and an Individual Identity Scale are applied on the participants. 21 questions are asked on the personal information form. Personal information form questions are prepared by the authors. Individual Identity Scale: Identity Questionnaire, from which the scale questions applied are adapted and prepared by Cheek ve Tropp (1995), is translated to Turkish by Çoşkun (2004). 2.3. Data Analysis When the scale data are analyzed, the SPSS 23.0 package program is used. According to the analysis results, tables are created. Comments are made using the data in the tables. It is analyzed whether the data obtained in the study are normally distributed and it is seen that the data have normal distribution when the p value is greater than .05. Variance analysis and correlations or T-tests are prepared and applied according to the level of variables with descriptive analysis. 3. Findings Table 1. Participants’ Demographic Data Group Variable N f (%) Male 106 63,9 Gender Female 60 36,1 Married 49 29,5 Marital Status Single 101 60,8 Divorced 16 9,6 Illiterate 0 0 Primary School 0 0 Middle School 0 0 Education Status High School 4 2,4 College 50 30,1 University 61 36,7 Master/Doctorate 51 30,7 Yes 93 56,0 Receiving Education in Germany No 73 44,0 Yes 84 50,6 Do you have a job? No 82 49,4 Yes 73 44,0 Occupational Certificate Status No 93 56,0 Vocational Learning Course/School Yes 94 56,6 Completion No 72 43,4 Yes 86 51,8 Working Status No 80 48,2 I am a German citizen 57 34,3 Citizenship I am a Turkish citizen 58 34,9 e-ISSN: 2148-2683 239 Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi German and Turkish citizen 51 30,7 First Generation 0 0 Generation Living in Germany Second Generation 79 47,6 Third Generation 87 52,4 Very Good 51 30,7 Good 52 31,3 Knowledge of German Intermediate 63 38,0 Poor 0 0 Very Good 66 39,8 Good 53 31,9 Knowledge of Turkish Intermediate 47 28,3 Poor 0 0 Every year 78 47,0 Frequency of Visiting Turkey Every 2-3 years 86 51,8 Every 4-5 years 2 1,2 I am Turkish 166 100 The Most Appropriate Expression to I am German of Turkish origin 0 0 You I am German 0 0 Illiterate 29 17,5 Primary School 25 15,1 Middle School 22 13,3 Father’s Educational Status High School 20 12,0 College 34 20,5 University 36 21,7 Illiterate 46 27,7 Primary School 37 22,3 Middle School 41 24,7 Mother’s Educational Status High School 42 25,3 College 0 0 University 0 0 Poor 0 0 Lower Middle Income 2 1,2 Family Income Level Middle Income 82 49,4 Upper Middle Income 82 49,4 Rich 0 0 TOTAL 166 100 When Table 1 is examined, the findings of individual personal data are listed as follows:  63.9% (106) of the participants are male while 36.1% (60) are female.  29,5% (49) of the participants are married, 60,8% (101) are single and 9,6% (16) are divorced.  When the participants’ educational status is observed, it is seen that 2.4% (4) are high school graduates, 30.1% (50) are college graduates, 36.7% (61) are university graduates and 30.7% (51) are master/doctorate graduates.  56% of the participants studied in Germany while the others did not.  50.6% of the participants have a profession while the others do not have a profession.  56% of the participants do not have an occupational certificate while the others have a certificate.  56,6% of the participants have finished a course/school for vocational learning course/school while the others have not.  51,8% of the participants work while the others do not.  It is seen that 34,3% (57) of the participants are German citizens, 34,9% (59) are Turkish citizens and 30,7% (51) are both German and Turkish citizens.  The rate of participants who state that they are the second generation living in Germany is 47,6% (79) and the rate of those who say that they are the third generation is 52,4% (87).  30.3% of the participants state that their German is very good, 31.3% state that their German is good and 38% state that their German is intermediate. e-ISSN: 2148-2683 240 European Journal of Science and Technology  39,8% of the participants state that their Turkish is very good, 31,9% state that their Turkish is good and 28,3% state that their Turkish is intermediate.  47% of the participants state that they go to Turkey every year, 51,8% state that they go to Turkey every 2-3 years and 1,2% state that they go to Turkey every 3-5 years.  All of the participants state that the expression of “I am Turkish” is suitable for them.  It is stated that 17.5% of the participants' fathers are not literate, 15.1% are primary school graduates, 13.3% are middle school graduates, 12% are high school graduates and 20.5% are college graduates and 21,7% of them have university/masters/doctoral education.  It is seen that 27.7% of the participants' mothers are not literate, 22.3% are primary school graduates, 24.7% are middle school graduates and 25.3% have high school education.  The income level of the participants' families perceived as 1.2% of middle income, 49.4% of middle income and 49.4% of income level. The income level perceived by the participants’ families are lower middle income for 1,2%, middle income for 49,4% and upper middle income for 49,4%. Table 2. Scale Total Score and t Test Table between Sub-Dimensions and Gender Dimensions Gender N ?̅? ss t Sd p Male 106 28,7170 5,04976 -2,889 164 ,004 Personal Female 60 30,9500 4,27220 Male 106 20,6698 3,32586 -2,050 164 ,042 Social Female 60 21,8667 4,07750 Male 106 23,6792 4,43266 -1,178 164 ,240 Collective Female 60 24,5000 4,08594 Male 106 103,0377 8,25305 -3,329 164 ,001 Total Scale Score Female 60 107,5167 8,46026 In Table 2, gender and scale total scores are checked by t test analysis to see whether there is a significant difference between personal, social and collective sub-dimensions. Furthermore, the homogeneity of group variances is controlled by the Test of Homogeneity of Variances test and it is seen that the groups are homogeneously distributed (SH>,05). Table 2 shows that there is a significant difference between personal and social sub-dimensions regarding gender and scale total scores and sub-dimensions (p<0,05). Nevertheless, there is no significant difference between gender and scale total score and collective sub-dimension score (p>0,05). It is possible to state that the significant difference is favorable to women as a result of studying the mean scores (?̅?). This data shows that the genders of the participants differentiate the scale total score and the collective sub-dimension score as a factor, but not the personal and social sub-dimension scores. Table 3. Correlation Analysis Table between Age of Individuals and Scale Total Score Age of the Total Points Personal Social Collective Individual r 1 ,122 ,038 ,034 ,093 p ,118 ,626 ,661 ,233 n 166 166 166 166 166 r ,122 1 ,550 ,469 ,563 p ,118 ,000 ,000 ,000 n 166 166 166 166 166 r ,038 ,550 1 -,011 ,020 p ,626 ,000 ,886 ,803 e-ISSN: 2148-2683 241 Perso Age of the Total Score nal Individual Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi n 166 166 166 166 166 r ,034 ,469 -,011 1 ,069 p ,661 ,000 ,886 ,374 n 166 166 166 166 166 r ,093 ,563 ,020 ,069 1 p ,233 ,000 ,803 ,374 n 166 166 166 166 166 **Correlation value is at 0.01 level. The relationship between the age of the individual and the scale total score was reviewed by Pearson Correlation analysis. Relationship level interpretation in Pearson correlation (r) analysis is carried out as follows;  r= 0,00 – 0,25 very poor,  r= 0,26 – 0,49 poor,  r= 0,50 – 0,69 medium,  r= 0,70 – 0,89 high and  r= 0,90 – 1,00 very high (Büyüköztürk vd., 2009). When the Table 3 is reviewed, it is seen that there is a very poor and positive (r=,122: p>0,05) relationship between the age of the individual and scale total score and sub-dimensions. Table 4. ANOVA Test Table between Marital Status and Scale Total Score and Sub-Dimensions Marital Significa Dimensions N KT Sd KO F p Status nt Difference Married 49 2,822 2 1,411 ,058 ,943 - Personal Single 101 3942,582 163 24,188 Divorced 16 3945,404 165 Married 49 30,053 2 15,027 1,130 ,325 - Social Single 101 2167,206 163 13,296 Divorced 16 2197,259 165 Married 49 21,967 2 10,984 ,587 ,557 - Collective Single 101 3051,936 163 18,724 Divorced 16 3073,904 165 Married 49 196,773 2 98,386 1,342 ,264 - Total Scale Single 101 11946,655 163 73,292 Divorced 16 12143,428 165 In Table 4, ANOVA analysis is used to check whether there is a significant difference between marital status and scale total scores, personal, social and collective sub-dimensions. Furthermore, homogeneous distributions of the groups controlled by the Test of Homogeneity of Variance test, in which group variances are homogeneously distributed (SH>,05). When Table 4 is reviewed, it is found that there is no significant difference between marital status and scale total scores and sub-dimensions (p>0,05). This data can be interpreted as indicating that the marital status of the participants does not significantly change the scale total scores, personal, social and collective sub-dimension scores. e-ISSN: 2148-2683 242 Collective Social European Journal of Science and Technology Table 5. ANOVA Test Table between Educational Status and Scale Total Score and Sub-Dimensions Significa Dimensions Educational Status N KT Sd KO F p nt Difference High School 4 38,085 3 12,695 ,526 ,665 - College 50 3907,318 162 24,119 Personal University 61 3945,404 165 Master/Doctorate 51 High School 4 21,444 3 7,148 ,532 ,661 - College 50 2175,815 162 13,431 Social University 61 2197,259 165 Master/Doctorate 51 High School 4 91,564 3 30,521 1,658 ,178 - College 50 2982,340 162 18,410 Collective University 61 3073,904 165 Master/Doctorate 51 High School 4 384,310 3 128,10 1,765 ,156 - 3 College 50 11759,11 162 72,587 Total Scale 7 Score University 61 12143,42 165 8 Master/Doctorate 51 In Table 5, ANOVA analysis is used to check whether there is a significant difference between education status and scale total scores, personal, social and collective sub-dimensions. Furthermore, homogeneous distributions of the groups controlled by the Test of Homogeneity of Variance test, in which group variances are homogeneously distributed (SH>,05). When Table 5 is reviewed, it is seen that there is no significant difference between educational status and scale total scores and sub-dimensions (p>0,05). Participants' educational status and scale total scores and personal, social and collective sub-dimensions are similar to each other and participants in married, single or divorced groups gave similar answers. Table 6. t Test Tables Between Scale Total Score and Sub-Dimensions and Educational Status in Germany Educational status Dimensions N ?̅? ss t Sd p in Germany Yes 93 29,6774 5,06943 ,455 164 ,650 Personal No 73 29,3288 Yes 93 20,9892 3,55850 -,450 164 ,653 Social No 73 21,2466 3,78146 Yes 93 24,1290 4,33696 ,515 164 ,607 Collective No 73 23,7808 4,31163 Yes 93 104,7204 7,93912 ,108 164 ,914 Total Scale Score No 73 104,5753 9,38663 In Table 6, it is checked by t test analysis whether there is a significant difference between the educational status in Germany and scale total scores, personal, social and collective sub-dimensions. Furthermore, homogeneous distributions of the groups controlled by the Test of Homogeneity of Variance test, in which group variances are homogeneously distributed (SH>,05). When Table 6 is reviewed, it is seen that there is no meaningful difference between the educational status in Germany and the scale total scores and sub-dimensions (p>0,05). The data can be interpreted as the total score of the identity scale and the scores of personal, social and collective sub-dimensions do not vary in the case of receiving or not receiving education in Germany and the answers are similar. e-ISSN: 2148-2683 243 Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi Table 7. t Test Score between Scale Total Score and Sub-Dimensions and Occupational Status Occupational Dimensions Status N ?̅? ss t Sd p Yes 84 29,5833 5,00652 ,158 164 ,875 Personal No 82 29,4634 4,79762 Yes 84 21,2143 3,59408 ,399 164 ,691 Social No 82 20,9878 3,72345 Yes 84 24,1905 4,54821 ,647 164 ,518 Collective No 82 23,7561 4,08116 Yes 84 105,1548 8,33702 ,756 164 ,451 Total Scale Score No 82 104,1463 8,84171 In Table 7, it is checked by t test analysis whether there is a significant difference between occupational status and scale total scores, personal, social and collective sub-dimensions. Furthermore, homogeneous distributions of the groups controlled by the Test of Homogeneity of Variance test, in which group variances are homogeneously distributed (SH>,05). When Table 7 is examined, it is seen that there is no significant difference between occupational status and scale total scores and sub-dimensions (p>0,05). Participants with and without profession can be interpreted as having answers that are similar to scale questions and their scores are similar to each other. Table 8. t Test Table Between Scale Total Score and Sub-Dimensions and Having a Vocational Certificate Having a Dimensions N ?̅? ss t Sd p Vocational Certificate Yes 73 30,1781 5,23435 1,533 164 ,127 Personal No 93 29,0108 4,56474 1,508 143,578 ,134 Yes 73 20,6438 3,57215 -1,439 164 ,152 Social No 93 21,4624 3,68770 -1,445 156,912 ,151 Yes 73 24,1370 4,34075 ,425 164 ,671 Collective No 93 23,8495 4,31616 ,425 154,361 ,672 Yes 73 104,6986 8,46510 ,056 164 ,956 Total Scale Score No 93 104,6237 8,71270 In Table 8, the presence of a vocational certificate and the scale total scores are checked by t test analysis to see whether there is a significant difference between personal, social and collective sub-dimensions. Furthermore, homogeneous distributions of the groups controlled by the Test of Homogeneity of Variance test, in which group variances are homogeneously distributed (SH>,05). When Table 8 is reviewed, it is seen that there is no significant difference between scale status scores and sub-dimensions when there is a vocational certificate (p>0,05). This data can be interpreted as the fact that whether the participants have a vocational certificate or not does not differentiate the answers to the questions on the identity scale. e-ISSN: 2148-2683 244 European Journal of Science and Technology Table 9. t Test Score between Course/School Completion Status to Learn Profession and Scale Total Score and Sub-Dimension Course/School Dimension Completion Status N ?̅? ss t Sd p s to Learn Profession Yes 94 29,6277 4,94917 ,311 164 ,756 Personal No 72 29,3889 4,84275 Yes 94 21,1064 3,55742 ,016 164 ,987 Social No 72 21,0972 3,79087 Yes 94 23,5745 4,02543 -1,373 164 ,172 Collective No 72 24,5000 4,64515 Yes 94 104,3723 8,71531 -,487 164 ,627 Total Scale Score No 72 105,0278 8,44364 In Table 9, it is checked by t-test analysis whether there is a significant difference between the course/school completion to learn profession status and scale total scores, personal, social and collective sub-dimensions. Furthermore, homogeneous distributions of the groups controlled by the Test of Homogeneity of Variance test, in which group variances are homogeneously distributed (SH>,05). When Table 9 is reviewed, it was found that there is no significant difference between the course/school completion status to learn profession and scale total scores and sub-dimensions (p>0,05). It is possible to interpret that for the participants to complete their course/school to learn profession does not differentiate in a way to cause a significant change in the answers to the questions on the identity scale. Table 10. t Test Table between Scale Total Score and Sub-Dimensions and Employment Status Dimensions Employment Status N ?̅? ss t Sd p Yes 86 30,0465 4,97028 1,432 164 ,154 Personal No 80 28,9625 4,76921 Yes 86 20,9419 3,73018 -,587 164 ,558 Social No 80 21,2750 3,57550 Yes 86 24,0233 4,35208 ,146 164 ,884 Collective No 80 23,9250 4,30418 Yes 86 105,5233 8,11640 1,353 164 ,178 Total Scale Score No 80 103,7250 9,00770 In Table 10, t test analysis is used to check whether there is a significant difference between the employment status and scale total scores, personal, social and collective sub-dimensions. Furthermore, homogeneous distributions of the groups controlled by the Test of Homogeneity of Variance test, in which group variances are homogeneously distributed (SH>,05). When Table 10 is reviewed, it is seen that there is no significant difference between the employment status and scale total scores and sub-dimensions (p>0,05). This data can be expressed as there is no significant difference between the scores regarding whether the participants work or not. e-ISSN: 2148-2683 245 Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi Table 11. ANOVA Test Table between Citizenship Status and Scale Total Score and Sub-Dimensions Dimensio Significant Citizenship Status N KT Sd KO F p ns Difference German citizen 57 3,807 2 1,904 ,079 ,924 - Turkish citizen 58 3941,596 163 24,182 Personal German and 51 3945,404 165 Turkish citizen German citizen 57 55,394 2 27,697 2,108 ,125 - Social Turkish citizen 58 2141,866 163 13,140 German and 51 2197,259 165 Turkish citizen German citizen 57 72,460 2 36,230 1,968 ,143 - Collectiv Turkish citizen 58 3001,444 163 18,414 e German and 51 3073,904 165 Turkish citizen German citizen 57 253,288 2 126,644 1,736 ,179 - Total Turkish citizen 58 11890,140 163 72,946 Scale German and 51 12143,428 165 Turkish citizen In Table 11, ANOVA analysis is used to check whether there is a significant difference between citizenship status and scale total scores, personal, social and collective sub-dimensions. Furthermore, homogeneous distributions of the groups controlled by the Test of Homogeneity of Variance test, in which group variances are homogeneously distributed (SH>,05). When Table 11 is reviewed, it is found that there is no significant difference between citizenship status and scale total scores and sub-dimensions (p>0,05). The fact that the participants are German, Turkish or both German and Turkish citizens does not affect the answers given to the identity scale. Table 12. ANOVA Test Table between the Generation Living in Germany and the Scale Total Score and Sub-Dimensions Generation Living Dimensions N ?̅? ss t Sd p in Germany Second Generation 79 30,0380 5,12020 1,293 164 ,198 Personal Third Generation 87 29,0575 4,65147 Second Generation 79 21,2025 3,64931 ,336 164 ,737 Social Third Generation 87 21,0115 3,66788 Second Generation 79 23,7848 4,24467 -,542 164 ,588 Collective Third Generation 87 24,1494 4,39749 Second Generation 79 105,6076 9,10117 1,365 164 ,174 Total Scale Score Third Generation 87 103,7931 8,03066 In Table 10, t test analysis is used to check whether there is a significant difference between the generation living in Germany and scale total scores, personal, social and collective sub-dimensions. Furthermore, homogeneous distributions of the groups controlled by the Test of Homogeneity of Variance test, in which group variances are homogeneously distributed (SH>,05). When Table 10 is reviewed, it is seen that there is no significant difference between the generation living in Germany and total scale scores and sub- dimensions (p>0,05). The scores the participants receive from the answers to the scale questions regarding which generation they are in Germany do not significantly differentiate. e-ISSN: 2148-2683 246 European Journal of Science and Technology Table 13. ANOVA Test Table Between Knowledge of German and Scale Total Score and Sub-Dimensions Dimensio Knowledge of Significant N KT Sd KO F p ns German Difference Very Good 51 50,261 2 25,130 1,052 ,352 - Personal Good 52 3895,143 163 23,897 Intermediate 63 3945,404 165 Very Good 51 10,333 2 5,167 ,385 ,681 - Social Good 52 2186,926 163 13,417 Intermediate 63 2197,259 165 Very Good 51 19,964 2 9,982 ,533 ,588 - Collective Good 52 3053,940 163 18,736 Intermediate 63 3073,904 165 Very Good 51 29,114 2 14,557 ,196 ,822 - Total Good 52 12114,314 163 74,321 Scale Intermediate 63 12143,428 165 In Table 13, ANOVA analysis is used to check whether there is a significant difference between knowledge of German and scale total scores, personal, social and collective sub-dimensions. Furthermore, homogeneous distributions of the groups controlled by the Test of Homogeneity of Variance test, in which group variances are homogeneously distributed (SH>,05). When Table 13 is reviewed, it is seen that there is no significant difference between knowledge of German and scale total scores and sub-dimensions (p>0,05). It can be expressed that the participants’ knowledge of German and the answers to the scale do not differentiate. Table 14. ANOVA Test Table between Knowledge of Turkish and Scale Total Score and Sub-Dimensions Knowledge of Significa Dimensions N KT Sd KO F p Turkish nt Difference Very Good 66 ,042 2 ,021 ,001 ,999 - Personal Good 53 3945,362 163 24,205 Intermediate 47 3945,404 165 Very Good 66 2,832 2 1,416 ,105 ,900 - Social Good 53 2194,427 163 13,463 Intermediate 47 2197,259 165 Very Good 66 103,595 2 51,798 2,842 ,061 - Collective Good 53 2970,309 163 18,223 Intermediate 47 3073,904 165 Very Good 66 86,299 2 43,150 ,583 ,559 - Total Scale Good 53 12057,129 163 73,970 Intermediate 47 12143,428 165 In Table 14, ANOVA analysis is used to check whether there is a significant difference between knowledge of Turkish and scale total scores, personal, social and collective sub-dimensions. Furthermore, homogeneous distributions of the groups controlled by the Test of Homogeneity of Variance test, in which group variances are homogeneously distributed (SH>, 05). When Table 14 is reviewed, it is seen that there is no significant difference between knowledge of Turkish and scale total scores and sub-dimensions. It can be expressed that the participants’ knowledge of Turkish and the answers to the scale do not differentiate. Table 15. ANOVA Test Table between the Frequency of Visiting Turkey and Scale Total Score and Sub-Dimensions Frequency of Significant Dimensions N KT Sd KO F p Visiting Turkey Difference Every year 78 26,399 2 13,199 ,549 ,579 - Personal Every 2-3 years 86 3919,005 163 24,043 Every 4-5 years 2 3945,404 165 Every year 78 38,555 2 19,277 1,456 ,236 - Social Every 2-3 years 86 2158,705 163 13,244 Every 4-5 years 2 2197,259 165 Every year 78 60,835 2 30,418 1,646 ,196 - Collective Every 2-3 years 86 3013,069 163 18,485 e-ISSN: 2148-2683 247 Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi Every 4-5 years 2 3073,904 165 Every year 78 173,049 2 86,524 1,178 ,310 - Total Scale Every 2-3 years 86 11970,379 163 73,438 Every 4-5 years 2 12143,428 165 In Table 15, ANOVA analysis is used to check whether there is a significant difference between frequency of visiting Turkey and scale total scores, personal, social and collective sub-dimensions. Furthermore, homogeneous distributions of the groups controlled by the Test of Homogeneity of Variance test, in which group variances are homogeneously distributed (SH>, 05). When Table 15 is reviewed, it is seen that there is no significant difference between frequency of visiting Turkey and scale total scores and sub- dimensions. It can be expressed that the participants’ frequency of visiting Turkey and the answers to the scale do not differentiate. Table 16. ANOVA Test Table between the Father’s Educational Status and Scale Total Score and Sub-Dimensions Father’s Significant Dimensions N KT Sd KO F p Educational Status Difference Illiterate 29 89,648 5 17,930 ,744 ,592 - Primary School 25 3855,756 160 24,098 Middle School 22 3945,404 165 Personal High School 20 College 34 University/ 36 College/Doctorate Illiterate 29 145,647 5 29,129 2,272 ,050 - Primary School 25 2051,612 160 12,823 Middle School 22 2197,259 165 Social High School 20 College 34 University/ 36 College/Doctorate Illiterate 29 36,497 5 7,299 ,385 ,859 - Primary School 25 3037,407 160 18,984 Middle School 22 3073,904 165 Collective High School 20 College 34 University/ 36 College/Doctorate Illiterate 29 670,828 5 134,166 1,871 ,102 - Primary School 25 11472,600 160 71,704 Middle School 22 12143,428 165 Total Scale Score High School 20 College 34 University/ 36 College/Doctorate In Table 16, ANOVA analysis is used to check whether there is a significant difference between father’s educational status and scale total scores, personal, social and collective sub-dimensions. Furthermore, homogeneous distributions of the groups controlled by the Test of Homogeneity of Variance test, in which group variances are homogeneously distributed (SH>, 05). When Table 16 is reviewed, it is seen that there is no significant difference between father’s educational status and scale total scores and sub- dimensions. It can be expressed that the participants’ father’s educational status and the answers to the scale do not differentiate. Table 17. ANOVA Test Table between the Mother’s Educational Status and Scale Total Score and Sub-Dimensions Mother’s Significant Dimensions N KT Sd KO F p Educational Status Difference Illiterate 46 76,143 3 25,381 1,063 ,367 - Primary School 37 3869,261 162 23,884 Personal Middle School 41 3945,404 165 High School 42 Illiterate 46 44,303 3 14,768 1,111 ,346 - Social Primary School 37 2152,956 162 13,290 Middle School 41 2197,259 165 e-ISSN: 2148-2683 248 European Journal of Science and Technology High School 42 Illiterate 46 3,024 3 1,008 ,053 ,984 - Primary School 37 3070,879 162 18,956 Collective Middle School 41 3073,904 165 High School 42 Illiterate 46 155,236 3 51,745 ,699 ,554 - Primary School 37 11988,191 162 74,001 Total Scale Score Middle School 41 12143,428 165 High School 42 In Table 17, ANOVA analysis is used to check whether there is a significant difference between mother’s educational status and scale total scores, personal, social and collective sub-dimensions. Furthermore, homogeneous distributions of the groups controlled by the Test of Homogeneity of Variance test, in which group variances are homogeneously distributed (SH>, 05). When Table 17 is reviewed, it is seen that there is no significant difference between mother’s educational status and scale total scores and sub- dimensions. It can be expressed that the participants’ mother’s educational status and the answers to the scale do not differentiate. Table 18. ANOVA Test Table between the Income Level Perceived and Scale Total Score and Sub-Dimensions Significant Dimensions Income Level N KT Sd KO F p Difference Lower Middle Income 2 34,757 2 17,379 ,724 ,486 - Personal Middle 82 3910,646 163 23,992 Upper Middle 82 3945,404 165 Lower Middle Income 2 7,491 2 3,745 ,279 ,757 - Social Middle 82 2189,768 163 13,434 Upper Middle 82 2197,259 165 Lower Middle Income 2 16,318 2 8,159 ,435 ,648 - Collective Middle 82 3057,585 163 18,758 Upper Middle 82 3073,904 165 Lower Middle Income 2 112,391 2 56,196 ,761 ,469 - Total Scale Middle 82 12031,037 163 73,810 Upper Middle 82 12143,428 165 In Table 18, ANOVA analysis is used to check whether there is a significant difference between the income level perceived Turkey and scale total scores, personal, social and collective sub-dimensions. Furthermore, homogeneous distributions of the groups controlled by the Test of Homogeneity of Variance test, in which group variances are homogeneously distributed (SH>, 05). When Table 18 is reviewed, it is seen that there is no significant difference between income level perceived and scale total scores and sub- dimensions. It can be expressed that the participants’ income level perceived and the answers to the scale do not differentiate. Table 19. Analysis of Answers to Identity Scale Questions S.N. Questions Average Level of Participation 1 Things you have, my stuff 3,0783 Very Important 2 My values and moral standards (criteria) 3,0723 Very Important 3 Popular formation according to others 3,0361 Very Important 4 Becoming a member of family generations (family tree) 2,9518 Generally Important 5 My dreams and aspirations 2,8373 Generally Important 6 Behavioral patterns that the others have shown to the things I say and do 3,1084 Very Important 7 My race or ethnic background 2,9096 Generally Important 8 Personal goals and anticipations for the future 2,7410 Generally Important 9 Physical appearance: height, weight and body shape 2,9518 Generally Important 10 My religion 3,0060 Very Important e-ISSN: 2148-2683 249 Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi 11 My excitements and emotions 2,8434 Generally Important 12 What others think about me, my reputation 2,9940 Generally Important 13 Places I live or grow 2,9096 Generally Important 14 My thoughts and opinions 3,0663 Very Important 15 My attraction according to others 2,9819 Generally Important 16 Formation regarding to my age group or generation 2,9518 Generally Important 17 My ways of coping with fear and worry 3,0000 Very Important 18 My gender as a male or female 2,9157 Generally Important 19 The feeling that I am a unique person as someone different from others 2,9337 Generally Important 20 I belong to lower, middle or upper economic class 3,1566 Very Important The fact that I will continue to stay the same even though life causes many 21 3,0542 Very Important changes in my appearances 22 Impression and style I made on others with my gestures and movements 3,0663 Very Important 23 My sense of belonging to society 2,9880 Generally Important 24 Self-knowledge, my thoughts on what kind of person I really am 3,0000 Very Important When I get together with other people, my social behavior as the behavior I 25 2,9639 Generally Important display 26 To be proud of my country, to feel proud as a citizen 3,2711 Very Important 27 My physical abilities/skills, which are good and coordinated in activities 2,9036 Generally Important 28 Personal self-worth, personal opinion about myself 2,9759 Generally Important 29 Formation of a sports fanatic identified with a sports team 2,9217 Generally Important 30 My professional preferences and career plans 3,0000 Very Important 31 My interest in political issues 2,8916 Generally Important My academic talents and performances, such as the advice and the grades I 32 3,0542 Very Important earned from my teachers 33 Knowledge of regional accent, pronunciation or second language 3,0482 Very Important 34 My role in the university as a student 3,0120 Very Important 35 My sexual orientation as heterosexual or homosexual 3,0602 Very Important The answers that individuals gave to the questionnaire on identity scale are analyzed in Table 19 and the levels of participation are determined. When Table 19 is reviewed, it is seen that the average scores of the participants in the overall questionnaire survey are generally important (between 2 and 3) or very important (between 3 and 4). Conclusion When reviewed in general, there is no significant difference (p> 0.05) in scale total scores, personal, social and collective sub- dimensions except participants' gender. There is a significant difference (p <0.05) between the gender variable and the scale total score and the collective sub-dimension. Nevertheless, when the question "What are the problems of citizens of Turkish origin living in Germany?" is asked, the answers related exclusion, discrimination and cultural differences are collected. When the most suitable nationality is asked to the participants, all participants answered as “I am Turkish.” It is seen that the participants with German citizenship, Turkish citizenship and Turkish and German citizenship are involved. Therefore, it is possible to suggest that the participants’ citizenship status has not changed their answer regarding the most suitable nationality. e-ISSN: 2148-2683 250 European Journal of Science and Technology References Akkaş, H. : (2009 /2010) Mediale Integration türkischer Migranten in Deutschland. Masterarbeit. Universiteat Siegen Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem A Yayınları. Coşkun, H. (2004). Kimlik Ölçeğinin bir Türk örnekleminde geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları Dergisi, 7(14), 49-60. Cheek, J. M., & Tropp, L. R. (1995). The aspects of Identity Questionnaire: History and Bibliography (2nd ed.). Wellesley College, MA. Daresh, H.B. (1984) The Authoritarian Family and Its Adolescents. Canadian Physchiatry Association Journal. Vol: 23,87. Ottowa Kulaksızoğlu, A. (2002/2003) Probleme der türkischen Jugendlichen der dritten Generation in Deutschland. Der Zusammenhang zwischen dem Erziehungsverhalten der Eltern und den Problemen der Jugendlichen. Essen /Deutschland Karasar, N. (2015). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi (28. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayınları. Schu, C. (2017). Sachverstandigenrat deutscher Stiftunggen für İntegration und Migranten, Fakten zur Einwanderung in Deutschland. Hrsg, Sachvertandigenrat deutscher Stiftungen für İntegration und Migranten (SVR) GmbH. Öztunç, H., Bilge, Y., Bilge, Y. (2015) Kişilk Bozuklukları ile Gelir ve Cinsiyet Değişkenlerinin İlişkinin İncelenmesi. Sosyal Bilimleri Dergisi /Journal of Social Sciences. Cilt / Volume VIII.Sayı / Number 1 Goldenberg, A. (2000). Kuzey Ren Vestfalya Eyaletlerinde Türk Gençliği. Türkiye ve Avrupa’da Gençlik TDV-Türk Demokrasi Vakfı, Adenauer Vakfı Ankara. Sprinthall, N.H., Collins., (1984). W.A. Adolescent Psychology, New York: Rondom House. Impressium interIkultur ( 2011). İnterkultur erscheint als regelmassige Beilage zur Zeitung politik und kultur, herausgegeben von Olaf Zmimmermann und Theo Geissler. ISSN 1867-5557 e-ISSN: 2148-2683 251