Importance of Becoming a Global Citizen

A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes Stephen Reysen 1and Iva Katzarska-Miller 2 1 Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University–Commerce, Commerce, TX, USA2Department of Psychology, Transylvania University, Lexington, KY, USA A s the world becomes increasingly interconnected, exposure to global cultures affords individuals opportunities to develop global identities. In two studies, we examine the antecedents and outcomes of identifying with a superordinate identity—global citizen. Global citizenship is defined as awareness, caring, and embracing cultural diversity while promoting social justice and sustainability, coupled with a sense of responsibility to act. Prior theory and research suggest that being aware of one’s connection with others in the world (global awareness) and embedded in settings that value global citizenship (normative environment) lead to greater identification with global citizens. Furthermore, theory and research suggest that when global citizen identity is salient, greater identification is related to adherence to the group’s content (i.e., prosocial values and behaviors). Results of the present set of studies showed that global awareness (knowledge and interconnectedness with others) and one’s normative environment (friends and family support global citizenship) predicted identification with global citizens, and global citizenship predicted prosocial values of intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and a felt responsibility to act for the betterment of the world. The relationship between antecedents (normative environment and global awareness) and outcomes (prosocial values) was mediated by identification with global citizens. We discuss the relationship between the present results and other research findings in psychology, the implications of global citizenship for other academic domains, and future avenues of research. Global citizenship highlights the unique effect of taking a global perspective on a multitude of topics relevant to the psychology of everyday actions, environments, and identity.

Keywords:Global citizenship; Social identity; Normative environment; Global awareness; Prosocial values. A lors que le monde devient de plus en plus interconnecte´ , l’exposition a` des cultures globales offre aux individus l’opportunite´ de de´ velopper des identite´ s globales. Dans deux e´ tudes, nous avons examine´ les ante´ ce´ dents et les conse´ quences de s’identifier a` une identite´ dominante – le citoyen global. La citoyennete´ globale est de´ finie comme la conscience, la bienveillance et l’adhe´ rence a` la diversite´ culturelle, tout en promouvant la justice sociale et la durabilite´ , joint a` un sens des responsabilite´ sa` agir. La the´ orie et la recherche ante´ rieures sugge` rent que le fait d’eˆtre conscient d’eˆtre connecte´ aux autres personnes dans le monde (conscience globale) et d’eˆtre enchaˆsse´ dans des milieux qui valorisent la citoyennete´ globale (environnement normatif) ame` ne une plus grande identification aux citoyens globaux. De plus, la the´ orie et la recherche sugge` rent que lorsque l’identite´ de citoyen global est saillante, une plus grande identification est relie´ ea` une adhe´ rence au contenu du groupe (c.-a` -d.

les valeurs et les comportements prosociaux). Les re´ sultats des pre´ sentes e´ tudes ont montre´ 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 citoyennete´ globale) pre´ disaient l’identification aux citoyens globaux.

De plus, la citoyennete´ globale pre´ disait les valeurs prosociales de l’empathie intergroupe, de la mise en valeur de la diversite´ , de la justice sociale, de la durabilite´ environnementale, de l’entraide intergroupe et du sens des responsabilite´ sa` agir pour l’ame´ lioration du monde. L’identification aux citoyens globaux jouait un roˆle me´ diateur sur la relation entre les ante´ ce´ dents (environnement normatif et conscience globale) et les conse´ quences (valeurs prosociales). Nous discutons de la relation entre les pre´ sents re´ sultats et les re´ sultats des autres recherches en psychologie, des implications de la citoyennete´ globale pour les autres domaines acade´ miques et des avenues de recherche futures. La citoyennete´ globale met en lumie` re 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 lie´ sa` la psychologie, sur les plans des actions quotidiennes, de l’environnement et de l’identite´ .

A medida que el mundo se vuelve cada vez ma´ s interconectado, la exposicio´ n a las culturas globales les ofrece a los individuos oportunidades para desarrollar identidades globales. En dos estudios examinamos los antecedentes y consecuencias de la identificacio´ n con una identidad supraordinal —el ciudadano global. La ciudadanı´ a global se define como la conciencia, el cuidado y la aceptacio´ n de la diversidad cultural a la vez que se promueve la justicia social y la sustentabilidad, emparejada con un sentido de responsabilidad de accio´ n. La teorı´ a e investigaciones previas sugieren que el ser consciente de la conexio´ n que uno tiene con otras personas del mundo (conciencia global) y estar inserto en entornos en que se valora la ciudadanı´ a global (entorno normativo) conduce a una mayor identificacio´ n con los ciudadanos globales. Adema´ s, la teorı´ a e investigacio´ n sugieren que cuando la identidad del ciudadano global es destacada, la mayor identificacio´ n se relaciona con la adhesio´ nal 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 interconexio´ n con los dema´ s) y el propio entorno normativo (los amigos y familia que apoyan la ciudadanı´ a global) predijeron la identificacio´ n con los ciudadanos globales, y la ciudadanı´ a global predijo los valores prosociales de empatı´ a intergrupal, valoracio´ nde la diversidad, justicia social, sustentabilidad ambiental, ayuda intergrupal y una sentida responsabilidad de actuar para la mejora del mundo. La relacio´ n entre los antecedentes (entorno normativo y conciencia global) y los resultados (valores prosociales) estuvo mediada por la identificacio´ n con los ciudadanos globales. Se discuten la relacio´ n entre estos resultados y otros resultados de investigaciones psicolo´ gicas, las implicaciones de la ciudadanı´ a global para otros a´ mbitos acade´ micos y los futuros lineamientos de investigacio´ n. La ciudadanı´ a global destaca el efecto u´nico de adoptar una perspectiva global frente a una multitud de temas pertinentes a la psicologı´ a 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 tradeand 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 awarenessis defined MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 859 as knowledge of the world and one’s interconnect- edness with others (Dower, 2002a; Oxfam, 1997).

Normative environmentis defined as people and settings (e.g., friends, family, school) that are infused with global citizen related cultural patterns and values (Pike, 2008).Intergroup empathyis defined as a felt connection and concern for people outside one’s ingroup (Golmohamad, 2008; Oxfam, 1997).Valuing diversityis defined as an interest in and appreciation for the diverse cultures of the world (Dower 2002b; Golmohamad, 2008).

Social justiceis defined as attitudes concerning human rights and equitable and fair treatment of all humans (Dower, 2002a, 2002b; Heater, 2000).

Environmental sustainabilityis defined as the belief that humans and nature are connected, combined with a felt obligation to protect of the natural environment (Heater, 2000).Intergroup helpingis 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 actis 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 ofglobal citizenshipas 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 theculturally 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 (N¼726, 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 (SD¼9.98). 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 1¼strongly disagreeto 7¼strongly 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,w 2(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 (Dw 2 (1) ¼211.70,p5.001), and the fit indices showed the model appropriately fit the data, w 2(145)¼608.54,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 (significancecomputed 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 atp5.001, 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) Variable123456789Mean(SD) 1. Normative environment 1.04.58 (1.44) 2. Global awareness .44 1.04.76 (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 atp5.01. Seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1¼strongly disagreeto 7¼strongly 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,w 2(147)¼821.16,p5.001; RMSEA¼.080, CI(.074; .085), NFI¼.907, CFI¼.922, and Study 2,w 2(147)¼1299.96,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 (AIC¼947.16, ECVI¼1.31, CI¼1.19; 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 (AIC¼1425.96, ECVI¼1.19, CI¼1.10; 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 (N¼1201, 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 (SD¼9.24). 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 CI Lower CIUpper Indirect CI Lower 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 atp5.001. .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,w 2(145)¼1122.35,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 globalawareness (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) Variable123456789Mean(SD) 1. Normative environment 1.04.37 (1.33) 2. Global awareness .43 1.04.75 (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 atp5.01. Seven-point Likert-type scale, from 1¼strongly disagreeto 7¼strongly agree.

TABLE 4 Study 2: Indirect effects through global citizenship identification Normative environment Global awareness Variable Indirect CI Lower CIUpper Indirect CI Lower 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 atp5.001. MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 865 indirect effects were significant atp5.001, 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 socialidentity 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 humanidentity 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 socialidentity processes. For example, work on inter- group empathy finds that empathetic feelings for a person in need are reserved for ingroup members (Stu ¨rmer, Snyder, Kropp, & Siem, 2006). Global citizen identity relates to empathetic concern for ingroupandoutgroup 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 & Mo ¨ser, 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-Martı´ nez, & 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., & Mo ¨ser, 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-Martı´ nez, 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.

Stu ¨rmer, 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 ofInternational JournalofPsychology isthe property ofRoutledge anditscontent may notbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without thecopyright holder's expresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles for individual use.