Abstract. The article analyzes the socio-psychological factors influencing the adaptation of forced migrants. The main psychological characteristics of the formation of forced migrants’ internal worldview are revealed, and the ways to overcome ontoecological maladjustment and the state of “internal displacement” are outlined. The study examines the results of research on the living conditions of forced migrants from Ukraine. The article presents the results of the selection of acculturation strategies by forced migrants from Ukraine, namely: assimilation, integration, marginalization, and separation. The role of acculturation strategies in the adaptation of forced migrants is explored. The phenomenon of “acculturation stress” is analyzed, along with the concepts of nostalgia, anostalgia, victim identity, post-traumatic growth, and self-efficacy. The study emphasizes the distinction between the concepts of “forming a victim identity” and “becoming a victim of circumstances”. It is concluded that if a forced migrant identifies as a victim, their behavior may lead to negative consequences both for themselves and for their interpretation of surrounding events and situations. Emphasis is placed on the role of self-esteem and the sense of personal dignity, which are most negatively affected by forced relocation to another country and the abandonment of one’s home. The concept of “agency” is identified as an important factor in the adaptation of forced migrants. The meaning of agency and its role in the adaptation process are examined. In this study, agency is understood as an individual’s engagement, their ability and capacity to influence the world and the surrounding environment, and their willingness to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions. It is concluded that the foundation of migrants’ agency lies in high self-esteem, self-effective behavior, involvement in social processes, legal and social awareness, conditions for learning the language of the host country, social connections, and other contributing factors.
1. Pan-European Study of Ukrainians in Europe. Retrieved from: https://ratinggroup.ua/ru/research/ ukraine/vse_vropeyske_dosl_dzhennya_ukra_nc_v_u_vrop.html
2. Tarasiuk, I. V. (2021). Acculturation Strategies of Migrants in the Context of Intercultural Interaction. Scientific Notes of the National University “Ostroh Academy”. Series “Psychology”, Scientific Journal, Ostroh: Ostroh Academy Publishing House, June 2021, No. 13, pp. 20–24. DOI: 10.25264/2415- 7384-2021-13
3. Andrushko, Y. (2025). Acculturation Processes and the Experience of Traumatization in the Case of Forced Ukrainian Migrants. Acculturation Processes and the Experience of Traumatization in the Case of Forced Ukrainian Migrants – Andrushko – 2025 – International Journal of Psychology – Wiley Online Library. DOI: 10.1002/ijop.70036
4. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. Retrieved from: https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/ annurev.psych.52.1.1
5. Berry, J. W. Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. Acculturation: Theory, models and findings / Ed. Padilla A. Boulder: Westview, 1980, р. 9–25. Retrieved from: https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=716325
6. Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, C. L., Perreault, S., Senéca, S. Immigration und Multikulturalismus in Kanada: Die Entwicklung eines interaktiven Akkulturationsmodells. Identität und Verschiedenheit. Zur Sozialpsychologie der Identität in komplexen Gesellschaften / eds. A., Mummendey, B., Simon. Bern: Hans Huber, 1997, p. 63–107. DOI: 10.25264/2415-7384-2021-13
7. Сampbell, C. (2009). Distinguishing the Power of Agency from Agentic Power: A Note on Weber and the “Black Box” of Personal Agency. Sociological Theory, 27(4), 407–418. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467- 9558.2009.01355.x
8. De Coninck, D. (2023). The Refugee Paradox During Wartime in Europe: How Ukrainian and Afghan Refugeesare (not) Alike. International Migration Review 57, No. 2: 578–586. DOI: 10.1177/01979183221116874
9. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House Publishing Group. Retrieved from: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context =giftedchildren
10. Emirbayer, M., Mische, A. (1998). What is Agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103 (4), 962–1023. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/231294?seq=1
11. Haug, W. Lässt sich Integration messen? Terra cognita, 2006, No. 9, p. 68–71. DOI: 10.25264/2415-7384-2021-13-20-24
12. Kokun, O. (2023). The Personal Growth Resources of the Adult Population Following the First Months of the War in Ukraine. International Journal of Psychology 58, No. 5: 407–414. DOI: 10.1002/ijop.12915
13. Papadopoulos, R. K. (2021). Involuntary Dislocation Home, Trauma, Resilience and AdversityActivated Development. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781003154822
14. Spitz, P. (1978). Silent violence. Poverty and inequality. International Social Science Journal, 30, 4. Retrieved from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000182622h
15. Vannevel, R. (2014). The pentatope model: A holistic approach for analyzing and reviewing environmental complexity. Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology, 1, 10–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swaqe.2014.06.001