Journal of Global Citizenship & Equity Education, Vol 3, No 1 (2013)

Intentional Worlds and Global Citizenship

Journal of Global Citizenship & Equity Education
Volume 3 Number 1 2013
journals.sfu.ca/jgcee

Printer Friendly Version

Intentional Worlds and Global Citizenship


Stephen Reysen, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
Department of Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education
Texas A&M University-Commerce


Iva Katzarska-Miller, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Psychology
Transylvania University

Keywords: Intentional Worlds, Mutual Constitution, Global Citizen, Global Awareness

ABSTRACT: We examine the influence of students' understanding of intentional worlds on antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship. The intentional worlds scale contains four dimensions (cultural grounding of psychological experience, culture as socially constructed, dynamic construction of culture, and subjective experience of reality) that load on a higher-order latent construct representing a belief in intentional worlds. The belief in intentional worlds predicts antecedents (normative environment, global awareness), antecedents predict global citizenship identification, and identification with global citizens predicts prosocial outcomes (intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, responsibility to act). Overall, the results show that a greater understanding of culture as fluid and dynamic predicts greater global citizenship identification.


Psychologists have long contemplated and examined the interplay between cultures and individuals (see Oishi & Graham, 2010; Shweder & Sullivan, 1993). In his treatise of cultural psychology, Richard Shweder (1990) defines the discipline as the study of intentional worlds. Intentional worlds are described as meaning-filled sociocultural settings constructed by prior generations that influence, and are influenced by, individuals inhabiting those environments. Sociocultural settings are meaning-filled because they contain mental representations (e.g., beliefs, desires, emotions) from people inhabiting those environments. Because culture shapes people, and people shape culture, the two are inextricably linked and are mutually constituted in a dialectical relationship. To simplify, and for the purpose of the present paper, Shweder's main points about culture as intentional worlds include: (1) intentional worlds are filled with cultural patterns inherited from prior generations, (2) the worlds are subjectively experienced as reality, (3) intentional worlds direct and shape human experience, and (4) individuals actively facilitate, repress, and transform the cultural stuff that makes up the intentional world. In the present paper we examine the influence of belief in intentional worlds on antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship identification.

The dialectical relationship between psychological processes and culture has been elaborated on in subsequent discussions of the mutual constitution of mind and psyche (e.g., Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, & Nisbett, 1998) and the patterns view of culture (e.g., Adams & Markus, 2004). Although the concept of mutual constitution and patterns view of culture are consistent with the notion of intentional worlds, the researchers highlight the two halves of the mutually constituted relationship. The first half of the dialectical relationship (i.e., culture influences individual) posits that individuals inhabit socially constructed and historically evolved everyday worlds that afford particular cultural patterns (e.g., social representations, identities, beliefs, values, norms, habits, motivation, desires) that provide scaffolding for experience and direct behavior toward collectively desired ends (Adams, Salter, Pickett, Kurtis, & Phillips, 2010). In other words, psychological experience is culturally grounded (Adams & Markus, 2004), or stated differently, psychological experience is culturally constituted (Adams, 2012). The second half of the dialectical relationship (i.e., individual influences culture) posits that individuals actively select cultural patterns that they reproduce, modify, or reject and through everyday actions inscribe patterns back in the intentional world (Adams et al., 2010). In other words, cultural worlds are dynamically constructed (Adams & Markus, 2004), or stated differently, intentional worlds are psychologically constituted (Adams, 2012).

Understanding Culture

A recent trend in organizational psychology is the examination of cultural intelligence or cultural competency. Openness to new experiences and exposure to other cultures (e.g., travel abroad) predict greater cultural intelligence, and outcomes include greater sociocultural and psychological adjustment when traveling, less emotional exhaustion, greater interpersonal trust and cooperation when working with diverse others, and greater ability to adapt and work effectively in international contexts (see Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2012). The research examining cultural intelligence thus far indicates that the perception of one's knowledge of culture has an impact on how individuals view the world and work within that world. However, the most popular measure of cultural intelligence fails to assess respondents' perspective of culture. Individuals may view culture as a monolithic entity or as intentional worlds and report similar scores with respect to their degree of cultural intelligence.

Belief in, or understanding of, intentional worlds may relate to how individuals perceive the world and others in the world. For example, Adams and Markus (2004) detail the negative outcomes of viewing culture from an entity perspective (e.g., greater tendency to stereotype, homogenize, essentialize, and reify social categories) versus viewing culture from a patterns perspective (e.g., patterns are implicit and explicit, historically derived and selected, mental and material, and culture and psyche are mutually constituted). The patterns view of culture is reminiscent of the concept of intentional worlds and is purported to reduce the likelihood of reifying and stereotyping others. Indeed, Shweder (2000) asserts that holding the "correct" perspective of culture can reduce the negative outcomes of viewing differences between people in the globalized and multicultural world. In effect, viewing the world through an intentional worlds lens may influence the perception of the self and others in the world.

Although indirectly, Adams, Edkins, Lacka, Pickett, and Cheryan (2008) provide evidence for the notion that viewing everyday issues through an intentional worlds lens has important implications for the perception of racism. Adams and colleagues presented White college students with tutorials regarding racism reflecting topics from mainstream psychology textbooks, a sociocultural account (with an emphasis on mutual constitution and intentional worlds), or no tutorial was presented. Students exposed to the sociocultural tutorial were less likely to perceive racism as originating from individual biases and more likely to perceive racism as systemic than students in the other conditions. Thus, educating students about racism from a sociocultural approach (derived from an understanding of mutual constitution and intentional worlds) led students to perceive racism as more systemically based than those who were presented with current mainstream presentations of racism or no presentation. Although viewing events through an intentional worlds perspective is related to a lower likelihood of viewing individuals as causal agents of racism, awareness or belief in culture as intentional worlds may have other positive outcomes such as engendering greater global citizenship identification.

Global Citizenship

The increasing globalization and interconnectedness of the world affords individuals the opportunity to construct or self-identify with more inclusive superordinate social categories (Arnett, 2002). One such identity — global citizen — 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). Recent empirical research conducted by Reysen and Katzarska-Miller (2013a), shows that greater identification, or psychological connection, with global citizens predicts greater endorsement of prosocial values, including intergroup empathy (felt connection and concern for people outside one's ingroup), valuing diversity (appreciation and interest of diverse cultures), social justice (endorsement of human rights and equitable treatment of others), environmental sustainability (concern for and connection to the natural environment), intergroup helping (desire to aid others outside one's ingroup), and a responsibility to act (felt duty to act for the betterment of the world). The results are consistent with a social identity perspective (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), as greater identification with the group global citizen predicted greater adherence to the group's content or meaning (i.e., prosocial values). Antecedents to global citizenship identification include the perception that valued others (e.g., friends, family) in one's normative environment prescribe being a global citizen and one's perceived global awareness (knowledge of and connection to the world).

Theoretical discussions often highlight global awareness as an antecedent to global citizenship (Hanvey, 1976; Haydon, 2006; Schattle, 2008; Walkington, 1999). For example, Hanvey (1976) described increasing levels of global and cultural awareness as a template to explain individuals' evolution to taking a global perspective. Hanvey posits that individuals start with (1) an awareness that others differ in their view of the world (and the other's view is shaped by unknown influences), leading to (2) greater factual knowledge of the world, which leads to (3) greater cross-cultural awareness and the ability to empathize with others, and finally (4) an increasing understanding of the underlying systems of global dynamics. It is at this higher level of awareness that Hanvey suggests individuals are able to understand that the world is complex, interconnected, culturally constituted, historically evolved, and humans have choices in the construction of future global patterns. Although not explicitly stated, the higher levels of global awareness, or global consciousness, are similar to an understanding of intentional worlds. In effect, the awareness of global dynamics and human choice that lead to a global perspective may reflect a greater understanding of culture, and more specifically an understanding of intentional worlds.

Understanding or belief in the dynamic nature of intentional worlds may reflect a more holistic perception of the world. For example, global citizenship education proponents (Pike, 2008; Selby, 1999; Young, 2010) stress the importance of teaching students to view the dynamic interconnectedness of relations in the world to engender global citizenship. The concept of intentional worlds is reminiscent of this worldview that is purported to engender global citizenship. A greater understanding of intentional worlds may therefore reflect greater global awareness and subsequently influence one's identification with global citizens.

Current Study

The purpose of the present study is to examine the influence of a belief in intentional worlds on antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship. Prior research (Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013a) shows that one's normative environment and global awareness predict global citizenship identification, and global citizenship identification, in turn, predicts endorsement of prosocial values. Research has begun to show that cultural competency has beneficial outcomes such as positive interpersonal relations, effective intercultural work practices (Ng et al., 2012), and reduced likelihood of locating racism in biased individuals (Adams et al., 2008). In line with suggestions from global citizenship education theorists (e.g., Hanvey, 1976; Haydon, 2006; Pike, 2008; Selby, 1999; Young, 2010) understanding the dynamic nature of culture may lead to greater global awareness. Therefore, the belief in intentional worlds (i.e., socially constructed and inherited, subjectively experienced as reality, culture shapes individuals, and individuals shape culture) may predict greater awareness of the world and one's interconnectedness to others in the world.

To test this notion, we administered measures of belief in intentional worlds and antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship to a sample of university students. Because there are no published intentional worlds scales, we used the present study as an opportunity to construct such a measure. Based on prior theorizing regarding intentional worlds (Shweder, 1990), mutual constitution (Fiske et al., 1998), and the patterns perspective of culture (Adams & Markus, 2004), we expect the construct of belief in intentional worlds to be comprised of four factors reflecting the belief that culture is (1) socially constructed and inherited, (2) subjectively experienced as reality, (3) conditions and shapes individuals, and (4) reciprocally shaped by individuals embedded in those worlds. Furthermore, based on prior discussion of global citizenship education (e.g., Hanvey, 1976; Pike, 2008; Selby, 1999; Young, 2010) we predict that a greater belief in intentional worlds (i.e., understanding of dynamic cultural interrelationships) will predict greater perceived global awareness. However, we are unsure whether a belief in intentional worlds will influence the perception of one's normative environment as prescribing global citizenship. The moderately strong relationship between normative environment and global awareness reported by Reysen and Katzarska-Miller (2013a) suggests that the belief in intentional worlds may increase the salience of others in one's normative environment as valuing the identity. Lastly, we expect to replicate the prior structural model of antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship identification shown in prior research.

Method


Participants and Design

Participants (N = 815, 58.7% women; Mage = 28.30, SD = 9.37) received partial course credit or extra credit toward their college course at Texas A&M University-Commerce. Students from a variety of college courses (e.g., psychology, political science, anthropology, marketing, English, business, sociology) were solicited to participate in the present study, constituting a convenience sample. Participants completed measures regarding global citizenship, belief in intentional worlds, and demographic items. With the exception of demographic information, all items utilized a 7-point Likert-type scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

Measures


Global citizenship.

We adopted 22 items from prior research (Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013a; Reysen et al., 2012) to assess antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship. Four items (e.g., "My friends think that being a global citizen is desirable") assessed the perception that others in one's normative environment valued being a global citizen (α = .90, for a review of Cronbach's alpha as a measure of scale reliability see DeVellis, 1991). Four items (e.g., "I understand how various cultures of this world interact socially") assessed global awareness (α = .80). Two items (e.g., "I strongly identify with global citizens") assessed global citizenship identification (α = .91). Two items (e.g., "I am able to empathize with people from other countries") assessed intergroup empathy (α = .77). Two items (e.g., "I am interested in learning about the many cultures that have existed in this world") assessed valuing diversity (α = .83). Two items (e.g., "Those countries that are well off should help people in countries who are less fortunate") assessed social justice (α = .70). Two items (e.g., "People have a responsibility to conserve natural resources to foster a sustainable environment") assessed environmental sustainability (α = .77). Two items (e.g., "If I could, I would dedicate my life to helping others no matter what country they are from") assessed intergroup helping (α = .73). Lastly, two items (e.g., "Being actively involved in global issues is my responsibility") assessed responsibility to act (α = .81).

Intentional worlds.

An initial pool of 53 items was constructed that reflected prior descriptions of intentional worlds (e.g., Shweder, 1990; Adams et al., 2010). Additionally, participants indicated what cultural space they were referencing while completing the measure. Participants indicated thinking about American culture (n = 441, 54.1%), multiple national cultures (n = 139, 17.1%), cultures related to ethnicity (n = 108, 13.3%), a non-US national culture (n = 83, 10.2%), and various other regional (e.g., southern US) or religious cultures (n = 44, 5.4%).

Results


Intentional Worlds Scale Construction

Because no measures exist to assess the extent to which individuals endorse or believe in intentional worlds, we examined the factor structure of the 53 items. To reduce possible gender bias in the final measure, we first conducted t-tests on each item and omitted items that showed significant gender differences (17 items omitted). To reduce possible differences in the final measure due to participants referencing different cultures (e.g., US vs. multiple cultures) we omitted items that showed significant differences between the culture that participants considered (4 items omitted). The remaining 32 items were examined in a series of principal components analyses. Both orthogonal and oblique rotations indicated that a four-factor solution best fit the data (see Table 1 for items and factor loadings). Factor One, "Cultural Grounding," contained items related to the influence of culture on individuals (eigenvalue = 4.99, 41.59% variance, α = .80). Factor Two, "Social Construction," included items related to the social construction of intentional worlds (eigenvalue = 1.18, 9.85% variance, α = .78). Factor Three, "Dynamic Construction," contained items related to one's perceived agency to modify and change culture (eigenvalue = 1.11, 9.28% variance, α = .77). Factor Four, "Subjective Experience," contained items related to the subjective experience of culture as reality (eigenvalue = 1.04, 8.64% variance, α = .74). Due to the high percentage of variance accounted for by the first factor and the scree plot suggesting a one-factor solution, we next examined the measurement model of the scale with the prediction that the four components will load on a higher-order latent factor representing belief in intentional worlds (for a review of measurement models see Kline, 2005).

Competing Measurement Models

We examined potential measurement models with Amos 19. Model One tested whether all the items loaded on a single factor representing belief in intentional worlds. Model Two tested whether the four components identified in the prior principal components analysis showed appropriate fit. Model Three tested whether the four components identified in the prior analyses loaded on a higher order latent variable representing belief in intentional worlds. As shown in Table 2, the lowest AIC and ECVI scores indicted that the four components loaded on a single higher order latent factor. The final model showed appropriate factor loadings on the four components and the components loaded on the second-order factor (i.e., belief in intentional worlds). The standardized beta factor loadings for the final belief in intentional worlds scale are shown in Figure 1.

Intentional Worlds and Global Citizenship

To examine the association between the components of belief in intentional worlds and antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship we conducted zero-order correlations. As shown in Table 3, each subscale of the intentional worlds scale was significantly positively correlated with the global citizen variables. To test the influence of participants' belief in intentional worlds on antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship, we conducted a structural equation model 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), we allowed the disturbance terms for these sets of variables to covary. Two error terms for global awareness items were allowed 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 (Hu & Bentler, 1995). Following Browne and Cudeck (1993), we set the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value of .08 as an acceptable level.

Items loaded well on each of the factors, including cultural grounding (.72 to .79), social construction (.67 to .82), dynamic construction (.67 to .79), subjective experience (.51 to .84), normative environment (.79 to .86), global awareness (.51 to .91), global citizenship identification (.91, .92), intergroup empathy (.71, .88), valuing diversity (.84, .86), social justice (.70, .76), environmental sustainability (.74, .85), intergroup helping (.75, .80), and responsibility to act (.78, .87). The predicted model adequately fit the data, χ² (496) = 1507.67, p < .001; RMSEA = .050, CI{.047; .053}, NFI = .903, CFI = .932.

As shown in Figure 2, cultural grounding (β = .82, p = .001, CI = .739 to .877), social construction (β = .77, p = .001, CI = .677 to .841), dynamic construction (β = .75, p < .001, CI = .684 to .812), and subjective experience (β = .74, p = .001, CI = .668 to .798) loaded on the belief in intentional worlds latent variable. The belief in intentional worlds predicted normative environment (β = .38, p < .001, CI = .294 to .456) and global awareness (β = .52, p < .001, CI = .436 to .592). Normative environment (β = .58, p < .001, CI = .506 to .653) and global awareness (β = .37, p < .001, CI = .292 to .450) predicted global citizenship identification. Global citizenship identification predicted intergroup empathy (β = .73, p < .001, CI = .664 to .780), valuing diversity (β = .64, p < .001, CI = .587 to .698), social justice (β = .46, p < .001, CI = .378 to .541), environmental sustainability (β = .48, p < .001, CI = .413 to .548), intergroup helping (β = .46, p < .001, CI = .378 to .532), and felt responsibility to act (β = .70, p < .001, CI = .636 to .753).

The indirect effect of belief in intentional worlds was reliably carried by normative environment and global awareness on students' identification with global citizens (see Table 2 for standardized betas of indirect effects and 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals; all indirect effects were significant at p < .001 two-tailed). The belief in intentional worlds also significantly predicted greater prosocial values through normative environment, global awareness, and global citizenship identification. The influence of normative environment and global awareness on prosocial values (e.g., social justice) was reliably carried by global citizenship identification. In effect, participants' belief in intentional worlds predicts greater normative environment and global awareness which then predicts greater identification with global citizens and subsequent endorsement of prosocial values.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to examine the influence of a belief in intentional worlds on antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship. We hypothesized, and found, that the intentional worlds scale included four dimensions: (1) psychological experience is culturally grounded, (2) culture is socially constructed and inherited, (3) culture is dynamically constructed, and (4) everyday experience of reality is subjective. Second, we hypothesized that a greater belief in intentional worlds would predict greater global awareness. This hypothesis was supported as participants' belief in intentional worlds predicted global awareness, as well as, participants' perception that their normative environment prescribes being a global citizen. Third, we hypothesized, that the results would replicate Reysen and Katzarska-Miller's (2013a) model of antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship identification. As expected, the antecedents predicted identification, and identification, in turn, predicted prosocial values. Overall, the results support the notion that endorsing the dynamic understanding of culture as intentional worlds predicts greater global citizenship identification and prosocial values.

Global Citizenship

Prior research (Reysen et al., 2012; Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013a) shows that one's normative environment and perceived global awareness predict greater identification with global citizens, and global citizenship identification predicts greater endorsement of prosocial values (intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, responsibility to act). The present results replicate the structural model of antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship identification. Although the concept of global citizenship may appear ambiguous due to the variety of perspectives (e.g., education, psychology, political science) from which theorists discuss and debate the concept (Reysen et al., 2013a), the results of the present study point to a consistent associative pattern of global citizenship identification mediating the relationship between antecedents and outcomes. Following the theoretical framework of social identity perspective (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987), when global citizen identity is salient, the more individuals experience a connection with the group the more they will adhere to the normative patterns reflecting the meaning of the group (i.e., prosocial values and behaviors). The model also highlights the antecedents to viewing the self as a global citizen.

In the present research, global awareness (perceived knowledge of the world and one's interconnectedness with others in the world) and one's normative environment (valued others prescribe global citizen identity) directly predict the degree to which individuals view the self as a global citizen. However, aspects of one's sociocultural settings that are associated with one's normative environment and global awareness remain largely unexplored. Recent research shows that participating in college courses infused with global curriculum increases one's global awareness (Reysen et al., 2012). Greater factual knowledge about the world predicts normative environment and global awareness (Reysen, Katzarska-Miller, Gibson, & Hobson, 2013). Furthermore, participating in social groups that prescribe a global citizen identity predicts normative environment and global awareness (Plante, Roberts, Reysen, & Gerbasi, in press). However, a variety of educational techniques and informal social interactions outside of traditional instruction (e.g., study abroad, model UN, examining subject matter from different perspectives) may enhance students' degree of identification with global citizens (for a review of global citizenship within educational settings see Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013b). Following suggestions from global citizenship education theorists (Pike, 2008; Selby, 1999; Young, 2010), the present study examined whether understanding or endorsing the belief that culture functions as intentional worlds (e.g., culture is dynamic and interconnected) predicts global citizenship antecedents.

Belief in Intentional Worlds

The perception that one is culturally competent is related to a number of beneficial outcomes (Ng et al., 2012). Yet, one's understanding of culture can vary from a reified nationalistic view to viewing culture as fluid and dynamic (Adams & Markus, 2004). One's perception of culture may influence how one views the world (Shweder, 2000). For example, taking a sociocultural (e.g., intentional worlds) view of racism leads to understanding the phenomenon as systemically based rather than locating racism in individuals' minds (Adams et al., 2008). The concept of intentional worlds (Shweder, 1990), together with later conceptualizations of mutual constitution (Fiske et al., 1998) and patterns view of culture (Adams & Markus, 2004), describe culture as (1) socially constructed and inherited, (2) subjectively experienced as reality, (3) conditioning individuals at one moment, and (4) dynamically constructed by individuals embedded in that culture.

Due to lack of measurement tools to assess endorsement of culture as intentional worlds, the present results offer initial evidence of a factor structure and predictive validity for the intentional worlds scale. Distinct from prior cultural competence measures (see Ng et al., 2012), the intentional worlds scale assesses participants' degree of understanding culture from a patterns perspective. After removing potentially gender and reference-culture biased items, the final measure showed four dimensions loading on a single higher-order latent variable. The four dimensions reflect the four main components of a belief in intentional worlds. The first factor, "Cultural Grounding," taps the belief that psychological experience is culturally grounded (i.e., culture shapes people). The second factor, "Social Construction," taps the belief that cultures are socially constructed by prior generations of human actors. The third factor, "Dynamic Construction," taps the belief that individuals have agency to reject, modify, or appropriate aspects of culture that then dynamically construct culture. The fourth factor, "Subjective Experience," taps the belief that one's experience of reality is subjective and that others' realities differ from one's own. We suggest that higher scores on the belief in intentional worlds scale represent a greater understanding or belief of culture as fluid, dynamic, subjective, evolved, and mutually constituted with individuals embedded in that culture.

Based on the notion that an understanding of the dynamic and interconnected nature of the world leads to greater global citizenship (Pike, 2008; Selby, 1999; Young, 2010), and the apparent overlap between descriptions of global awareness with the concept of intentional worlds (e.g., Hanvey, 1976; Haydon, 2006), we examined the influence of a belief in intentional worlds on antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship. The results of the present study show that individuals who express a greater belief in culture as intentional worlds view valued others in their normative environment as prescribing a global citizen identity and perceive one as globally aware (i.e., knowledge about and connected to others in the world). Furthermore, the belief in intentional worlds indirectly predicted greater global citizenship through the antecedents, and predicted endorsement of prosocial values through the antecedents and global citizenship identification. The results support calls (e.g., Young, 2010) for global citizenship education to highlight the dynamic nature of culture and the world's interconnectedness. Based on the present results, perhaps requiring greater instruction to teach students about culture is advisable. Understanding or viewing the plurality of cultures through an intentional world lens predicts greater global awareness and perception of a supportive normative environment, global citizenship identification, and endorsement of prosocial values and behaviors.

Limitations

The present study is limited with respect to the generalizability of the results. Participants included college students at a single university. The results may differ for participants embedded in other cultural settings or from other populations (e.g., older adults). However, prior research in other cultural spaces suggests that the associations between global citizenship identification and prosocial values are relatively consistent across diverse samples (Katzarska-Miller, Reysen, Kamble, & Vithoji, 2012). The current results are correlational. Thus, it is impossible to determine whether a belief in intentional worlds leads to changes in global citizenship or whether, conversely, identification with global citizens leads to a belief in intentional worlds. Further research is needed that experimentally manipulates participants' belief in intentional worlds and assesses changes in degree of global citizenship identification. The present results may not be ecologically valid. Further research examining real world situations (e.g., helping behavior) would be fruitful. We used Cronbach's alpha to calculate the reliability of the measures in the present studies. Although this is most common indicator of reliability, the statistic may not be the most reliable measure for ordinal items (Gadermann, Guhn, & Zumbo, 2012). Similarly, caution is warranted in interpreting the amount of variance accounted for with principle components analysis (Costello & Osborne, 2005).

Additionally, the present results provide only initial evidence of the factor structure and convergent validity of the belief in intentional worlds scale. A confirmatory factor analysis with a second participant sample is needed to examine the reliability of the factor structure and associations with similar and dissimilar constructs. For example, the belief in intentional worlds should be related to greater appreciation for cultural diversity, cultural intelligence, and endorsement of the notion of concepts such as White privilege. Lastly, although the present results replicate prior research (Plante et al., in press; Reysen et al., 2013; Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013a; Reysen et al., 2012) examining the structural model of antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship identification, there may exist unmeasured variables that are not currently included in the structural model.

Conclusion

The present study examined the belief in intentional worlds on antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship. A greater belief in intentional worlds predicted viewing valued others in one's normative environment as prescribing a global citizen identity and one's self as globally aware. Normative environment and global awareness (antecedents) predicted greater global citizenship identification, and identification predicted greater endorsement of intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and felt responsibility to act for the betterment of the world (outcomes). The belief in intentional worlds predicted global citizenship identification through the antecedents and endorsement of prosocial values through the antecedents and global citizenship identification. Together, the results support greater educational focus on the dynamic and interconnected nature of the world to engender global citizenship identification and subsequently influence individuals' prosocial values and behaviors.

References


Adams, G. (2012). Context in person, person in context: A cultural psychology approach to social-personality psychology. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 182-208). New York: Oxford University Press.


Adams, G., Edkins, V., Lacka, D., Pickett, K. M., & Cheryan, S. (2008). Teaching about racism: Pernicious implications of the standard portrayal. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 349-361.


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.


Adams, G., Salter, P. S., Pickett, K. M., Kurtis, T., & Phillips, N. L. (2010). Behavior as mind in context: A cultural psychology analysis of "paranoid" suspicion in West African worlds. In B. Mesquita, L. F. Barrett, & E. R. Smith (Eds.), The mind in context (pp. 277-306). New York: Guilford.


Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57, 774-783.


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.


Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 1-9.


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


Fiske, A. P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 554-594). Boston: McGraw-Hill.


Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17, 1-13.


Hanvey, R. G. (1976). An attainable global perspective. New York: Global Perspectives in Education.


Haydon, G. (2006). Respect for persons and for cultures as a basis for national and global citizenship. Journal of Moral Education, 35, 457-471.


Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P.M. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle(Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Katzarska-Miller, I., Reysen, S., Kamble, S. V., & Vithoji, N. (2012). Cross-national differences in global citizenship: Comparison of Bulgaria, India, and the United States. Journal of Globalization Studies, 3, 166-183.


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


Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2012). Cultural intelligence: A review, reflections, and recommendations for future research. In A. M. Ryan, F. T. L. Leong, & F. L. Oswald (Eds.), Conducting multinational research: Applying organizational psychology in the workplace (pp. 29-58). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.


Oishi, S., & Graham, J. (2010). Social ecology: Lost and found in psychological science.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 356-377.


Pike, G. (2008). Citizenship education in global context. Brock Education, 17, 38-49.


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.


Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013a). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 858-870.


Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013b). Student pathways to global citizenship. In C. Boyle (Ed.), Student learning: Improving practice (pp. 121-137). Hauppauge, NY: Nova.


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, 27-9.


Schattle, H. (2008). The practices of global citizenship. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.


Selby, D. (1999). Global education: Towards a quantum model of environmental education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 4, 125-141.


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.


Shweder, R. A. (2000). Moral maps, "first world" conceits, and the new evangelists. In L. E.Harrison & S. P. Huntington (Eds.), Culture matters: How values shape human progress (pp. 158-176). New York: Basic Books.


Shweder, R. A., & Sullivan, M. A. (1993). Cultural psychology: Who needs it? Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 497-523.


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: Blackwell.


Walkington, H. (1999). Theory into practice: Global citizenship education. Sheffield, UK:Geographical Association.


Young, J. M. (2010). Problems with global education: Conceptual contradictions. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56, 143-156.


Tables and Figures


Table 1 Summary statistics for Aboriginals, APS 2001 & APS 2006


Factor Loadings
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Item 1: What people think of as essentially "them" is a reflection of what their culture values and desires. .815 .104 .175 .208
Item 2: By engaging in everyday behaviors people are reinforcing the behaviors that are desired by my culture. .767 .238 .177 .117
Item 3: People in one's culture value certain behaviors that other people reproduce in everyday interactions. .751 .216 .197 .236
Item 4: National identity is created by previous generations of people. .156 .817 .097 .159
Item 5: Prior generations of people have unknowingly constructed a world that is full of patterns of behavior. .168 .770 .161 .116
Item 6: People live in culturally created worlds that prior generations of people have built. .201 .748 .214 .250
Item 7: People do not simply do what their culture tells them to; they have the ability to change their culture. .076 .180 .816 .167
Item 8: People's everyday actions can influence others and modify the culture. .261 .163 .795 .088
Item 9: People can pick and choose what aspects of their culture they enact in their daily lives. .207 .112 .717 .225
Item 10: An individual's subjective experience of reality differs from everyone else's experience of the world. .242 .194 .150 .796
Item 11: Everyone inhabits different cultures and has different views of the world. .224 .146 .157 .795
Item 12: There is no such thing as "objective reality" because everyone experiences the world differently .077 .150 .150 .681

Note: Final solution. Factor 1 = "Cultural Grounding," Factor 2 = "Social Construction," Factor 3 = "Dynamic Construction," Factor 4 = "Subjective Experience."


Table 2 Fit of Competing Measurement Models of Belief in Intentional Worlds


Model Fit Statistics
Model X2 (df) CFI NFI RMSEA
{90% CI}
AIC ECVI
{90% CI}
Model One: Single Component 916.82 (54) .762 .751 .140{.132, .148} 964.82 1.19{1.07, 1.31}
Model Two: Four Components 97.54 (48) .986 .974 .036{.025, .046} 157.54 .194{.164, .233}
Model Three: Four Components/ One Dimension 99.02 (50) .986 .973 .035{.025, .045} 155.02 .190{.160, .230}

Note: Model Three is the predicted model with four components loading on a higher order single latent factor.


Table 3 Means (Standard Deviation) and Correlations between Belief in Intentional Worlds and Global Citizenship


Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Cultural Grounding 1.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2. Social Construction .48 1.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
3. Dynamic Construction .49 .44 1.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
4. Subjective Experience .50 .46 .44 1.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
5. Normative Environment .26 .22 .27 .24 1.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
6. Global Awareness .35 .37 .37 .33 .41 1.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
7. Global Citizen ID .27 .22 .28 .24 .68 .62 1.0 -- -- -- -- -- --
8. Intergroup Empathy .28 .32 .32 .32 .42 .54 .59 1.0 -- -- -- -- --
9. Value Diversity .25 .30 .27 .28 .43 .53 .55 .52 1.0 -- -- -- --
10. Social Justice .28 .35 .32 .36 .34 .37 .35 .38 .50 1.0 -- -- --
11. Environmentalism .30 .40 .32 .40 .33 .36 .39 .36 .45 .58 1.0 -- --
12. Intergroup Helping .24 .31 .29 .30 .34 .36 .39 .39 .54 .57 .56 1.0 --
13. Responsibility to Act .32 .38 .36 .34 .45 .57 .58 .50 .61 .51 .55 .62 1.0
 
Mean 5.01 5.31 5.11 5.44 4.79 5.10 4.68 5.02 5.38 5.77 5.77 5.71 5.31
Standard Deviation 0.94 0.93 1.01 0.96 1.20 1.08 1.36 1.27 1.22 1.11 1.12 1.17 1.22

Note: Correlations are significant at p < .001


Table 4 Indirect Effects of Syllabi Global Citizen Word Count, Normative Environment, and Global Awareness


Variable Intentional Worlds Indirect CILower CIUpper Normative Environment Indirect CILower CIUpper Global Awareness IndirectCILower CIUpper
Global Citizenship ID .41 .339 .478 -- -- -- -- -- --
Intergroup Empathy .30 .238 .358 .42 .368 .480 .27 .205 .335
Valuing Diversity .27 .211 .321 .38 .324 .429 .24 .184 .301
Social Justice .19 .140 .244 .27 .215 .329 .17 .123 .227
Environmentalism .20 .151 .251 .28 .230 .334 .18 .134 .233
Intergroup Helping .19 .141 .240 .27 .216 .323 .17 .124 .222
Responsibility to Act .29 .228 .348 .41 .353 .462 .26 .197 .327

Note: Standardized betas and 95% confidence intervals, bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5,000 iterations, all indirect effects are significant at p < .001.


Measurement model of belief in intentional worlds.

Figure 1. Measurement model of belief in intentional worlds. Standardized betas are significant at p < .002


Influence of intentional worlds belief on antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship.

Figure 2. Influence of intentional worlds belief on antecedents, identification, and outcomes of global citizenship. Standardized betas are significant at p < .002





Copyright © 2018 - JGCEE, Centennial College | ISSN: 1927-2669