In this interview, James Dennison (Migration Policy Centre, EUI) and Olivera Komar (University of Montenegro) discuss the project they are currently working on: ‘Values, Issues, and Socio-Political Behaviour at Europe’s Border: Towards a Psychological Model of Migration (PSYMIG)’. They explain the importance of exploring broader perspectives on the complex motivations behind migration, share preliminary findings, and reflect on the potential impact of collaborative projects like this one —part of the Widening Europe Programme— on the development of Montenegrin social sciences.
What is the added value of the new psychological model you propose for understanding migration?
James Dennison: Prior research has predominantly emphasised socio-demographic, political, and economic factors, alongside the role of migrant networks, in shaping migration behaviours.
A notable exception to the findings of the literature is that of psychology, one of the major categories of explanatory factors for all forms of behaviour. Psychological factors have received insufficient attention in migration literature, particularly concerning the internal motivational differences among individuals.
This project highlights the necessity of integrating psychological variables into existing models and proposes five categories of potential psychological drivers of migration —personal values, perceived self-efficacy, interpersonal trust, risk aversion, and behavioural inhibition.
It then tested the extent to which these factors explain migration desires, plans, preparations, history, and willingness to migrate irregularly on a gold-standard face-to-face nationally representative random sample of Montenegrins.
So far, what do the results reveal about why some people choose to migrate while others do not, and why only some are willing to migrate irregularly?
James Dennison: Early analyses indicate that individuals who value self-enhancement (hedonism, power, achievement) and openness to change (stimulation, self-direction) are more likely to want to migrate, even controlling for socio-demographic, economic, political and migration network measures. Conversely, those exhibiting higher levels of risk aversion demonstrate significantly less willingness to migrate or engage in preparatory steps related to potential migration.
While socio-demographic factors and contextual considerations matter, the psychological factors examined retain their predictive power and strongly so even when controlling for these established factors. Migration plans, preparations, and irregularity willingness have similarly though partially distinct predictors.
By contrast, there is little evidence of self-efficacy, behavioural inhibition, social trust, or values of self-transcendence or conservation having relationships with migration variables. This study suggests that variation in human psychology—notably in terms of what is important to us and the extent to which we are willing to take chances—is an important and understudied determinant of migration, with major potential scientific and substantive consequences.
What makes Montenegro a good case for testing social scientific models generally?
Olivera Komar: Montenegro serves as an excellent case for testing social scientific models due to a combination of advantageous factors. Firstly, there is a well-established infrastructure for face-to-face data collection in the country, ensuring that researchers can efficiently organise and execute studies. Additionally, response rates remain relatively high compared to global trends, which is critical for obtaining reliable and representative data of high quality. The continued feasibility of face-to-face data collection provides researchers with opportunities for deeper engagement and higher data quality, particularly in contexts where personal interaction can produce high-quality responses.
Also, conducting research in Montenegro is notably cost-effective compared to many other countries, making it an attractive option for studies with limited budgets. Beyond logistical and economic benefits, Montenegro's diverse social, cultural, and political context provides a rich landscape for testing models related to transitional democracies, societal value shifts, and the intersection of European and Balkan influences. I believe that these unique dynamics make it an invaluable microcosm for exploring broader social scientific theories and testing their applicability in a real-world setting.
What is the state of social science in Montenegro today and how is it changing?
Olivera Komar: In my opinion, social science in Montenegro is currently at a crossroads. While ‘traditional approaches’ still largely dominate scientific work, particularly in publishing, the past decade has witnessed the emergence of a new generation of scholars.
Many of these individuals pursued their education abroad, receiving training at prominent institutions. However, only a few have returned to Montenegro. Given the small size of the academic community, where we all know each other to some extent, I can confidently say that in many cases, their decision not to return was not due to a lack of desire but rather the inability to find opportunities within Montenegro's academic sphere. This environment remains largely dominated by individuals whose careers are confined to the local context, and whose research methods are not in line with modern practices.
Regrettably, it seems that many academic institutions in Montenegro fail to recognise the potential these scholars bring for advancing social sciences and scientific research more broadly. Instead of embracing fresh perspectives, they often choose to ‘stay closed,’ favouring recruitment from their inner circles. Unfortunately, this tendency frequently involves nepotism, which hinders the growth and modernisation of Montenegro’s academic landscape.
I strongly believe that the days of relying on outdated academic practices are coming to an end. It is no longer feasible to sustain an academic career without proper peer evaluation. The sooner the academic community in Montenegro embraces this reality, the sooner we will be able to catch up with global standards. Achieving this will require significant energy, knowledge, and dedication.
How does PSYMIG contribute to that?
Olivera Komar: We need to establish professional organisations, foster publishing initiatives, stimulate scientific discussions, and more actively participate in the global academic community. This is where the PSYMIG project has made a critical impact. Together with colleagues from the EUI, we demonstrated what a well-designed scientific project looks like. We identified Montenegro as a compelling test case, designed a study, collected data, and presented the results. Now, we are preparing to publish our findings. Throughout the process, EUI colleagues provided invaluable mentorship, introducing high standards in both study design and data collection.
The presentation of the results was particularly significant. It not only showcased our findings but also set an example for the broader academic community and students of what such events should entail. The discussion was lively, productive, and deeply engaging, underscoring the importance of maintaining these standards as we move forward.
To truly progress, we must build on these successes and ensure they are institutionalised. This means developing sustainable funding mechanisms, creating a national data archive, and fostering an environment that supports regular scientific events and collaboration. Only then Montenegro can fully realise its potential within the global scientific community.
The PSYMIG project is funded by the EUI Widening Europe Programme. With contributions from the European Union and EUI Contracting States, the programme is designed to strengthen internationalisation, competitiveness, and quality in research in targeted Widening countries, and thus foster more cohesive European Higher Education and Research Areas.