+1443 776-2705 panelessays@gmail.com

Importance of Becoming a Global Citizen

[WLOs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] [CLOs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Prepare:

Prior to beginning work on this assignment, read the A Model of Global Citizenship: Antecedents and Outcomes article and watch the
Globalization at a Crossroads (Links to an external site.)
video. Go to the UAGC Library and locate one additional source on global citizenship that will help support your viewpoint, or you may choose one of the following articles found in the Week 1 Required Resources:

· From Globalism to Globalization: The Politics of Resistance

· Globalization, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism as an Educational Ideal

· Transnationalism and Anti-Globalism

Reflect: Please take some time to reflect on how the concept of global citizenship has shaped your identity and think about how being a global citizen has made you a better person in your community.

Write: Use the Week 1 Example Assignment Guide


Download Week 1 Example Assignment Guidewhen addressing the following prompts:

· Describe and explain a clear distinction between “globalism” and “globalization” after viewing the video and reading the article.

· Describe 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.

· Explain why there has been disagreement between theorists about the definition of global citizenship and develop your own definition of global citizenship after reading the article by Reysen and Katzarska-Miller.

· Choose two of the six outcomes of global citizenship from the article (i.e., intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and the level of responsibility to act for the betterment of this world).

· Explain why those two outcomes are the most important in becoming a global citizen compared to the others.

· Describe at least two personal examples or events in your life that illustrate the development of global citizenship based on the two outcomes you chose.

· Identify two specific general education courses.

· Explain how each course influenced you to become a global citizen.

The Importance of Becoming a Global Citizen

· Must be 750 to 1,000 words in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style, as outlined in the UAGC Writing Center’s APA Style resource. (Links to an external site.)

· Must include a separate title page with the following:

· Title of paper

· Student’s name

· Course name and number

· Instructor’s name

· Date submitted

· For further assistance with the formatting and the title page, refer to APA Formatting for Word 2013 (Links to an external site.).

· Must utilize academic voice. See the Academic Voice (Links to an external site.) resource for additional guidance.

· Must include an introduction and conclusion paragraph. Your introduction paragraph needs to end with a clear thesis statement that indicates the purpose of your paper.

· For assistance on writing Introductions & Conclusions (Links to an external site.) as well as Writing a Thesis Statement (Links to an external site.), refer to the UAGC Writing Center resources.

· Must use at least one credible source in addition to the two required sources (video and article).

· The Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (Links to an external site.) table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for an assignment. The
Integrating Research (Links to an external site.)
tutorial will offer further assistance with including supporting information and reasoning.

· Must document in APA style any information used from sources, as outlined in the UAGC Writing Center’s In-Text Citation Guide (Links to an external site.).

· Must have no more than 15% quoted material in the body of your essay based on the Turnitin report. References list will be excluded from the Turnitin originality score.

· Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style. See the Formatting Your References List (Links to an external site.) resource in the UAGC Writing Center for specifications.

Before you submit your written assignment, you are encouraged to review the review the Grammarly (Links to an external site.) page tutorial, set up a Grammarly account (if you have not already done so), and use Grammarly to review a rough draft of your assignment. Then carefully review all issues identified by Grammarly and revise your work as needed

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
2
Department of Psychology, Transylvania University, Lexington, KY, USA

A s the world becomes increasingly interconnected, exposure to global cultures affords individualsopportunities 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 auxindividus 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: [email protected]).

International Journal of Psychology, 2013
Vol. 48, No. 5, 858–870, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.701749

© 2013 International Union of Psychological Science

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 ofrecea 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 theoriz-
ing across various disciplines (Davies, 2006;
Dower, 2002a). In psychology, with a few excep-
tions (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 per-
spectives 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 dis-
ciplines and perspectives (e.g., political, theologi-
cal, 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 discus-
sions 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

MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 859

as knowledge of the world and one’s interconnect-
edness 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 out-
comes 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 connec-
tion) 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 iden-
tity 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 mind-
set 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 citi-
zens, and humans. Global citizenship identifica-
tion predicted endorsement of intergroup
empathy, valuing diversity, environmental sustain-
ability, intergroup helping, and felt responsibility
to act, beyond identification with the other super-
ordinate categories.
Additional studies showed that global citizen-

ship 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 envir-
onment (i.e., friends and family express an
injunctive norm that one ought to be a global
citizen), global citizenship identification, and

860 REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER

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 nor-
mative 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 envir-
onment. In other words, one’s normative environ-
ment 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 identifica-
tion 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 citi-
zenship identification mediated the relationship
between the interdependence prime (vs. no prime)
and endorsement of prosocial values. In effect,
raising participants’ awareness of interconnected-
ness with others led to greater endorsement of
prosocial values through a greater connection with
global citizens.
Conversely, raising the saliency of global com-

petition (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

culturally diverse framing condition.
Furthermore, participants exposed to the competi-
tion 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, valu-
ing 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 interconnected-
ness with others) predict global citizenship identi-
fication. Global citizenship identification is
consistently found to mediate the relationship
between normative environment and global aware-
ness, 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 proso-
cial 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 endor-
sement of prosocial values that represent the
group’s content (i.e., intergroup empathy, valuing
diversity, social justice, environmental sustainabil-
ity, 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.

MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 861

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, inter-
group empathy, valuing diversity, social justice,
environmental sustainability, intergroup helping,
felt responsibility to act, and demographic infor-
mation. 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 responsi-
bility,’’ ‘‘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 zero-
order 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),

862 REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER

we set the root mean square error of approxima-
tion (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), environ-
mental 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, CI¼ .701 to .858) and global awareness
(b ¼ .20, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .104 to .287) predicted
global citizenship identification (significance

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 environ-
ment and global awareness on the prosocial values
(e.g., social justice) was reliably carried by global
citizenship identification (see Table 2 for standar-
dized betas of indirect effects and 95% bias-
corrected 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 identifica-
tion. Following a small modification, the model

TABLE 1
Study 1: Correlations and means (standard deviations)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean (SD)

1. Normative environment 1.0 4.58

(1.44)

2. Global awareness .44 1.0 4.76

(1.24)

3. Global citizenship

identification

.75 .53 1.0 4.57

(1.54)

4. Intergroup empathy .34 .54 .42 1.0 4.98

(1.40)

5. Valuing diversity .47 .59 .51 .49 1.0 4.84

(1.57)

6. Social justice .39 .33 .41 .40 .44 1.0 5.62

(1.36)

7. Environmental

sustainability

.38 .36 .38 .40 .42 .63 1.0 5.63

(1.29)

8. Intergroup helping .37 .50 .39 .55 .54 .53 .47 1.0 5.54

(1.34)

9. Responsibility to act .49 .59 .56 .58 .65 .51 .54 .63 1.0 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.

1
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 …

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
2
Department of Psychology, Transylvania University, Lexington, KY, USA

A s the world becomes increasingly interconnected, exposure to global cultures affords individualsopportunities 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 auxindividus 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: [email protected]).

International Journal of Psychology, 2013
Vol. 48, No. 5, 858–870, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.701749

© 2013 International Union of Psychological Science

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 ofrecea 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 theoriz-
ing across various disciplines (Davies, 2006;
Dower, 2002a). In psychology, with a few excep-
tions (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 per-
spectives 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 dis-
ciplines and perspectives (e.g., political, theologi-
cal, 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 discus-
sions 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

MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 859

as knowledge of the world and one’s interconnect-
edness 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 out-
comes 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 connec-
tion) 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 iden-
tity 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 mind-
set 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 citi-
zens, and humans. Global citizenship identifica-
tion predicted endorsement of intergroup
empathy, valuing diversity, environmental sustain-
ability, intergroup helping, and felt responsibility
to act, beyond identification with the other super-
ordinate categories.
Additional studies showed that global citizen-

ship 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 envir-
onment (i.e., friends and family express an
injunctive norm that one ought to be a global
citizen), global citizenship identification, and

860 REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER

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 nor-
mative 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 envir-
onment. In other words, one’s normative environ-
ment 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 identifica-
tion 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 citi-
zenship identification mediated the relationship
between the interdependence prime (vs. no prime)
and endorsement of prosocial values. In effect,
raising participants’ awareness of interconnected-
ness with others led to greater endorsement of
prosocial values through a greater connection with
global citizens.
Conversely, raising the saliency of global com-

petition (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

culturally diverse framing condition.
Furthermore, participants exposed to the competi-
tion 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, valu-
ing 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 interconnected-
ness with others) predict global citizenship identi-
fication. Global citizenship identification is
consistently found to mediate the relationship
between normative environment and global aware-
ness, 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 proso-
cial 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 endor-
sement of prosocial values that represent the
group’s content (i.e., intergroup empathy, valuing
diversity, social justice, environmental sustainabil-
ity, 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.

MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 861

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, inter-
group empathy, valuing diversity, social justice,
environmental sustainability, intergroup helping,
felt responsibility to act, and demographic infor-
mation. 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 responsi-
bility,’’ ‘‘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 zero-
order 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),

862 REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER

we set the root mean square error of approxima-
tion (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), environ-
mental 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, CI¼ .701 to .858) and global awareness
(b ¼ .20, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .104 to .287) predicted
global citizenship identification (significance

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 environ-
ment and global awareness on the prosocial values
(e.g., social justice) was reliably carried by global
citizenship identification (see Table 2 for standar-
dized betas of indirect effects and 95% bias-
corrected 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 identifica-
tion. Following a small modification, the model

TABLE 1
Study 1: Correlations and means (standard deviations)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean (SD)

1. Normative environment 1.0 4.58

(1.44)

2. Global awareness .44 1.0 4.76

(1.24)

3. Global citizenship

identification

.75 .53 1.0 4.57

(1.54)

4. Intergroup empathy .34 .54 .42 1.0 4.98

(1.40)

5. Valuing diversity .47 .59 .51 .49 1.0 4.84

(1.57)

6. Social justice .39 .33 .41 .40 .44 1.0 5.62

(1.36)

7. Environmental

sustainability

.38 .36 .38 .40 .42 .63 1.0 5.63

(1.29)

8. Intergroup helping .37 .50 .39 .55 .54 .53 .47 1.0 5.54

(1.34)

9. Responsibility to act .49 .59 .56 .58 .65 .51 .54 .63 1.0 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.

1
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 …