Representations of global citizenship in a school environment.

Gibson, Shonda ; Reysen, Stephen

INTRODUCTION

As the world becomes more interconnected through increasing globalization, academic organizations are challenged to produce graduates who are prepared, in both practice and knowledge, to embrace and embody global citizenship (Bourn & Shiel, 2009). However, instructors are uncomfortable including topics such as global citizenship in their courses and lack the knowledge and skills needed to engender global citizen identity (Reimer & McLean, 2009). Given that instructors have a profound influence on students' comprehension and perception of information, as well as attitudes, behaviors, and values (Newcomb, 1943), instructors' perception and framing of concepts may unintentionally affect students' worldviews (Snider, Reysen, & Katzarska-Miller, 2013).

Global citizenship is defined as awareness, caring, embracing cultural diversity, promoting social justice and sustainability, and a sense of responsibility to act (Reysen, Larey, & Katzarska-Miller, 2012). The authors showed that one's normative environment (valued others prescribe the identity) and global awareness (knowledge of and connection to the world) predict identification with global citizens (i.e., felt connection to the social category), and global citizenship identification, in turn, predicts endorsement of intergroup empathy (concern for others outside one's ingroup), valuing diversity (appreciation and interest in diverse cultures), social justice (belief in human rights and equity), environmental sustainability (concern for the natural environment), intergroup helping (desire to help others outside one's ingroup), and responsibility to act (felt duty to act for the betterment of the world). The researchers suggest that the sociocultural settings in which individuals are embedded afford and engender global citizen identity (for additional information concerning antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship identification see Plante, Roberts, Reysen, & Gerbasi, in press; Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2012; Reysen, Katzarska-Miller, Gibson, & Hobson, 2013).

The concept of intentional worlds (Shweder, 1990) suggests that individuals inhabit meaning-filled sociocultural settings constructed by prior generations that influence, and are influenced by, individuals embedded in those environments. Instructors, as well as students, live and interact with everyday settings that may afford a global citizen identity and contain cultural patterns supportive of the social category. Instructors who are aware of global citizenship are likely to endorse the identity and model global citizen values in the classroom (Reimer & McLean, 2009). However, in what way instructors frame global citizenship can influence students' attitudes. For example, Snider and colleagues (2013) presented students with a description of globalization as either negative (job market becoming more competitive) or positive (job market becoming more culturally diverse).

Students exposed to the negatively framed message reported significantly lower global citizenship identification and less motivation to study in college than students presented with the positively framed message. If instructors frame their presentation of global citizenship positively, then students may view the instructor as prescribing the identity (i.e., normative environment) resulting in greater global citizenship identification and prosocial values and behaviors. Thus, there exists a dialectical relationship between instructors and students. Instructors live in a world that shapes their values and they actively display certain behaviors and values in the classroom that, in turn, influences students.

OVERVIEW OF PRESENT RESEARCH

The purposes of the present set of studies are to examine instructors' awareness and attitudes toward global citizenship and the influence of global citizen message frames on students' identification and related values (e.g., social justice). In Study 1 instructors were asked to define and rate their attitude toward topics related to global education (globalization, diversity, culture, global citizen) and complete measures of antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship. Based on prior research (Reimer & McLean, 2009), we predict that instructors will report less knowledge and desire to incorporate global citizenship (as compared to the other topics) in the classroom. Consistent with the notion that individuals must first be aware of the identity prior to experiencing a connection with global citizens, the authors examine the outcome of awareness of global citizenship on the global citizen measures. Utilizing the definitions provided by instructors, in Study 2 we present different framings of global citizenship to students to examine the effect on Reysen and Katzarska-Miller's (2012) structural model of antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship. Based on prior research (Snider, et al. 2013), the authors of this study predict that a positively (vs. negatively) framed message will lead to greater global citizenship identification and academic motivation.

STUDY 1

The purposes of Study 1 are to examine college instructors' attitudes toward global citizenship and related concepts, as well as the relationship between awareness of the identity and global citizenship identification.

METHODOLOGY

Participants and Procedure

Participants (N = 101, 55.4% women; [M.sub.age] = 51.12, SD = 10.69) included faculty at Texas A&M University-Commerce. Participants had taught for an average of 16.25 years (SD = 10.98) in areas of business (26.7%), education and human services (39.6%), humanities and social sciences (21.8%), science and technology (8.9%), and athletics (3%). The instructors defined and rated their attitudes toward global education topics and completed measures of antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship. All measures used a 7-point Likert-type response scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

Measures

Faculty were presented with four topics: globalization, diversity, culture, global citizenship, and asked to define, describe how they would present the topic in class, and rate their attitudes regarding each topic. Five single-item measures assessed applicability of the topic "The topic of insert topic is applicable to my teaching area" (Applicable to Area), frequency the topic is currently discussed in class "I often discuss topic in my courses" (Often Discuss), perceived knowledge of the topic "I feel knowledgeable presenting the topic of topic in my courses" (Knowledgeable), motivation to include the topic in classes "I am motivated to include more coverage of topic in my courses" (Motivated to Include), and felt comfort in giving personal views regarding the topic in class "I feel comfortable at TAMU-C giving my personal views about topic in my courses" (Comfort Giving View). Antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship were assessed with twenty two (22) items adopted from prior research (Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2012; Reysen et al., 2012), including normative environment ([alpha] = .91, for a review of Cronbach's alpha as a measure of scale reliability see DeVellis, 1991), global awareness ([alpha] = .82), global citizenship identification ([alpha] = .93), intergroup empathy ([alpha] = .82), valuing diversity ([alpha] = .66), social justice ([alpha] = .81), environmental sustainability ([alpha] = .77), intergroup helping ([alpha] = .74), and responsibility to act ([alpha] = .68).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To examine whether faculty held different attitudes toward the topics, we conducted a series of repeated measures ANOVAs (a separate ANOVA was conducted for each attitude), using a Sidak correction for multiple comparisons (see Table 1 for means, standard deviations, and mean differences). Similar to prior research (Reimer & McLean, 2009), instructors viewed global citizenship as unrelated to their academic area, were unlikely to raise the topic of global citizenship in class, felt unknowledgeable about the topic, lacked motivation to include the topic, and felt more uncomfortable giving their personal opinion about global citizenship than the other topics. This is evidenced by the lower means for each attitude (e.g., Often Discuss) in the global citizen column (vs. the other topic columns) as shown in Table 1. In effect, compared to other global education topics, instructors felt unknowledgeable and uncomfortable with global citizenship. The definitions of global citizenship tended to center on a greater awareness of the world (n = 58, 57.4%), although a small portion wrote disparaging comments. Many instructors stated they did not know the definition of global citizenship (n = 21, 20.8%) or simply did not provide a response (n = 22, 21.8%).

To examine differences in global citizenship measures depending on instructors' awareness of the identity (operationalized as whether the instructors answered, did not answer, or stated that they did not know the definition of global citizenship) the authors conducted a MANOVA (using Tukey's correction for multiple comparisons) with awareness of the identity as the independent variable (answered, no answer, do not know) and antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship as dependent variables, Wilks' A = .62, F(9, 90) = 2.70, p < .001, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] = .21. As shown in Table 2, faculty who did not know the definition of global citizenship rated their normative environment, global awareness, global citizenship identification, valuing diversity, social justice, and felt responsibility to act for the betterment of the world significantly lower than faculty who provided a definition of global citizenship.

The results of Study 1 suggest that faculty lack the knowledge and motivation to weave global citizenship into their class curriculum. A sizable number of faculty members indicated that they were unaware of global citizen identity. Compared to instructors who provided a definition of global citizenship, unaware faculty perceived their normative environment as unsupportive of the identity, felt less knowledgeable and connected to the world (i.e., global awareness), and were less identified with global citizens (see Table 2). Besides omission of a definition, or explicit statement of lack of awareness, instructors defined global citizenship in terms of being globally aware or, in a small number of respondents, with disparaging comments. We present these representations to students in Study 2.

STUDY 2

The purpose of Study 2 is to examine the effect of instructors' presentations of global citizenship (based on definitions provided in Study 1) on students' antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship.

METHODOLOGY

Participants and Procedure

Participants (N = 413, 56.9% women; [M.sub.age] = 30.55, SD = 8.90) included students from Texas A&M University-Commerce. Participants were randomly assigned to read a lecture regarding global citizenship framed in terms of awareness or disparaging comments, or a lecture unrelated to global citizenship (control condition). Participants then completed measures regarding positive and negative affect, antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship, perceived formality of the lecture, and demographic items. The measures used a 7-point Likert-type response scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

Materials

Lectures-Based on instructors' definitions of global citizenship (Study 1), the authors constructed three fictitious lectures. The first lecture described global citizenship as becoming globally aware (e.g., "Global Citizenship relates to the individual's awareness of other cultures, countries, races, traditions, and resources"). A second lecture described global citizenship with a negative connotation (e.g., "This sounds like politically correct jargon to me and more a religion than a science"). A third lecture described how a thermometer works (control condition).

Measures-Participants completed Watson, Clark, and Tellegen's (1998) positive ([alpha] = .93) and negative ([alpha] = .90) affect scales. Antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship were assessed using the same measures as Study 1: normative environment ([alpha] = .94), global awareness ([alpha] = .83), global citizenship identification ([alpha] = .95), intergroup empathy ([alpha] = .78), valuing diversity ([alpha] = .84), social justice ([alpha] = .79), environmental sustainability ([alpha] = .80), intergroup helping ([alpha] = .79), and responsibility to act ([alpha] = .82). Three items "Right now, I feel motivated to work hard in college" were adopted from Snider et al. (2013) and combined to assess students' academic motivation ([alpha] = .79). One item "The professor's lecture was formal" assessed the perception that the lecture was formally presented.

RESULTS

To examine the effect of lecture frame on the assessed variables (see rows in Table 3 for the dependent measures), the authors conducted a MANOVA (using Tukey's correction for multiple comparisons) with lecture (aware, control, disparaging comments) as the independent variable and the assessed measures (e.g., global awareness, global citizen identification) as dependent variables, Wilks' [LAMBDA] = .77, f(13, 398) = 4.29,p < .001, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] = .12. As shown in Table 3, students exposed to the lecture describing global citizenship in terms of awareness rated their degree of normative environment, global awareness, global citizenship identification, intergroup empathy, felt responsibility to act, academic motivation, and positive affect significantly higher than participants exposed to the lecture containing disparaging comments regarding global citizenship. Although the participants in the awareness (vs. disparaging comments) lecture condition showed significantly greater global citizenship identification, the higher ratings may be due to participants' emotional experience or the formality of the lecture.

To test whether emotional experience, formality of the lecture, and antecedents to global citizenship mediate the relationship between the lecture manipulation and global citizenship identification the authors conducted a multiple mediator analysis using Preacher and Hayes' (2008) SPSS macro (with bias-corrected bootstrapping, 5,000 iterations). The lecture manipulation (-1 = disparaging comments, 0 = control, +1 = awareness) was entered as the independent variable, antecedents of global citizenship (normative environment, global awareness), affect (positive, negative), and formality of the lecture as mediators, and global citizenship identification as the dependent variable. The lecture manipulation predicted global citizenship identification ([beta] = .18, p < .001), normative environment ([beta] = .21, p < .001), global awareness ([beta] = .12, p = .013), positive affect ([beta] = .19, p < .001), and formality of the lecture ([beta] = .35, p < .001), but did not significantly predict negative affect ([beta] = -.05, p = .349). Normative environment ([beta] = .54, p < .001), global awareness ([beta] = .37, p < .001), and negative affect ([beta] = .06, p = .020) predicted identification with global citizens, while positive affect ([beta] = .02, p = .486) and formality of the lecture ([beta] = .01, p = .748) did not. The mediators significantly reduced the relationship between manipulation of lecture frame and global citizenship identification ([beta] = .02, p = .571).

The total effect of the mediators showed a full mediation of the relationship between manipulation and global citizenship identification as indicated by the absence of zero between the 95% confidence interval at the p < .05 (two tailed) level (CI = .154 to .483). Normative environment (CI = .114 to .331) and global awareness (CI = .020 to .171) were significant mediators of the relationship between the manipulation and global citizenship identification, while positive (CI = -.015 to .036) and negative (CI = -.027 to .005) affect and formality of the lecture (CI = -.036 to .052) were not. Because participants' emotional reaction to the manipulation and the perceived formality of the lecture did not mediate the relationship between the manipulation and global citizenship identification, we next tested the influence of the manipulation on Reysen and Katzarska-Miller's (2012) structural model of antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship identification (omitting affect and formality of the lecture).

To test the influence of the lecture manipulation on antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship, a structural equation model was conducted using Amos 19 bias-corrected bootstrapping, 5,000 iterations, 95% confidence intervals. Due to the related nature of the prosocial values to one another and the antecedents to one another, the disturbance terms for these sets of variables were allowed to covary. Identical to Reysen and Katzarska-Miller (2012), the error terms for two global awareness items were allowed to covary (for more information regarding structural equation models see Kline, 2005). Items loaded well on each of the factors, including normative environment ([beta] = .82 to .92), global awareness ([beta] = .56 to .92), global citizenship identification ([beta] = .95, .95), intergroup empathy ([beta] = .74, .87), valuing diversity ([beta] = .85, .86), social justice ([beta] = .79, .84), environmental sustainability ([beta] = .75, .89), intergroup helping ([beta] = .77, .86), and responsibility to act ([beta] = .83, .84). The predicted model adequately fit the data, [chi square] (204) = 733.61, p < .001; RMSEA = .079, CI{.073; .086}, NFI = .904, CFI = .929.

As shown in Figure 1, the lecture manipulation predicted normative environment ([beta] = .21, p < .001, CI = .121 to .304), but not global awareness ([beta] = .10, p = .052, CI = -.001 to .198). Normative environment ([beta] = .62,p < .001, CI = .508 to .719) and global awareness ([beta] = .34, p = .001, CI = .216 to .447) predicted global citizenship identification. Global citizenship identification predicted intergroup empathy ([beta] = .75, p < .001, CI = .675 to .819), valuing diversity ([beta] = .69, p < .001, CI = .606 to .765), social justice ([beta] = .53, p = .001, CI = .444 to .633), environmental sustainability ([beta] = .50, p < .001, CI = .401 to .592), intergroup helping ([beta] = .42, p = .001, CI = .323 to .521), and felt responsibility to act ([beta] = .72, p < .001, CI = .635 to .782).

The indirect effect of the lecture manipulation was reliably carried by normative environment and global awareness on participants' identification with global citizens as appears in Table 4. The lecture manipulation also significantly predicted prosocial values through normative environment, global awareness, and global citizenship identification. The influence of normative environment and global awareness on prosocial values was reliably carried by global citizenship identification (see Table 4 for standardized betas of indirect effects and 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals; all indirect effects were significant at p < .002 two-tailed).

The results of Study 2 show that how instructors frame the presentation of global citizenship effects students' degree of global citizenship identification and academic motivation. A mediation analysis showed that the observed difference in identification was not due to students' emotional experience or their perceived formality of the different lectures. Rather, students exposed to the awareness (vs. disparaging comments) framing felt that valued others prescribed the global citizen identity, which led to greater identification, which then led to greater endorsement of prosocial values.

DISCUSSION

The purposes of the present set of studies were to examine instructors' awareness and attitudes toward global citizenship and the influence of global citizen message framing on students' identification and related values. Instructors indicated less knowledge and motivation to include global citizenship in their classes compared to other concepts. Furthermore, instructors who were unaware (vs. aware) of the definition of global citizenship expressed less connection with the social category (Study 1). Based on the definitions provided by instructors, students exposed to a description of global citizenship as being globally aware (vs. disparaging comments) perceived their normative environment as prescribing the identity, identified more strongly with global citizens, and subsequently endorsed prosocial values and behaviors (Study 2). Together, the results highlight the influence of instructors to engender students' global citizenship identification.

Educational institutions are increasingly called upon to produce graduates who embody and embrace global citizenship (Bourn & Shiel, 2009), yet instructors feel inexperienced and unable to incorporate the concept into their curriculum (Reimer & McLean, 2009). The results of Study 1 indeed show that faculty feel that global citizenship is unrelated to their discipline, lack knowledge and the motivation to incorporate, and feel uncomfortable discussing the topic in class compared to other topics globalization, diversity, culture. Examination of the definitions provided by faculty suggest that instructors who are unaware of global citizenship (indicated by an explicit statement that they do not know the definition of global citizenship) do not perceive valued others as prescribing the identity normative environment or feel knowledgeable and connected to others in the world global awareness compared to faculty who provided a definition. This finding suggests that these instructors engage in everyday environments that lack cultural patterns related to global citizenship. We suggested, and found, that lack of awareness of global citizen identity (vs. faculty who provided a definition) is related to less identification with global citizens. Because faculty can influence students' attitudes, values, and behaviors (Newcomb, 1943), we presented students with lectures compiled from instructors' definitions of global citizenship.

Following an intentional worlds (Shweder, 1990) perspective of the dialectical relationship between students and instructors, we predicted that instructors' framing of global citizenship would impact students' identification with global citizens. In Study 2, students presented with a lecture describing global citizenship as being globally aware (vs. disparaging connotation) viewed others in their normative environment as prescribing the identity and identified more strongly with global citizens. The structural equation model showed that framing the lecture in terms of being globally aware predicted higher ratings of one's normative environment which led to greater global citizenship identification which led to greater endorsement of prosocial values. This result supports the notion that faculty are valued individuals within students' normative environment.

Furthermore, the result suggests that instructors can display or model global citizen values, and have a positive impact on students' values and endorsed behaviors. Supporting prior research (Snider et al., 2013), positive (vs. disparaging) framing resulted in greater academic motivation. Exposure to the lecture of global citizenship as being globally aware resulted in students feeling more motivated to work hard and study in college. Additionally, the results of Study 2 support Reysen and Katzarska-Miller's (2012) model of antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship. Normative environment and global awareness (antecedents) predicted global citizenship identification, and identification predicted endorsement of intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and responsibility to act for the betterment of the world (outcomes).

Although the present studies highlight the variability of instructors' attitudes toward global citizenship and subsequent effects on students, there are limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, the present studies were conducted at one university. The results may differ in other cultural settings or with different participant populations (e.g., older adults). Second, we relied on vignettes to manipulate lecture framing in Study 2. Students may react to actual lectures differently, especially if the content is infused with curriculum over the course of a semester. Future research would benefit from examination of message framing in real life situations and chronic exposure to global citizen related content. Third, although the present results replicate prior research (Plante et al., in press; Reysen et al., 2012; Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2012; Reysen et al., 2013) examining the structural model of antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship identification, unmeasured variables may exist that are not currently included in the structural model.

The increasing global environment significantly impacts everyday activities, including the functions of organizations, businesses, groups, and individuals. Education is no exception to the influences of globalization, as shown in the agendas of top business, government, and civil society agendas. Globalization is consistently cited as a crucial issue in preparing individuals to function in an increasingly interconnected world. The continual changes, issues, challenges, and opportunities brought about by globalization have spurred and challenged higher education to create and continually develop a global orientation in both pedagogy and curriculum. The results of the present studies suggest that instructors would benefit from additional training to aid in infusing curriculum with global citizen related concepts. As shown in the present research, instructors serve as influential agents who can model global citizen values and impact students' perception of their normative environment. Engendering global citizenship identity leads students to endorse prosocial values (e.g., valuing diversity) and behaviors (e.g., environmental sustainability) and may aid in preparing students to function in the interconnected world.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

REFERENCES

Bourn, D., & Shiel, C. (2009). Global perspectives: Aligning agendas? Environmental Education Research, 15, 661-677.

DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. London: Sage.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Gilford Press.

Newcomb, T. M. (1943). Personality and social change: Attitude formation in a student community. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Plante, C. N., Roberts, S., Reysen, S., & Gerbasi, K. C. (in press). "One of us": Engagement with fandoms and global citizenship identification. Psychology of Popular Media Culture.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

Reimer, K., & McLean, L. R. (2009). Conceptual clarity and connections: Global education and teacher candidates. Canadian Journal of Education, 32, 903-926.

Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2012). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology. Advance online publication.

Reysen, S., Katzarska-Miller, I., Gibson, S. A., & Hobson, B. (2013). World knowledge and global citizenship: Factual and perceived world knowledge as predictors of global citizenship identification. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 5, 49-68.

Reysen, S., Larey, L. W., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2012). College course curriculum and global citizenship. International Journal for Development Education and Global Learning, 4, 27-39.

Shweder, R. A. (1990). Cultural psychology--what is it? In J. Stigler, R. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 1-46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Snider, J. S., Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). How we frame the message of globalization matters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1599-1607.

Shonda Gibson

Stephen Reysen

Texas A&M University-Commerce

Shonda Gibson is the Executive Director of Global Learning at Texas A&M University-Commerce. She teaches courses in business and psychology. Her research focuses on engendering global citizenship identification in students.

Stephen Reysen is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Texas A&M University-Commerce. He teaches classes related to social psychology, intergroup relations, and multicultural diversity. His research interests include topics related to personal (e.g., fanship) and social identity (e.g., global citizenship).

Table 1
Repeated Measures Means (Standard Deviation) of Attitudes by
Topic, Study 1

                                   Global

Variable               Globalization      Diversity

Applicable to Area     5.37 (1.89) (a)    5.88 (1.61) (ab)
Often Discuss          4.72 (1.99) (a)    5.51 (1.79) (b)
Knowledgeable          4.82 (1.81) (a)    5.58 (1.51) (b)
Motivated to Include   4.83 (1.88) (a)    5.17 (1.79) (a)
Comfort Giving View    5.18 (1.86) (ab)   5.42 (1.72) (a)

                                         Global

Variable               Global Culture    Citizen           F(3, 98)

Applicable to Area     5.93 (1.60) (b)   4.58 (2.01) (c)   24.23
Often Discuss          5.46 (1.76) (b)   3.76 (2.05) (c)   38.10
Knowledgeable          5.50 (1.65) (b)   4.19 (1.96) (c)   30.91
Motivated to Include   5.28 (1.75) (a)   4.13 (1.98) (b)   20.40
Comfort Giving View    5.45 (1.81) (a)   4.79 (1.96) (b)   8.34

                       Global

Variable               [[eta].sub.p.sup.2]

Applicable to Area     .195
Often Discuss          .276
Knowledgeable          .236
Motivated to Include   .169
Comfort Giving View    .077

Note: Means with differing subscripts are significantly different
(p < .05). All repeated measures ANOVAs were significant at
p < .001. 7-point Likert-type scale, from 1 = strongly disagree
to 7 = strongly agree, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] = partial eta squared.

Table 2
Means (Standard Deviation) by Response, Study 1

Variable                Answered          No Answer

Normative Environment   5.19 (1.18) (a)   4.61 (1.35) (ab)
Global Awareness        6.04 (0.95) (a)   5.59 (0.95) (a)
Global Citizenship ID   5.58 (1.28) (a)   4.43 (1.22) (b)
Intergroup Empathy      5.96 (1.11) (a)   5.41 (1.27) (a)
Valuing Diversity       5.92 (1.04) (a)   5.39 (1.22) (a)
Social Justice          5.83 (1.34) (a)   5.57 (1.24) (ab)
Environmental Concern   5.89 (1.25) (a)   5.86 (1.29) (a)
Intergroup Helping      5.99 (1.11) (a)   5.72 (1.21) (a)
Responsibility to Act   6.02 (0.99) (a)   5.57 (1.08) (ab)

Variable                Do Not Know       F(3, 98)   p-value

Normative Environment   3.77 (1.76) (b)   8.58       .000
Global Awareness        4.83 (1.58) (b)   9.26       .000
Global Citizenship ID   3.43 (2.03) (c)   18.27      .000
Intergroup Empathy      5.26 (1.48) (a)   3.22       .044
Valuing Diversity       4.62 (1.37) (b)   10.08      .000
Social Justice          4.95 (1.47) (b)   3.32       .040
Environmental Concern   5.60 (1.41) (a)   0.41       .666
Intergroup Helping      5.48 (1.40) (a)   1.53       .223
Responsibility to Act   5.05 (1.70) (b)   5.35       .006

Variable                [[eta].sub.p.sup.2]

Normative Environment   .149
Global Awareness        .159
Global Citizenship ID   .272
Intergroup Empathy      .062
Valuing Diversity       .171
Social Justice          .064
Environmental Concern   .008
Intergroup Helping      .030
Responsibility to Act   .098

Note: Means with differing subscripts are significantly different
(p < .05). 7-point Likert-type scale, from 1 = strongly disagree
to 7 = strongly agree. [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] = partial eta squared.

Table 3
Means (Standard Deviation) of Global Citizen Measures, Affect,
and Lecture Formality by Content of Lecture, Study 2

Variable                Aware             Control

Normative Environment   4.84 (1.35) (a)   4.47 (1.50) (ab)
Global Awareness        5.23 (1.12) (a)   4.95 (1.27) (ab)
Global Citizen ID       4.86 (1.52) (a)   4.48 (1.65) (ab)
Intergroup Empathy      5.36 (1.28) (a)   5.04 (1.40) (ab)
Valuing Diversity       5.30 (1.33) (a)   5.02 (1.45) (a)
Social Justice          5.76 (1.37) (a)   5.41 (1.47) (a)
Environmentali sm       5.38 (1.19) (a)   5.47 (1.36) (a)
Intergroup Helping      5.82 (1.19) (a)   5.34 (1.40) (b)
Responsibility to Act   5.58 (1.22) (a)   5.04 (1.38) (b)
Academic Motivation     5.66 (1.06) (a)   5.18 (1.37) (b)
Positive Affect         4.75 (1.08) (a)   4.15 (1.30) (b)
Negative Affect         2.20 (1.08) (a)   2.13 (1.05) (a)
Lecture Formality       4.80 (1.37) (a)   4.73 (1.53) (a)

Variable                Negative           F(2, 410)   p-value

Normative Environment   4.09 (1.54) (b)    9.02        .000
Global Awareness        4.84 (1.35) (b)    3.32        .037
Global Citizen ID       4.15 (1.63) (b)    6.69        .001
Intergroup Empathy      4.92 (1.48) (b)    3.49        .032
Valuing Diversity       5.00 (1.45) (a)    1.78        .171
Social Justice          5.49 (1.34) (a)    2.17        .116
Environmentali sm       5.52 (1.41) (a)    2.19        .114
Intergroup Helping      5.53 (1.41) (ab)   4.06        .018
Responsibility to Act   5.12 (1.36) (b)    6.01        .003
Academic Motivation     5.26 (1.33) (b)    5.29        .005
Positive Affect         4.14 (1.37) (b)    9.97        .000
Negative Affect         2.31 (1.04) (a)    1.06        .348
Lecture Formality       3.36 (1.82) (b)    37.58       .000

Variable                [[eta].sub.p.sup.2]

Normative Environment   .042
Global Awareness        .016
Global Citizen ID       .032
Intergroup Empathy      .017
Valuing Diversity       .009
Social Justice          .010
Environmentali sm       .011
Intergroup Helping      .019
Responsibility to Act   .028
Academic Motivation     .025
Positive Affect         .046
Negative Affect         .005
Lecture Formality       .155

Note: Means with differing subscripts are significantly different
(p < .05). 7-point Likert-type scale, from 1 = strongly disagree
to 7 = strongly agree. [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] = partial eta squared.

Table 4
Indirect Effects of Lecture Manipulation, Normative Environment,
and Global Awareness, Study 2

                                  Lecture Manipulation

Variable                Indirect   [CI.sub.Lower]   [CI.sub.Upper]

Global Citizenship ID     .16           .085             .245
Intergroup Empathy        .12           .064             .185
Valuing Diversity         .11           .060             .171
Social Justice            .09           .047             .137
Environmentali sm         .08           .042             .125
Intergroup Helping        .07           .036             .112
Responsibility to Act     .12           .061             .178

                                  Normative Environment

Variable                Indirect   [CI.sub.Lower]   [CI.sub.Upper]

Global Citizenship ID      --            --               --
Intergroup Empathy        .47           .380             .551
Valuing Diversity         .43           .354             .510
Social Justice            .34           .262             .425
Environmentali sm         .31           .242             .389
Intergroup Helping        .26           .196             .342
Responsibility to Act     .44           .365             .526

                                    Global Awareness

Variable                Indirect   [CI.sub.Lower]   [CI.sub.Upper]

Global Citizenship ID      --            --               --
Intergroup Empathy        .25           .160             .349
Valuing Diversity         .23           .145             .329
Social Justice            .18           .112             .256
Environmentali sm         .16           .099             .243
Intergroup Helping        .14           .082             .214
Responsibility to Act     .24           .150             .333

Note: Standardized betas and 95% confidence intervals, bias-corrected
bootstrapping with 5,000 iterations, all indirect effects are
significant at p < .002. [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] = partial eta squared.