GLOBALIZATION

Prepare: Prior to beginning work on this assignment, please read the

A Model of Global Citizenship: Antecedents and Outcomes

article. See attached. 

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: 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
• Must include a separate title page with the following:

  Title of paper
  Student’s name
  Course name and number
  Instructor’s name
  Date submitted

A model of global citizenship: Antecedents
and outcomes

Stephen Reysen1 and Iva Katzarska-Miller2

1Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University–Commerce, Commerce, TX, USA
2Department 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: stephen.reysen@tamuc.edu).

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 (N¼ 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 (SD¼ 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 1¼ strongly disagree to 7¼ 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) (a¼ .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 (a¼ .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 (a¼ .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 (a¼ .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 (a¼ .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 (a¼ .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 (a¼ .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 (a¼ .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 (a¼ .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, p5 .001; RMSEA¼ .080, CI(075; .085),
NFI¼ .907, CFI¼ .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, p5 .001), and the fit
indices showed themodel appropriately fit the data,
w2(145)¼ 608.54, p5 .001; RMSEA¼ .066,
CI(.061; .072), NFI¼ .931, CFI¼ .946.1
As shown in Figure 1, normative environment

and global awareness were positively related (r¼ .51,
p5 .001). Normative environment (b¼ .78,
p5 .001, CI¼ .701 to .858) and global awareness
(b¼ .20, p5 .001, CI¼ .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 (b¼ .53, p5 .001, CI¼ .445 to .606),
valuing diversity (b¼ .61, p5 .001, CI¼ .542 to
.667), social justice (b¼ .53, p¼ .001, CI¼ .439 to
.608), environmental sustainability (b¼ .50,
p5 .001, CI¼ .418 to .581), intergroup helping
(b¼ .51, p5 .001, CI¼ .419 to .594), and felt
responsibility to act (b¼ .70, p5 .001, CI¼ .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 p5 .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 p5 .01. Seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1¼ strongly disagree to 7¼ strongly agree.

1Contact 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, p5 .001; RMSEA¼ .080, CI(.074; .085), NFI¼ .907, CFI¼ .922, and
Study 2, w2(147)¼ 1299.96, p5 .001; RMSEA¼ .081, CI(.077; .085), NFI¼ .903, CFI¼ .913. However, in Study 1, the final
predicted model showed lower AIC (738.54) and ECVI (1.02, CI¼ .919; 1.13) values than the reversed model (AIC¼ 947.16,
ECVI¼ 1.31, CI¼ 1.19; 1.44). In Study 2, the predicted model showed lower AIC (1252.35) and ECVI (1.04, CI¼ .958; 1.14)
values than the reversed model (AIC¼ 1425.96, ECVI¼ 1.19, CI¼ 1.10; 1.29). Thus, in both studies the predicted model
showed a better fit than the reversed causality model.

MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 863

showed appropriate fit to the data. As hypothe-
sized, normative environment and global aware-
ness predicted global citizenship identification,
which then predicted greater endorsement of
prosocial values (e.g., environmental sustainabil-
ity). 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 (N¼ 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 (SD¼ 9.24). The procedure and
materials were identical to Study 1. The scales of
normative environment (a¼ .81), global awareness
(a¼ .80), global citizenship identification (a¼ .89),
intergroup empathy (a¼ .80), valuing diversity
(a¼ .82), social justice (a¼ .73), environmental
sustainability (a¼ .78), intergroup helping
(a¼ .77), and responsibility to act (a¼ .79)
showed appropriate reliability.

TABLE 2
Study 1: Indirect effects through global citizenship identification

Normative environment Global awareness

Variable Indirect CILower CIUpper Indirect CILower CIUpper

Empathy .41 .348 .486 .10 .053 .163

Diversity .48 .418 .537 .12 .061 .183

Social justice .41 .340 .492 .10 .054 .160

Sustainability .39 .323 .467 .10 .052 .153

Helping .40 .328 .476 .10 .051 .159

Responsibility .55 .484 .622 .14 .072 .211

Standardized betas and 95% confidence intervals; bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 iterations; all indirect effects

are significant at p5 .001.

.51*

Responsible
To Act

Intergroup
Helping

Sustain
Environment

Intergroup
Empathy

Value
Diversity

Social Justice

Normative
Environment

Global
Awareness

Global
Citizenship

.78*

.20*

.53*

.61*

.53*

.50*

.51*

.70*

Figure 1. Study 1 final model standardized betas, *p5 .001.

864 REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER

Results
All of the assessed variables were moderately to
strongly positively correlated with one another (see

Table 3 for means, standard deviations, and zero-
order 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, p5 .001;
RMSEA¼ .075, CI(.071; .079), NFI¼ .916,
CFI¼ .926. Similarly to Study 1, normative envir-
onment and global awareness were positively

related (r¼ .47, p5 .001).

Normative environment

(b¼ .74, p5 .001, CI¼ .670 to .801) and global

awareness (b¼ .21, p5 .001, CI¼ .126 to .280)
predicted global citizenship identification (signifi-
cance computed with bias-corrected bootstrapping
with 5000 iterations, 95% confidence intervals).
Global citizenship identification predicted inter-
group empathy (b¼ .49, p5 .001, CI¼ .425 to
.553), valuing diversity (b¼ .49, p¼ .001, CI¼ .424
to .556), social justice (b¼ .40, p5 .001, CI¼ .322
to .474), environmental sustainability (b¼ .42,
p5 .001, CI¼ .340 to .486), intergroup helping
(b¼ .41, p5 .001, CI¼ .339 to .483), and felt
responsibility to act (b¼ .59, p¼ .001, CI¼ .517
to .652). Using bias-corrected bootstrapping (5000
iterations), the indirect effect of normative envir-
onment 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

TABLE 3
Study 2: Correlations and means (standard deviations)

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

1. Normative environment 1.0 4.37

(1.33)

2. Global awareness .43 1.0 4.75

(1.18)

3. Global citizenship
identification

.70 .49 1.0 4.26

(1.44)

4. Intergroup empathy .33 .51 .39 1.0 4.85

(1.42)

5. Valuing diversity .35 .56 .39 .46 1.0 4.96

(1.41)

6. Social justice .28 .34 .30 .36 .40 1.0 5.57

(1.29)

7. Environmental sustainability .33 .43 .31 .42 .40 .57 1.0 5.64

(1.19)

8. Intergroup helping .28 .46 .32 .53 .56 .52 .49 1.0 5.54

(1.31)

9. Responsibility to act .41 .62 .47 .53 .61 .41 .51 .61 1.0 4.96

(1.37)

All correlations significant at p5 .01. Seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1¼ strongly disagree to 7¼ strongly agree.

TABLE 4
Study 2: Indirect effects through global citizenship identification

Normative environment Global awareness
Variable Indirect CILower CIUpper Indirect CILower CIUpper

Empathy .36 .313 .415 .10 .058 .147

Diversity .36 .310 .416 .10 .058 .148

Social justice .29 .235 .353 .08 .048 .124

Sustainability .31 .249 .360 .09 .049 .129

Helping .30 .251 .359 .09 .049 .129

Responsibility .43 .379 .487 .12 .070 .175

Standardized betas and 95% confidence intervals; bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 iterations; all indirect effects
are significant at p5 .001.

MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 865

indirect effects were significant at p5 .001, two-
tailed).

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 nor-
mative environment and global awareness pre-
dicted global citizenship identification, and one’s
connection to global citizens predicted endorse-
ment of prosocial values that represent the content
of the group: intergroup empathy, valuing diver-
sity, 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 citizen-
ship 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 sus-
tainable 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 hypothe-
sized to represent the content of the group identity.
Thus, while past theorizing has highlighted com-
ponents 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 proso-
cial 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 bene-
volent (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 citizen-
ship 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.’’

866 REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER

Normative environment

A second antecedent to global citizenship identi-
fication is the extent that one’s normative environ-
ment supports aspects of global citizenship.
Results from the present set of studies show that
perceiving valued others embedded in one’s every-
day settings (e.g., friends, family) as endorsing
global citizenship (injunctive norm) predicts iden-
tifying 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 environ-
ment prescribe the identity. Global citizen theor-
ists, 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 endorse-
ment 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, repro-
duced, and modified by individuals in settings in
which they are embedded. In other words, every-
day 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 identi-
fication 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 sustainabil-
ity, 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

identity processes. For example, work on inter-
group 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 out-
groups and increases support for peace (Motyl
et al., 2011). Similarly, global citizenship relates to
valuing diversity, reduced prejudice toward out-
groups, 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 intercon-
nectedness 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 inter-
group 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 human-
ity. Overall, the research described above exam-
ined prosocial values separately, while the present
research integrates these disparate areas of
research as outcomes of a psychological connec-
tion 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 exam-
ple, psychological concepts of moral identity and
critical moral consciousness are related to empa-
thy, 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

MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 867

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 ‘‘world-

mindedness,’’ which is positively related to endor-

sement for collective action and suggested to lead

to greater felt connection with the global commu-

nity (Der-Karabetian, 1992). Within education,

cooperative learning highlights students’ intercon-

nectedness with others and results in greater

empathy and perspective taking, justice beliefs,
and wellbeing (Johnson & Johnson, 2010). The

underlying mechanism behind cooperative learn-

ing may reside in the salience of interconnected-

ness with others, similar to the interconnectedness

component predicting global citizenship.
Based on social identity perspective, global

citizenship has implications for intergroup rela-

tions. 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 empa-

thy, helping, and valuing diversity. In a recent

study, Jenkins and Reysen (2011) presented
participants with either morally positive or nega-

tive information about an outgroup prior to rating

the perception of the outgroup and endorsed

actions. Participants’ prior rating of global citizen-

ship 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 simulta-

neously 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 open-
ness to new ideas and experiences. Global citizen-
ship 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 attend-
ing 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 identifi-
cation 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 vari-
able populations. Second, the measures used in the
present studies are subjective self-reports rather
than objective behavioral measures. Future
research should examine whether global citizen-
ship identification is related to prosocial behaviors
when the identity is salient.
Third, the present studies are correlational. The

purpose of modeling the antecedents and out-
comes of global citizenship is to direct future

868 REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER

research endeavors that can experimentally manip-
ulate aspects of the model. Fourth, we implied a
causal direction of antecedents leading to global
citizenship, and global citizenship leading to out-
comes. 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 examin-
ing 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 intercon-
nectedness 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 environ-
ment 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.

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 meta-
analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-envir-
onmental 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: Immigration-
based 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 forgive-
ness but reduces collective action among victims of
historical atrocities. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 41, 569–573.

Haugestad, A. K. (2004). Norwegians as global neigh-
bors 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.

MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 869

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 threat-
induced 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.

870 REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER

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.