Running head: SHORTENED TITLE 1 Week 1 Assignment Importance of Developing Global Citizenship Student’s Name GEN499 General Education Capstone Professor’s Name Date SHORTENED TITLE 2 Note: This assignment should be written in the correct format. Please click on the Writing Center tab at the left-hand toolbar of the course. You will then click on the Writing Resources tab, which goes over the basics of writing an essay. For information on how to write in-text citations in APA format, click on “In-Text Citation Guide” under Integrating Sources within the Writing Resources tab. This paper needs to consist of 750 – 1,000 words (excluding the title and reference page). Start your paper with the title of this assignment: Importance of Developing Global Citizenship The introduction paragraph of this paper should inform the reader of the topic you are writing about while providing background information and the purpose or importance of addressing this topic of global citizenship. You should prepare the reader by stating the concepts you are about to address further in your paper. Typically a good introduction paragraph is made up of 5 – 7 sentences. Short Title of First Prompt (i.e. Benefits of Being a Global Citizen) After viewing the required video Globalization: What Is Happening to Us? (2010), you need write a paragraph of 5 – 7 sentences addressing how being a global citizen in the world of advanced technology can be beneficial to your success in meeting your personal, academic, and professional goals. For instance, in thinking about how you interact with others in your courses, you could provide an example of how online courses contribute to your development as a global citizen. It’s important to cite the video per APA guidelines within this paragraph. Short Title of Second Prompt SHORTENED TITLE 3 After reading the article by Reysen and Katzarska-Miller, you need to write a paragraph of 5 – 7 sentences explaining why there has been a disagreement between theorists about the definition of global citizenship. Within the article, the authors address how specific schools of thought define global citizenship. It would be a good idea to paraphrase this information in your own words and cite the article per APA guidelines. Also, within this paragraph, you should provide your own definition of global citizenship after reading what other ideas are from the article. Short Title of Third Prompt Note: Based on the article, you need to write two paragraphs: a paragraph on each of the two outcomes of global citizenship you chose (intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and the level of responsibility to act for the betterment of this world). Name of First Outcome Addressed (i.e. Valuing Diversity) Within this paragraph you need to explain why this outcome is important in becoming a global citizen. It’s a good idea to first define the outcome in your own words and then provide a thorough explanation on why it’s important for your own development as a global citizen. Name of Second Outcome Addressed (i.e. Social Justice) Same instructions as the first paragraph above. Short Title for Fourth Prompt First Personal Example on (Name First Outcome) SHORTENED TITLE 4 You need to write a 5 – 7 sentence paragraph describing a personal experience that has corresponds to the first outcome you addressed in the third prompt and has assisted or resulted in your development as a global citizen. Second Personal Example on (Name of Second Outcome) You need to write a 5 – 7 sentence paragraph describing a personal experience that has corresponds to the second outcome you addressed in the third prompt and has assisted or resulted in your development as a global citizen. Short Title of Fifth Prompt You need to write a 5 – 7 sentence paragraph that identifies two specific education courses and explains how each of those courses assisted or influenced your development in becoming a global citizen. Conclusion In this paragraph, you need to summarize the main points of this assignment and include a description of why this topic is important to address when it comes to the development of global citizenship. Typically a good conclusion paragraph consists of 5 – 7 sentences. Keep in mind that you should not share new information in the conclusion paragraph. This means that there should not be any in-text citations. You are basically summarizing what you have written. SHORTENED TITLE 5 References Note: References are written below in the correct format per APA guidelines. In addition to these two required resources, you must locate another scholarly source from the Ashford University Library that applies to this topic and can be used to support your perspective. Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 858-870. doi:10.1080/00207594.2012.701749 Jakobs, W. (Director), & Monfils, M. (Producer). (2010). Globalization: What is happening to us?- LUX great thinkers series [Video file]. Retrieved https://fod.infobase.com/OnDemandEmbed.aspx?Token=50420&aid=18596&Plt=FOD& loid=0&w=640&h=480&ref International Journal of Psychology, 2013 Vol. 48, No. 5, 858–870, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.701749 A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes Stephen Reysen1 and Iva Katzarska-Miller2 1 Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University–Commerce, Commerce, TX, USA Department of Psychology, Transylvania University, Lexington, KY, USA 2 A s the world becomes increasingly interconnected, exposure to global cultures affords individuals opportunities to develop global identities. In two studies, we examine the antecedents and outcomes of identifying with a superordinate identity—global citizen. Global citizenship is defined as awareness, caring, and embracing cultural diversity while promoting social justice and sustainability, coupled with a sense of responsibility to act. Prior theory and research suggest that being aware of one’s connection with others in the world (global awareness) and embedded in settings that value global citizenship (normative environment) lead to greater identification with global citizens. Furthermore, theory and research suggest that when global citizen identity is salient, greater identification is related to adherence to the group’s content (i.e., prosocial values and behaviors). Results of the present set of studies showed that global awareness (knowledge and interconnectedness with others) and one’s normative environment (friends and family support global citizenship) predicted identification with global citizens, and global citizenship predicted prosocial values of intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and a felt responsibility to act for the betterment of the world. The relationship between antecedents (normative environment and global awareness) and outcomes (prosocial values) was mediated by identification with global citizens. We discuss the relationship between the present results and other research findings in psychology, the implications of global citizenship for other academic domains, and future avenues of research. Global citizenship highlights the unique effect of taking a global perspective on a multitude of topics relevant to the psychology of everyday actions, environments, and identity. Keywords: Global citizenship; Social identity; Normative environment; Global awareness; Prosocial values. A lors que le monde devient de plus en plus interconnecté, l’exposition à des cultures globales offre aux individus l’opportunité de développer des identités globales. Dans deux études, nous avons examiné les antécédents et les conséquences de s’identifier à une identité dominante – le citoyen global. La citoyenneté globale est définie comme la conscience, la bienveillance et l’adhérence à la diversité culturelle, tout en promouvant la justice sociale et la durabilité, joint à un sens des responsabilités à agir. La théorie et la recherche antérieures suggèrent que le fait d’être conscient d’être connecté aux autres personnes dans le monde (conscience globale) et d’être enchâssé dans des milieux qui valorisent la citoyenneté globale (environnement normatif) amène une plus grande identification aux citoyens globaux. De plus, la théorie et la recherche suggèrent que lorsque l’identité de citoyen global est saillante, une plus grande identification est reliée à une adhérence au contenu du groupe (c.-à-d. les valeurs et les comportements prosociaux). Les résultats des présentes études ont montré que la conscience globale (connaissance et interconnexion avec les autres) et l’environnement normatif d’une personne (les amis et les membres de la famille qui soutiennent la citoyenneté globale) prédisaient l’identification aux citoyens globaux. De plus, la citoyenneté globale prédisait les valeurs prosociales de l’empathie intergroupe, de la mise en valeur de la diversité, de la justice sociale, de la durabilité environnementale, de l’entraide intergroupe et du sens des responsabilités à agir pour l’amélioration du monde. L’identification aux citoyens globaux jouait un rôle médiateur sur la relation entre les antécédents (environnement normatif et conscience globale) et les conséquences (valeurs prosociales). Nous discutons de la relation entre les présents résultats et les résultats des autres recherches en psychologie, des implications de la citoyenneté globale pour les autres domaines académiques et des avenues de recherche futures. La citoyenneté globale met en lumière l’effet unique de la prise de perspective globale sur Correspondence should be addressed to Stephen Reysen, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University–Commerce, Commerce, TX 75429, USA. (E-mail: stephen.reysen@tamuc.edu). © 2013 International Union of Psychological Science MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 859 une multitude de sujets liés à la psychologie, sur les plans des actions quotidiennes, de l’environnement et de l’identité. A medida que el mundo se vuelve cada vez más interconectado, la exposición a las culturas globales les ofrece a los individuos oportunidades para desarrollar identidades globales. En dos estudios examinamos los antecedentes y consecuencias de la identificación con una identidad supraordinal —el ciudadano global. La ciudadanı́a global se define como la conciencia, el cuidado y la aceptación de la diversidad cultural a la vez que se promueve la justicia social y la sustentabilidad, emparejada con un sentido de responsabilidad de acción. La teorı́a e investigaciones previas sugieren que el ser consciente de la conexión que uno tiene con otras personas del mundo (conciencia global) y estar inserto en entornos en que se valora la ciudadanı́a global (entorno normativo) conduce a una mayor identificación con los ciudadanos globales. Además, la teorı́a e investigación sugieren que cuando la identidad del ciudadano global es destacada, la mayor identificación se relaciona con la adhesión al contenido del grupo (por ej., los valores y comportamientos prosociales). Los resultados de la presente serie de estudios mostraron que la conciencia global (el conocimiento y la interconexión con los demás) y el propio entorno normativo (los amigos y familia que apoyan la ciudadanı́a global) predijeron la identificación con los ciudadanos globales, y la ciudadanı́a global predijo los valores prosociales de empatı́a intergrupal, valoración de la diversidad, justicia social, sustentabilidad ambiental, ayuda intergrupal y una sentida responsabilidad de actuar para la mejora del mundo. La relación entre los antecedentes (entorno normativo y conciencia global) y los resultados (valores prosociales) estuvo mediada por la identificación con los ciudadanos globales. Se discuten la relación entre estos resultados y otros resultados de investigaciones psicológicas, las implicaciones de la ciudadanı́a global para otros ámbitos académicos y los futuros lineamientos de investigación. La ciudadanı́a global destaca el efecto único de adoptar una perspectiva global frente a una multitud de temas pertinentes a la psicologı́a de las acciones cotidianas, los entornos y la identidad. Spurred by globalization, the concept of global citizenship identity has become a focus of theorizing across various disciplines (Davies, 2006; Dower, 2002a). In psychology, with a few exceptions (e.g., immigration, self-construal), little research has empirically explored the vast effects of globalization on identity and psychological functioning. Calls for greater attention to the effects of cultural (Adams & Markus, 2004) and global (Arnett, 2002) influences on everyday life have been relatively ignored. In the present paper we cross disciplinary boundaries to draw on theoretical discussions of global citizenship, and utilize a social identity perspective (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) to add conceptual and structural clarity to the antecedents and outcomes of taking a globalized perspective of the world. Clarifying the concept of global citizenship is difficult due to the use of seemingly synonymous terms to describe a superordinate global identity, and the influence of theorists’ disciplinary perspectives in defining the construct. A multitude of labels are used to describe inclusive forms of citizenship, such as universal, world, postnational, and transnational citizenship. While some theorists use the terms interchangeably, others make clear distinctions. For example, Golmohamad (2008) equates global citizenship with international and world citizenship, while Haugestad (2004) suggests that a global citizen is concerned about social justice, a ‘‘world citizen’’ is concerned about trade and mobility, and an ‘‘earth citizen’’ is concerned about the environment. The confusion regarding global citizenship is exacerbated as theorists draw from diverse disciplines and perspectives (e.g., political, theological, developmental, educational) to define the construct. For example, theorists in philosophy may highlight morality and ethics, education theorists may highlight global awareness, while others may eschew the concept altogether as idealist and untenable because there is no concrete legal recognition of global group membership (for a review of competing conceptions of global identity see Delanty, 2000; Dower, 2002a). In an effort to integrate the various disciplinary framings and highlight the commonalities in prior discussions of global citizenship, Reysen, Pierce, Spencer, and Katzarska-Miller (2012b) reviewed global education literature and interviews with self-described global citizens, and indeed found consistent themes regarding the antecedents (global awareness, normative environment) and values posited to be outcomes of global citizenship (intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and a felt responsibility to act for the betterment of the world). For the purpose of the present research, we define global citizenship, as well as the related constructs identified by Reysen and colleagues (2012b), by drawing from prior interdisciplinary theoretical discussions. Global awareness is defined 860 REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER as knowledge of the world and one’s interconnectedness with others (Dower, 2002a; Oxfam, 1997). Normative environment is defined as people and settings (e.g., friends, family, school) that are infused with global citizen related cultural patterns and values (Pike, 2008). Intergroup empathy is defined as a felt connection and concern for people outside one’s ingroup (Golmohamad, 2008; Oxfam, 1997). Valuing diversity is defined as an interest in and appreciation for the diverse cultures of the world (Dower 2002b; Golmohamad, 2008). Social justice is defined as attitudes concerning human rights and equitable and fair treatment of all humans (Dower, 2002a, 2002b; Heater, 2000). Environmental sustainability is defined as the belief that humans and nature are connected, combined with a felt obligation to protect of the natural environment (Heater, 2000). Intergroup helping is defined as aid to others outside one’s group, and is enacted through behaviors such as donating to charity, volunteering locally, and working with transnational organizations to help others globally (Dower, 2002a). Responsibility to act is defined as an acceptance of a moral duty or obligation to act for the betterment of the world (Dower, 2002a, 2002b). In line with themes found in prior theorizing, we adopt the definition of global citizenship as awareness, caring, and embracing cultural diversity while promoting social justice and sustainability, coupled with a sense of responsibility to act (Snider, Reysen, & Katzarska-Miller, in press). SOCIAL IDENTITY PERSPECTIVE To empirically examine the antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship, we utilize a social identity perspective (Hogg & Smith, 2007; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). Individuals feel different levels of identification (i.e., felt connection) with social groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Each group has a prototype or set of interrelated attributes (i.e., group content), that are specific to that group (Hogg & Smith, 2007). When a particular group membership is salient, the more strongly one identifies with the group the more depersonalization and self-stereotyping occur in line with the group’s content such as norms, beliefs, values, attitudes, behaviors (Turner et al., 1987), and personality (Jenkins, Reysen, & Katzarska-Miller, 2012). In effect, when an identity is salient, one’s degree of identification with the group predicts adherence to the group’s normative content (Hogg & Smith, 2007; Turner et al., 1987). EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP CONTENT Following a social identity perspective, we argue that membership in the group ‘‘global citizen’’ is psychological in nature. As suggested by Golmohamad (2008), global citizenship is a mindset or attitude one takes. In effect, individuals perceive themselves to be global citizens and can feel a psychological connection with global citizens as a group. Consequently, greater identification with global citizens should predict endorsement of the group content (i.e., norms, values, behaviors) that differs from the content of other groups (e.g., American). To test this notion, Reysen and colleagues (2012b) asked participants to rate endorsement of prosocial values (e.g., intergroup helping), and identification with global citizens, cosmopolitans, world citizens, international citizens, and humans. Global citizenship identification predicted endorsement of intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and felt responsibility to act, beyond identification with the other superordinate categories. Additional studies showed that global citizenship identification predicted participants’ degree of endorsement of prosocial values and related behaviors (e.g., community service, recycling, attending cultural events) beyond identification with subgroup identities (e.g., nation, state, occupation). Across the studies, global citizenship content (i.e., prosocial values) was shown to differ from the content of other social identities. In effect, there is converging evidence that the content of global citizenship is related to the prosocial values (e.g., social justice, environmentalism) posited in the literature, and global citizenship identification predicts these prosocial values beyond identification with other superordinate and subgroup identities. EVIDENCE OF ANTECEDENTS TO GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP As the world has become increasingly connected, exposure to global cultures affords individuals opportunities to develop global identities (Norris, 2000). To examine the influence of cultural context on global citizenship identity, Katzarska-Miller, Reysen, Kamble, and Vithoji (in press) assessed participants’ perception of their normative environment (i.e., friends and family express an injunctive norm that one ought to be a global citizen), global citizenship identification, and MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP endorsement of prosocial values in samples from Bulgaria, India, and the United States. Participants sampled in the US rated their normative environment and global citizenship identification lower than participants sampled in the other two countries. Mediation analyses showed that the relationship between cultural comparisons (US vs. Bulgaria, US vs. India) and global citizenship identification was mediated by participants’ perception that others in their normative environment valued global citizenship (i.e., participants’ environment contained an injunctive norm that prescribes being a global citizen). Further analyses showed that global citizenship identification mediated the relationship between cultural comparison and social justice, intergroup empathy and helping, and concern for the environment. In other words, one’s normative environment is a strong predictor of global citizenship identification, and global citizenship identification mediates the relationship between cultural setting and prosocial values. Global awareness represents knowledge of global issues and one’s interconnectedness with others. Gibson, Reysen, and Katzarska-Miller (2011) randomly assigned participants to write about meaningful relationships (interdependent self-construal prime) or not (control) prior to rating their degree of global citizenship identification and prosocial values. Participants primed with interdependence to others showed greater global citizenship identification and prosocial values compared to participants in the control condition. The relationship between priming interdependence (vs. no prime) and global citizenship identification was mediated by students’ perception of their normative environment. Furthermore, global citizenship identification mediated the relationship between the interdependence prime (vs. no prime) and endorsement of prosocial values. In effect, raising participants’ awareness of interconnectedness with others led to greater endorsement of prosocial values through a greater connection with global citizens. Conversely, raising the saliency of global competition (related to an independent self-construal) can reduce identification with global citizens. Snider and colleagues (in press) randomly assigned college students to read and respond about globalization leading to the job market becoming more culturally diverse, more competitive, or did not read a vignette. Participants in the competition condition rated global citizenship identification, academic motivation, valuing diversity, intergroup helping, and willingness to protest unethical corporations lower than participants in the 861 culturally diverse framing condition. Furthermore, participants exposed to the competition vignette were more willing to reject outgroups than those in the diversity framed condition. Students’ degree of global citizenship identification mediated the relationship between globalization message framing and academic motivation, valuing diversity, intergroup helping, and willingness to protest unethical corporations. To summarize, past research has shown that one’s normative environment (friends, family) and global awareness (knowledge and interconnectedness with others) predict global citizenship identification. Global citizenship identification is consistently found to mediate the relationship between normative environment and global awareness, and degree of endorsement of the group’s content (i.e., prosocial values). Therefore, there is considerable evidence to suggest a model of global citizenship in which normative environment and global awareness predict global citizenship, and global citizenship predicts endorsement of prosocial values. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT RESEARCH In the present paper we test a model of the antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship identity. Following past theorizing (Davies, 2006; Dower, 2002a, 2002b; Oxfam, 1997; Pike, 2008; Schattle, 2008) and research (Gibson et al., 2011; Katzarska-Miller et al., in press; Reysen et al., 2012b; Snider et al., in press) we hypothesize a structural model of global citizenship with one’s normative environment (i.e., close others endorse being a global citizen) and global awareness (knowledge and interconnectedness with others) predicting identification with global citizens, and global citizenship identification predicting endorsement of prosocial values that represent the group’s content (i.e., intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and felt responsibility to act). In Study 1 we test the proposed structural model, and in Study 2 we replicate the model with a second sample of participants. STUDY 1 The purpose of Study 1 is to test the predicted model of global citizenship. Past theory and research suggest that one’s normative environment and global awareness predict greater global citizenship identification, and identification with global citizens predicts prosocial value outcomes. 862 REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER In effect, global citizenship is expected to mediate the relationship between antecedents (normative environment and global awareness) and outcomes (prosocial values). Method Participants and procedure Undergraduate college participants (N ¼ 726, 57.6% women) completed the survey for either course credit toward a psychology class or extra credit in a nonpsychology class. Their mean age was 28.90 years (SD ¼ 9.98). Participants rated items assessing normative environment, global awareness, global citizenship identification, intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, felt responsibility to act, and demographic information. All items used a seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree. Materials Normative environment. Two items (‘‘Most people who are important to me think that being a global citizen is desirable,’’ ‘‘If I called myself a global citizen most people who are important to me would approve’’) were combined to assess the perception that others in one’s environment believe that people ought to identify as global citizens (injunctive norm) (a ¼ .82). Global awareness. Four items (‘‘I understand how the various cultures of this world interact socially,’’ ‘‘I am aware that my actions in my local environment may affect people in other countries,’’ ‘‘I try to stay informed of current issues that impact international relations,’’ ‘‘I believe that I am connected to people in other countries, and my actions can affect them’’) were combined to form a global awareness index (a ¼ .80). Global citizenship identification. Two items (‘‘I would describe myself as a global citizen,’’ ‘‘I strongly identify with global citizens’’) were adapted from prior research (see Reysen, Pierce, Katzarska-Miller, & Nesbit, 2012a) to assess global citizenship identification (a ¼ .89). Intergroup empathy. Two items (‘‘I am able to empathize with people from other countries,’’ ‘‘It is easy for me to put myself in someone else’s shoes regardless of what country they are from’’) were used to assess intergroup empathy (a ¼ .76). Valuing diversity. Two items (‘‘I would like to join groups that emphasize getting to know people from different countries,’’ ‘‘I am interested in learning about the many cultures that have existed in this world’’) were combined to assess valuing diversity (a ¼ .91). Social justice. Two items (‘‘Those countries that are well off should help people in countries who are less fortunate,’’ ‘‘Basic services such as health care, clean water, food, and legal assistance should be available to everyone, regardless of what country they live in’’) were combined to assess belief in social justice (a ¼ .74). Environmental sustainability. Two items (‘‘People have a responsibility to conserve natural resources to foster a sustainable environment,’’ ‘‘Natural resources should be used primarily to provide for basic needs rather than material wealth’’) were combined to assess belief in environmental sustainability (a ¼ .76). Intergroup helping. Two items (‘‘If I had the opportunity, I would help others who are in need regardless of their nationality,’’ ‘‘If I could, I would dedicate my life to helping others no matter what country they are from’’) were adapted from past research (Katzarska-Miller et al., in press) to assess intergroup helping (a ¼ .76). Responsibility to act. Two items (‘‘Being actively involved in global issues is my responsibility,’’ ‘‘It is my responsibility to understand and respect cultural differences across the globe to the best of my abilities’’) were combined to assess felt responsibility to act (a ¼ .78). Results All of the assessed variables were moderately to strongly positively correlated with one another (see Table 1 for means, standard deviations, and zeroorder correlations between the assessed variables). We conducted a series of structural equation models using AMOS 19 to examine the predicted model’s fit, subsequent modification, and the mediating role of global citizenship identification. Due to the related nature of the prosocial values, we allowed the disturbance terms for the variables to covary. We evaluated model fit using the normed fit index (NFI) and the comparative fit index (CFI), for which values greater than .90 are acceptable. Following Browne and Cudeck (1993), MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 863 TABLE 1 Study 1: Correlations and means (standard deviations) Variable 1. Normative environment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.0 2. Global awareness .44 1.0 3. Global citizenship identification 4. Intergroup empathy .75 .53 .34 .54 .42 5. Valuing diversity .47 .59 .51 .49 6. Social justice .39 .33 .41 .40 .44 7. Environmental sustainability 8. Intergroup helping .38 .36 .38 .40 .42 .63 .37 .50 .39 .55 .54 .53 .47 9. Responsibility to act .49 .59 .56 .58 .65 .51 .54 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .63 1.0 Mean (SD) 4.58 (1.44) 4.76 (1.24) 4.57 (1.54) 4.98 (1.40) 4.84 (1.57) 5.62 (1.36) 5.63 (1.29) 5.54 (1.34) 5.09 (1.44) All correlations significant at p 5 .01. Seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree. we set the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value of .08 as an acceptable level. Items loaded well on each of the factors, including normative environment (.83, .84), global awareness (.49 to .91), global citizen identification (.86, .91), intergroup empathy (.85, .74), valuing diversity (.96, .86), social justice (.78, .76), environmental sustainability (.80, .76), intergroup helping (.78, .80), and responsibility to act (.78, .82). The predicted model adequately fit the data, w2(146) ¼ 820.24, p 5 .001; RMSEA ¼ .080, CI(075; .085), NFI ¼ .907, CFI ¼ .922. However, examination of the modification indices suggested allowing two of the global awareness item errors to covary. Following this allowance, the model difference was significant (Dw2(1) ¼ 211.70, p 5 .001), and the fit indices showed the model appropriately fit the data, w2(145) ¼ 608.54, p 5 .001; RMSEA ¼ .066, CI(.061; .072), NFI ¼ .931, CFI ¼ .946.1 As shown in Figure 1, normative environment and global awareness were positively related (r ¼ .51, p 5 .001). Normative environment (b ¼ .78, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .701 to .858) and global awareness (b ¼ .20, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .104 to .287) predicted global citizenship identification (significance 1 computed with bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 iterations, 95% confidence intervals). Global citizenship identification predicted intergroup empathy (b ¼ .53, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .445 to .606), valuing diversity (b ¼ .61, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .542 to .667), social justice (b ¼ .53, p ¼ .001, CI ¼ .439 to .608), environmental sustainability (b ¼ .50, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .418 to .581), intergroup helping (b ¼ .51, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .419 to .594), and felt responsibility to act (b ¼ .70, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .633 to 769). Using bias-corrected bootstrapping (5000 iterations), the indirect effect of normative environment and global awareness on the prosocial values (e.g., social justice) was reliably carried by global citizenship identification (see Table 2 for standardized betas of indirect effects and 95% biascorrected confidence intervals; all indirect effects were significant at p 5 .001, two-tailed). Discussion The purpose of Study 1 was to examine our predicted model of global citizenship identification. Following a small modification, the model Contact the first author for detailed model information, including item loadings and disturbance term intercorrelations. In Studies 1 and 2 we also examined the reversed causal model, with the outcomes (prosocial values) predicting antecedents (global awareness, normative environment) through global citizenship identification. The reversed model showed relatively appropriate fit to the data in Study 1, w2(147) ¼ 821.16, p 5 .001; RMSEA ¼ .080, CI(.074; .085), NFI ¼ .907, CFI ¼ .922, and Study 2, w2(147) ¼ 1299.96, p 5 .001; RMSEA ¼ .081, CI(.077; .085), NFI ¼ .903, CFI ¼ .913. However, in Study 1, the final predicted model showed lower AIC (738.54) and ECVI (1.02, CI ¼ .919; 1.13) values than the reversed model (AIC ¼ 947.16, ECVI ¼ 1.31, CI ¼ 1.19; 1.44). In Study 2, the predicted model showed lower AIC (1252.35) and ECVI (1.04, CI ¼ .958; 1.14) values than the reversed model (AIC ¼ 1425.96, ECVI ¼ 1.19, CI ¼ 1.10; 1.29). Thus, in both studies the predicted model showed a better fit than the reversed causality model. 864 REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER Intergroup Empathy .53* Normative Environment Value Diversity .61* .78* .53* .51* Global Citizenship Social Justice .50* .51* Sustain Environment .20* .70* Global Awareness Intergroup Helping Responsible To Act Figure 1. Study 1 final model standardized betas, *p 5 .001. TABLE 2 Study 1: Indirect effects through global citizenship identification Normative environment Variable Empathy Diversity Social justice Sustainability Helping Responsibility Global awareness Indirect CILower CIUpper Indirect CILower CIUpper .41 .48 .41 .39 .40 .55 .348 .418 .340 .323 .328 .484 .486 .537 .492 .467 .476 .622 .10 .12 .10 .10 .10 .14 .053 .061 .054 .052 .051 .072 .163 .183 .160 .153 .159 .211 Standardized betas and 95% confidence intervals; bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 iterations; all indirect effects are significant at p 5 .001. showed appropriate fit to the data. As hypothesized, normative environment and global awareness predicted global citizenship identification, which then predicted greater endorsement of prosocial values (e.g., environmental sustainability). We designed Study 2 to replicate the final adjusted model with a second sample of participants. STUDY 2 The purpose of Study 2 is to replicate the final adjusted model from Study 1 in a separate sample of participants. We predict the model will show an appropriate fit to the data similar to Study 1. Method Participants and procedure Undergraduate college participants (N ¼ 1201, 62.8% women) completed the survey for either course credit toward a psychology class or extra credit in a nonpsychology class. Their mean age was 25.86 years (SD ¼ 9.24). The procedure and materials were identical to Study 1. The scales of normative environment (a ¼ .81), global awareness (a ¼ .80), global citizenship identification (a ¼ .89), intergroup empathy (a ¼ .80), valuing diversity (a ¼ .82), social justice (a ¼ .73), environmental sustainability (a ¼ .78), intergroup helping (a ¼ .77), and responsibility to act (a ¼ .79) showed appropriate reliability. MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 865 awareness (b ¼ .21, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .126 to .280) predicted global citizenship identification (significance computed with bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 iterations, 95% confidence intervals). Global citizenship identification predicted intergroup empathy (b ¼ .49, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .425 to .553), valuing diversity (b ¼ .49, p ¼ .001, CI ¼ .424 to .556), social justice (b ¼ .40, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .322 to .474), environmental sustainability (b ¼ .42, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .340 to .486), intergroup helping (b ¼ .41, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .339 to .483), and felt responsibility to act (b ¼ .59, p ¼ .001, CI ¼ .517 to .652). Using bias-corrected bootstrapping (5000 iterations), the indirect effect of normative environment and global awareness on the prosocial values (e.g., intergroup helping) was again reliably carried by global citizenship identification (see Table 4 for standardized betas of indirect effects and 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals; all Results All of the assessed variables were moderately to strongly positively correlated with one another (see Table 3 for means, standard deviations, and zeroorder correlations between the assessed variables). Items loaded well on each of the factors, including: normative environment (.79, .86), global awareness (.50 to .89), global citizen identification (.89, .89), intergroup empathy (.88, .77), valuing diversity (.83, .85), social justice (.73, .79), environmental sustainability (.83, .77), intergroup helping (.82, .78), and responsibility to act (.79, .83). The model fit the data, w2(145) ¼ 1122.35, p 5 .001; RMSEA ¼ .075, CI(.071; .079), NFI ¼ .916, CFI ¼ .926. Similarly to Study 1, normative environment and global awareness were positively related (r ¼ .47, p 5 .001). Normative environment (b ¼ .74, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .670 to .801) and global TABLE 3 Study 2: Correlations and means (standard deviations) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Normative environment 1.0 2. Global awareness .43 1.0 3. Global citizenship identification 4. Intergroup empathy .70 .49 1.0 .33 .51 .39 1.0 5. Valuing diversity .35 .56 .39 .46 1.0 6. Social justice .28 .34 .30 .36 .40 1.0 7. Environmental sustainability .33 .43 .31 .42 .40 .57 1.0 8. Intergroup helping .28 .46 .32 .53 .56 .52 .49 1.0 9. Responsibility to act .41 .62 .47 .53 .61 .41 .51 .61 9 1.0 Mean (SD) 4.37 (1.33) 4.75 (1.18) 4.26 (1.44) 4.85 (1.42) 4.96 (1.41) 5.57 (1.29) 5.64 (1.19) 5.54 (1.31) 4.96 (1.37) All correlations significant at p 5 .01. Seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree. TABLE 4 Study 2: Indirect effects through global citizenship identification Normative environment Variable Empathy Diversity Social justice Sustainability Helping Responsibility Global awareness Indirect CILower CIUpper Indirect CILower CIUpper .36 .36 .29 .31 .30 .43 .313 .310 .235 .249 .251 .379 .415 .416 .353 .360 .359 .487 .10 .10 .08 .09 .09 .12 .058 .058 .048 .049 .049 .070 .147 .148 .124 .129 .129 .175 Standardized betas and 95% confidence intervals; bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 iterations; all indirect effects are significant at p 5 .001. 866 REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER indirect effects were significant at p 5 .001, twotailed). GENERAL DISCUSSION The purpose of the present studies was to test a model of the antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship identity. As hypothesized, one’s normative environment and global awareness predicted global citizenship identification, and one’s connection to global citizens predicted endorsement of prosocial values that represent the content of the group: intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and a felt responsibility to act. Global citizenship identification mediated the relationship between normative environment and global awareness and prosocial values. Overall, the proposed structural model of the antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship was supported. Clarifying global citizenship Arguments about the meaning of global citizenship across various disciplines have resulted in a state of confusion and a lack of definition. Converging on a definition is difficult given the variety of synonymous category labels (e.g., cosmopolitan, planetary citizen), and theorists’ tendency to highlight certain components (e.g., social justice) over others (e.g., environmental sustainability). We adopt the definition of global citizenship as awareness, caring, and embracing cultural diversity, while promoting social justice and sustainability, coupled with a sense of responsibility to act (Snider et al., in press). The model of global citizenship tested in the present paper supports each aspect of this definition. Individuals who are highly identified global citizens are globally aware, express caring and empathy for others, embrace cultural diversity, promote social justice and environmentally sustainable living, and feel a responsibility to act to help others. The model of global citizenship also supports a wealth of theorizing (Davies, 2006; Dower, 2002a, 2002b; Oxfam, 1997; Pike, 2008; Schattle, 2008) and research examining global citizenship (Gibson et al., 2011; Katzarska-Miller et al., in press; Reysen et al., 2012b; Snider et al., in press). The consistent pattern across the literature and research shows global awareness and normative environment as antecedents to global citizenship, and the prosocial values as components of the content of global citizen identity. Utilizing a social identity perspective, the present research is the first to show that the antecedents to global citizenship predict one’s degree of identification with the category, and global citizenship identification predicts endorsement of prosocial values hypothesized to represent the content of the group identity. Thus, while past theorizing has highlighted components of the model, the present results show the pathways to identification with global citizens, and the prosocial outcomes to feeling connected to the superordinate global category. Global awareness and superordinate identities The present model shows global awareness as an antecedent to identification with global citizens. As noted by Dower (2002a), all humans are global citizens; however, some individuals lack the awareness to recognize their connection with humanity as a whole. Thus, global citizenship represents an inclusive group membership with all humans. A wealth of social psychological research supports the notion that categorizing with an inclusive superordinate category results in prosocial values and behaviors (for a review see Crisp & Hewstone, 2007). For example, salience of one’s human identity leads to greater forgiveness to an outgroup for past harm. However, human identity salience can also reduce the motivation of victim groups to act collectively, and salience of benevolent (vs. hostile) human group content can lead perpetrators to legitimize harmful actions against outgroups and retain negative attitudes (see Greenway, Quinn, & Louis, 2011). We suggest that inherent in the content of global citizen identity is the notion of valuing diversity and multiculturalism (i.e., recognition of multiple identities) that is absent in human identity content. Indeed, Reysen et al. (2012b) found global citizenship identification to uniquely predict prosocial values beyond identification with the category label human, as well as other superordinate groups (e.g., international citizen). In other words, global citizen content differs from other superordinate group labels, and raising the saliency of global citizen will affect participants differently than saliency of human due to the differing group content. The present results support past research by showing that the extent to which individuals are aware of the larger world and their place in that world predict prosocial values (including valuing diversity and intergroup helping) through greater identification with the superordinate category ‘‘global citizen.’’ MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP Normative environment A second antecedent to global citizenship identification is the extent that one’s normative environment supports aspects of global citizenship. Results from the present set of studies show that perceiving valued others embedded in one’s everyday settings (e.g., friends, family) as endorsing global citizenship (injunctive norm) predicts identifying with the group. The results support past research (Katzarska-Miller et al., in press) that shows the relationship between cultural context and identification with global citizens is mediated by the degree others in one’s normative environment prescribe the identity. Global citizen theorists, rightly, argue for greater integration and support for global citizenship education between school and community (Dower, 2002a, 2002b). Embedding injunctive norms in the everyday lives of students may lead to greater identification with others around the world and subsequent endorsement of prosocial values and behaviors. The strong influence of social norms on attitudes and behavior has a long history in psychology. Individuals shape and are shaped by the cultural patterns that are produced, reproduced, and modified by individuals in settings in which they are embedded. In other words, everyday environments (e.g., home, school, work, cities) are intentionally constructed places that hold the cultural patterns from prior generations, and engaging in the settings can influence individuals through implicit conditioning and priming of everyday actions (Adams & Markus, 2004). Cultural patterns and norms afford various identities to individuals, and to the extent that these identities are valued, can influence one’s degree of identification (Reysen & Levine, 2012). Thus, to the extent that patterns related to global citizenship are embedded in one’s environment (Adams & Markus, 2004), and others within that environment endorse those beliefs, greater identification with global citizens can be expected. Global citizenship and prosocial identity content Global citizenship identity content contains values and behaviors (i.e., intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and felt responsibility to act) that are typically examined in isolation with one another in psychology. The present model highlights the interconnected nature of these prosocial values and their relation to social 867 identity processes. For example, work on intergroup empathy finds that empathetic feelings for a person in need are reserved for ingroup members (Stürmer, Snyder, Kropp, & Siem, 2006). Global citizen identity relates to empathetic concern for ingroup and outgroup members. Priming shared human experiences reduces prejudice toward outgroups and increases support for peace (Motyl et al., 2011). Similarly, global citizenship relates to valuing diversity, reduced prejudice toward outgroups, and greater endorsement of world peace (Katzarska-Miller, Barnsley, & Reysen, 2012; Reysen et al., 2012b). Groups, and social and moral norms, influence one’s personal values and subsequent intention to engage in environmental behaviors (Bamberg & Möser, 2007). Global citizenship identity content includes a desire to act for environmentally sustainable societies (Reysen et al., 2012b). The relationship between salience of relationships and helping others is mediated by one’s felt interconnectedness with others (Pavey, Greitemeyer, & Sparks, 2011). Similarly, global citizenship is related to a variety (i.e., charity, volunteering) of helping behaviors (Reysen et al., 2012b), and the relationship between global awareness (knowledge and interconnectedness with others) and intergroup helping is mediated by global citizenship identification (Gibson et al., 2011). Research shows the importance of social identities in predicting collective action (van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008). As shown in the present model, and in past research (Gibson et al., 2011; Reysen et al., 2012b), global citizens report a responsibility to act for the betterment of humanity. Overall, the research described above examined prosocial values separately, while the present research integrates these disparate areas of research as outcomes of a psychological connection with others in the world. Implications and future directions of global citizenship Beyond the prosocial values that represent the content of global citizen identity, the present research has implications for a variety of areas within psychology and other disciplines (e.g., education, political science, business). For example, psychological concepts of moral identity and critical moral consciousness are related to empathy, social justice, and a moral responsibility to act (Mustakova-Possardt, 2004). The motivation behind a moral identity is posited to be a spiritual search for truth, similar to the concept of a 868 REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER religious quest motivation. In a recent series of studies, Katzarska-Miller et al. (2012) found that global citizenship identification is closely related to a religious quest motivation. Global citizenship is also similar to past findings examining ‘‘worldmindedness,’’ which is positively related to endorsement for collective action and suggested to lead to greater felt connection with the global community (Der-Karabetian, 1992). Within education, cooperative learning highlights students’ interconnectedness with others and results in greater empathy and perspective taking, justice beliefs, and wellbeing (Johnson & Johnson, 2010). The underlying mechanism behind cooperative learning may reside in the salience of interconnectedness with others, similar to the interconnectedness component predicting global citizenship. Based on social identity perspective, global citizenship has implications for intergroup relations. As previously noted, superordinate group salience can have beneficial but also negative effects on intergroup bias (see Crisp & Hewstone, 2007). The present model shows global citizenship identification predicting greater intergroup empathy, helping, and valuing diversity. In a recent study, Jenkins and Reysen (2011) presented participants with either morally positive or negative information about an outgroup prior to rating the perception of the outgroup and endorsed actions. Participants’ prior rating of global citizenship identification moderated the relationship of valence of information on outgroup attitudes such that when the outgroup was portrayed negatively (vs. positively), highly identified global citizens were less likely to view the outgroup as an enemy, which resulted in a lower desire to avoid the outgroup. Global citizenship has implications for research examining immigrants and global travelers. For example, Berry’s model of acculturation strategies (e.g., Berry, 2001) has recently been adapted to account for a larger global identity (Banerjee & German, 2007). Work on bicultural identities (e.g., Chen, Benet-Martı́nez, & Bond, 2008) shows that bicultural individuals who integrate disparate cultural identities show better psychological adjustment in their new environments. Perhaps an umbrella identity can aid immigrants by providing an inclusive identity that allows for identification with both new and prior subgroup identities. In effect, global citizenship may provide global sojourners with a way to reduce the perceived distance between cultures by simultaneously identifying with the larger superordinate global citizen category. Unethical companies can elicit moral outrage and protest behaviors on the part of consumers (Cronin, Reysen, & Branscombe, in press). In response, corporations endorse and advertise corporate social responsibility, regardless of whether they actually perform responsible business practices, which affects how consumers view those corporations. Consumer reactions to corporate practices may depend on consumers’ global citizenship identification and interact with whether the corporations’ actions reflect global citizen values. Corporations are also pushing to hire employees with a greater global focus and openness to new ideas and experiences. Global citizenship identity is related to greater intellectualism and openness (Jenkins et al., 2012) beyond identification with other identities (e.g., nation, human). Perhaps the characteristics companies desire in new employees are those associated with global citizen identity. The present model of global citizenship holds implications for how companies present their public image, how consumers react, and employee hiring and training. Limitations Although the present set of studies is novel in showing antecedents and outcomes of identifying with global citizens, there are limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, participants in the present study consisted of American undergraduate college students attending a university in northeastern Texas. As shown by Pippa Norris’ (2000) examination of World Values Survey results, younger individuals are more likely than older adults to feel an attachment with the world as a whole. While similar patterns of association between global citizenship identification and endorsement of prosocial values have been found in a community sample including older adults (Reysen et al., 2010) and participants sampled in other countries (Katzarska-Miller et al., in press), caution should be taken in generalizing the results. Future research can examine the model tested in the present paper in other cultural contexts and demographically variable populations. Second, the measures used in the present studies are subjective self-reports rather than objective behavioral measures. Future research should examine whether global citizenship identification is related to prosocial behaviors when the identity is salient. Third, the present studies are correlational. The purpose of modeling the antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship is to direct future MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP research endeavors that can experimentally manipulate aspects of the model. Fourth, we implied a causal direction of antecedents leading to global citizenship, and global citizenship leading to outcomes. However, practicing global citizen oriented activities (e.g., community service) may also lead to greater global citizenship (e.g., Schattle, 2008). While we examined, and found, the reverse causality model to show poorer fit to the data than the predicted model, future research examining aspects of the model (e.g., manipulating responsibility and examining the effect on global citizenship identification) is needed. CONCLUSION Globalization has encouraged many disciplines to examine the nature of citizenship, identity, and more generally, the effects of increasing interconnectedness with others. One outcome is the affordance of identifying the self with a global, rather than national, identity—global citizen. In two studies, we tested a model of the antecedents and outcomes of identification with global citizens. Global awareness and one’s normative environment predict identification with global citizens, and global citizenship predicts prosocial values of intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and a felt responsibility to act for the betterment of the world. The relationship between normative environment and global awareness and prosocial values is mediated by global citizenship identification. Global citizenship highlights the unique effect of taking a global perspective on a multitude of topics relevant to the psychology of everyday actions and environments (e.g., helping behaviors). The field of psychology has relatively ignored the exponential cultural and social change and impact of globalization. Global citizenship exemplifies the recognition of the impact of globalization on identity and subsequent prosocial effects on attitudes and behaviors. Manuscript received March 2012 Revised manuscript accepted May 2012 First published online July 2012 REFERENCES Adams, G., & Markus, H. R. (2004). Toward a conception of culture suitable for a social psychology of culture. In M. Schaller, & C. S. Crandall (Eds.), The psychological foundations of culture (pp. 335–360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 869 Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57, 774–783. Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new metaanalysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 14–25. Banerjee, P., & German, M. (2007, October). Amalgamated religious–ethnic identities: The promise of an emerging postmodern paradigm. Paper presented at Intellectbase International Consortium conference, Atlanta, GA. Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615–631. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Chen, S. X., Benet-Martı́nez, V., & Bond, M. H. (2008). Bicultural identity, bilingualism, and psychological adjustment in multicultural societies: Immigrationbased and globalization-based acculturation. Journal of Personality, 76, 803–837. Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple social categorization. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 163–254. Cronin, T., Reysen, S., & Branscombe, N. R. (in press). Wal-Mart’s conscientious objectors: Perceived illegitimacy, moral anger and retaliatory consumer behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship: Abstraction or framework for action? Educational Review, 58, 5–25. Delanty, G. (2000). Citizenship in a global age: Society, culture, politics. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Der-Karabetian, A. (1992). World-mindedness and the nuclear threat: A multinational study. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 293–308. Dower, N. (2002a). Global citizenship: Yes or no? In N. Dower, & J. Williams (Eds.), Global citizenship: A critical introduction (pp. 30–40). New York, NY: Routledge. Dower, N. (2002b). Global ethics and global citizenship. In N. Dower, & J. Williams (Eds.), Global citizenship: A critical introduction (pp. 146–157). New York, NY: Routledge. Gibson, S. A., Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2011). Priming interdependence and global citizenship. Manuscript in preparation. Golmohamad, M. (2008). Global citizenship: From theory to practice, unlocking hearts and minds. In M. A. Peters, H. Blee, & A. Britton (Eds.), Global citizenship education: Philosophy, theory and pedagogy (pp. 521–533). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Greenway, K. H., Quinn, E. A., & Louis, W. R. (2011). Appealing to common humanity increases forgiveness but reduces collective action among victims of historical atrocities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 569–573. Haugestad, A. K. (2004). Norwegians as global neighbors and global citizens. In A. K. Haugestad, & J. D. Wolfhorst (Eds.), Future as fairness: Ecological justice and global citizenship (pp. 218–240). New York, NY: Rodopi. 870 REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER Heater, D. (2000). Does cosmopolitan thinking have a future? Review of International Studies, 26, 179–197. Hogg, M. A., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Attitudes in social context: A social identity perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 89–131. Jenkins, S., & Reysen, S. (2011, November). A mediated moderation model of outgroup perception and avoidance. Poster presented at the 9th annual Pathways Student Research Symposium, College Station, TX. Jenkins, S., Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2012). Ingroup identification and personality. Journal of Interpersonal Relations, Intergroup Relations and Identity, 5, 9–16. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2010). The impact of social interdependence on values education and student wellbeing. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey, & N. Clement (Eds.), International research handbook on values education and student wellbeing (pp. 825–848). New York, NY: Springer. Katzarska-Miller, I., Barnsley, C. A., & Reysen, S. (2012). Global citizenship, religiosity, and political orientation. Manuscript in preparation. Katzarska-Miller, I., Reysen, S., Kamble, S. V., & Vithoji, N. (in press). Cross-national differences in global citizenship: Comparison of Bulgaria, India, and the United States. Journal of Globalization Studies. Motyl, M., Hart, J., Pyszczynski, T., Weise, D., Maxfield, M., & Siedel, A. (2011). Subtle priming of shared human experiences eliminates threatinduced negativity toward Arabs, immigrants, and peace-making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1179–1184. Mustakova-Possardt, E. (2004). Education for critical moral consciousness. Journal of Moral Education, 33, 245–269. Norris, P. (2000). Global governance and cosmopolitan citizens. In J. S. Nye Jr, & J. D. Donahue (Eds.), Governance in a globalizing world (pp. 155–177). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Oxfam (1997). A curriculum for global citizenship. Oxford, UK: Oxfam. Pavey, L., Greitemeyer, T., & Sparks, P. (2011). Highlighting relatedness promotes prosocial motives and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 905–917. Pike, G. (2008). Reconstructing the legend: Educating for global citizenship. In A. A. Abdi, & L. Shultz (Eds.), Educating for human rights and global citizenship (pp. 223–237). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Reysen, S., & Levine, R. V. (2012). People, culture, and place: An integrative approach to predicting helping toward strangers. In P. J. Rentfrow (Ed.), Psychological geography. Washington, DC: APA. Reysen, S., Pierce, L., Katzarska-Miller, I., & Nesbit, S. (2012a). Measuring ingroup identification: The single item ingroup identification scale. Manuscript in preparation. Reysen, S., Pierce, L., Spencer, C., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2012b) Exploring the content of global citizenship identity. Manuscript submitted for publication. Schattle, H. (2008). The practices of global citizenship. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Snider, J. S., Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (in press). How we frame the message of globalization matters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., Kropp, A., & Siem, B. (2006). Empathy-motivated helping: The moderating role of group membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 943–956. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535. Copyright of International Journal of Psychology is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Purchase answer to see full attachment