A model of global citizenship Antecedentsand outcomesSt.docx

A model of global citizenship: Antecedents
and outcomes
Stephen Reysen1 and Iva Katzarska-Miller2
1
Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University–Commerce,
Commerce, TX, USA
2
Department of Psychology, Transylvania University, Lexington,
KY, USA
A s the world becomes increasingly interconnected, exposure to
global cultures affords individualsopportunities to develop
global identities. In two studies, we examine the antecedents
and outcomes of
identifying with a superordinate identity—global citizen. Global
citizenship is defined as awareness, caring, and
embracing cultural diversity while promoting social justice and
sustainability, coupled with a sense of
responsibility to act. Prior theory and research suggest that
being aware of one’s connection with others in the
world (global awareness) and embedded in settings that value
global citizenship (normative environment) lead to
greater identification with global citizens. Furthermore, theory
and research suggest that when global citizen
identity is salient, greater identification is related to adherence
to the group’s content (i.e., prosocial values and
behaviors). Results of the present set of studies showed that
global awareness (knowledge and interconnectedness

with others) and one’s normative environment (friends and
family support global citizenship) predicted
identification with global citizens, and global citizenship
predicted prosocial values of intergroup empathy,
valuing diversity, social justice, environmental sustainability,
intergroup helping, and a felt responsibility to act
for the betterment of the world. The relationship between
antecedents (normative environment and global
awareness) and outcomes (prosocial values) was mediated by
identification with global citizens. We discuss the
relationship between the present results and other research
findings in psychology, the implications of global
citizenship for other academic domains, and future avenues of
research. Global citizenship highlights the unique
effect of taking a global perspective on a multitude of topics
relevant to the psychology of everyday actions,
environments, and identity.
Keywords: Global citizenship; Social identity; Normative
environment; Global awareness; Prosocial values.
A lors que le monde devient de plus en plus interconnecté,
l’exposition à des cultures globales offre auxindividus
l’opportunité de développer des identités globales. Dans deux
études, nous avons examiné les
antécédents et les conséquences de s’identifier à une identité
dominante – le citoyen global. La citoyenneté globale
est définie comme la conscience, la bienveillance et l’adhérence
à la diversité culturelle, tout en promouvant la
justice sociale et la durabilité, joint à un sens des
responsabilités à agir. La théorie et la recherche antérieures
suggèrent que le fait d’être conscient d’être connecté aux autres
personnes dans le monde (conscience globale) et

d’être enchâssé dans des milieux qui valorisent la citoyenneté
globale (environnement normatif) amène une plus
grande identification aux citoyens globaux. De plus, la théorie
et la recherche suggèrent que lorsque l’identité de
citoyen global est saillante, une plus grande identification est
reliée à une adhérence au contenu du groupe (c.-à-d.
les valeurs et les comportements prosociaux). Les résultats des
présentes études ont montré que la conscience
globale (connaissance et interconnexion avec les autres) et
l’environnement normatif d’une personne (les amis et
les membres de la famille qui soutiennent la citoyenneté
globale) prédisaient l’identification aux citoyens globaux.
De plus, la citoyenneté globale prédisait les valeurs prosociales
de l’empathie intergroupe, de la mise en valeur de
la diversité, de la justice sociale, de la durabilité
environnementale, de l’entraide intergroupe et du sens des
responsabilités à agir pour l’amélioration du monde.
L’identification aux citoyens globaux jouait un rôle
médiateur sur la relation entre les antécédents (environnement
normatif et conscience globale) et les conséquences
(valeurs prosociales). Nous discutons de la relation entre les
présents résultats et les résultats des autres recherches
en psychologie, des implications de la citoyenneté globale pour
les autres domaines académiques et des avenues
de recherche futures. La citoyenneté globale met en lumière
l’effet unique de la prise de perspective globale sur
Correspondence should be addressed to Stephen Reysen,
Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University–Commerce,
Commerce, TX 75429, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]).

International Journal of Psychology, 2013
Vol. 48, No. 5, 858–870,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.701749
© 2013 International Union of Psychological Science
une multitude de sujets liés à la psychologie, sur les plans des
actions quotidiennes, de l’environnement et de
l’identité.
A medida que el mundo se vuelve cada vez más interconectado,
la exposición a las culturas globales les ofrecea los individuos
oportunidades para desarrollar identidades globales. En dos
estudios examinamos los
antecedentes y consecuencias de la identificación con una
identidad supraordinal —el ciudadano global. La
ciudadanı́a global se define como la conciencia, el cuidado y la
aceptación de la diversidad cultural a la vez que se
promueve la justicia social y la sustentabilidad, emparejada con
un sentido de responsabilidad de acción. La
teorı́a e investigaciones previas sugieren que el ser consciente
de la conexión que uno tiene con otras personas del
mundo (conciencia global) y estar inserto en entornos en que se
valora la ciudadanı́a global (entorno normativo)
conduce a una mayor identificación con los ciudadanos
globales. Además, la teorı́a e investigación sugieren que
cuando la identidad del ciudadano global es destacada, la mayor
identificación se relaciona con la adhesión al
contenido del grupo (por ej., los valores y comportamientos
prosociales). Los resultados de la presente serie de
estudios mostraron que la conciencia global (el conocimiento y

la interconexión con los demás) y el propio
entorno normativo (los amigos y familia que apoyan la
ciudadanı́a global) predijeron la identificación con los
ciudadanos globales, y la ciudadanı́a global predijo los valores
prosociales de empatı́a intergrupal, valoración de
la diversidad, justicia social, sustentabilidad ambiental, ayuda
intergrupal y una sentida responsabilidad de
actuar para la mejora del mundo. La relación entre los
antecedentes (entorno normativo y conciencia global) y
los resultados (valores prosociales) estuvo mediada por la
identificación con los ciudadanos globales. Se discuten
la relación entre estos resultados y otros resultados de
investigaciones psicológicas, las implicaciones de la
ciudadanı́a global para otros ámbitos académicos y los futuros
lineamientos de investigación. La ciudadanı́a
global destaca el efecto único de adoptar una perspectiva global
frente a una multitud de temas pertinentes a la
psicologı́a de las acciones cotidianas, los entornos y la
identidad.
Spurred by globalization, the concept of global
citizenship identity has become a focus of theoriz-
ing across various disciplines (Davies, 2006;
Dower, 2002a). In psychology, with a few excep-
tions (e.g., immigration, self-construal), little
research has empirically explored the vast effects
of globalization on identity and psychological
functioning. Calls for greater attention to the
effects of cultural (Adams & Markus, 2004) and
global (Arnett, 2002) influences on everyday life
have been relatively ignored. In the present paper
we cross disciplinary boundaries to draw on
theoretical discussions of global citizenship, and
utilize a social identity perspective (Tajfel &

Turner, 1979; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &
Wetherell, 1987) to add conceptual and structural
clarity to the antecedents and outcomes of taking a
globalized perspective of the world.
Clarifying the concept of global citizenship is
difficult due to the use of seemingly synonymous
terms to describe a superordinate global identity,
and the influence of theorists’ disciplinary per-
spectives in defining the construct. A multitude of
labels are used to describe inclusive forms of
citizenship, such as universal, world, postnational,
and transnational citizenship. While some theorists
use the terms interchangeably, others make clear
distinctions. For example, Golmohamad (2008)
equates global citizenship with international and
world citizenship, while Haugestad (2004) suggests
that a global citizen is concerned about social
justice, a ‘‘world citizen’’ is concerned about trade
and mobility, and an ‘‘earth citizen’’ is concerned
about the environment.
The confusion regarding global citizenship is
exacerbated as theorists draw from diverse dis-
ciplines and perspectives (e.g., political, theologi-
cal, developmental, educational) to define the
construct. For example, theorists in philosophy
may highlight morality and ethics, education
theorists may highlight global awareness, while
others may eschew the concept altogether as
idealist and untenable because there is no concrete
legal recognition of global group membership (for
a review of competing conceptions of global
identity see Delanty, 2000; Dower, 2002a). In an
effort to integrate the various disciplinary framings

and highlight the commonalities in prior discus-
sions of global citizenship, Reysen, Pierce,
Spencer, and Katzarska-Miller (2012b) reviewed
global education literature and interviews with
self-described global citizens, and indeed found
consistent themes regarding the antecedents
(global awareness, normative environment) and
values posited to be outcomes of global citizenship
(intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social
justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup
helping, and a felt responsibility to act for the
betterment of the world).
For the purpose of the present research, we
define global citizenship, as well as the related
constructs identified by Reysen and colleagues
(2012b), by drawing from prior interdisciplinary
theoretical discussions. Global awareness is defined
MODEL OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 859
as knowledge of the world and one’s interconnect-
edness with others (Dower, 2002a; Oxfam, 1997).
Normative environment is defined as people and
settings (e.g., friends, family, school) that are
infused with global citizen related cultural patterns
and values (Pike, 2008). Intergroup empathy is
defined as a felt connection and concern for people
outside one’s ingroup (Golmohamad, 2008;
Oxfam, 1997). Valuing diversity is defined as an
interest in and appreciation for the diverse cultures
of the world (Dower 2002b; Golmohamad, 2008).
Social justice is defined as attitudes concerning
human rights and equitable and fair treatment of

all humans (Dower, 2002a, 2002b; Heater, 2000).
Environmental sustainability is defined as the belief
that humans and nature are connected, combined
with a felt obligation to protect of the natural
environment (Heater, 2000). Intergroup helping is
defined as aid to others outside one’s group, and is
enacted through behaviors such as donating to
charity, volunteering locally, and working with
transnational organizations to help others globally
(Dower, 2002a). Responsibility to act is defined as
an acceptance of a moral duty or obligation to act
for the betterment of the world (Dower, 2002a,
2002b). In line with themes found in prior
theorizing, we adopt the definition of global
citizenship as awareness, caring, and embracing
cultural diversity while promoting social justice
and sustainability, coupled with a sense of
responsibility to act (Snider, Reysen, &
Katzarska-Miller, in press).
SOCIAL IDENTITY PERSPECTIVE
To empirically examine the antecedents and out-
comes of global citizenship, we utilize a social
identity perspective (Hogg & Smith, 2007; Tajfel &
Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). Individuals feel
different levels of identification (i.e., felt connec-
tion) with social groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Each group has a prototype or set of interrelated
attributes (i.e., group content), that are specific to
that group (Hogg & Smith, 2007). When a
particular group membership is salient, the more
strongly one identifies with the group the more
depersonalization and self-stereotyping occur in
line with the group’s content such as norms,
beliefs, values, attitudes, behaviors (Turner et al.,

1987), and personality (Jenkins, Reysen, &
Katzarska-Miller, 2012). In effect, when an iden-
tity is salient, one’s degree of identification with
the group predicts adherence to the group’s
normative content (Hogg & Smith, 2007; Turner
et al., 1987).
EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
CONTENT
Following a social identity perspective, we argue
that membership in the group ‘‘global citizen’’ is
psychological in nature. As suggested by
Golmohamad (2008), global citizenship is a mind-
set or attitude one takes. In effect, individuals
perceive themselves to be global citizens and can
feel a psychological connection with global citizens
as a group. Consequently, greater identification
with global citizens should predict endorsement of
the group content (i.e., norms, values, behaviors)
that differs from the content of other groups (e.g.,
American). To test this notion, Reysen and
colleagues (2012b) asked participants to rate
endorsement of prosocial values (e.g., intergroup
helping), and identification with global citizens,
cosmopolitans, world citizens, international citi-
zens, and humans. Global citizenship identifica-
tion predicted endorsement of intergroup
empathy, valuing diversity, environmental sustain-
ability, intergroup helping, and felt responsibility
to act, beyond identification with the other super-
ordinate categories.
Additional studies showed that global citizen-
ship identification predicted participants’ degree of
endorsement of prosocial values and related

behaviors (e.g., community service, recycling,
attending cultural events) beyond identification
with subgroup identities (e.g., nation, state,
occupation). Across the studies, global citizenship
content (i.e., prosocial values) was shown to differ
from the content of other social identities. In
effect, there is converging evidence that the content
of global citizenship is related to the prosocial
values (e.g., social justice, environmentalism)
posited in the literature, and global citizenship
identification predicts these prosocial values
beyond identification with other superordinate
and subgroup identities.
EVIDENCE OF ANTECEDENTS TO
GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP
As the world has become increasingly connected,
exposure to global cultures affords individuals
opportunities to develop global identities (Norris,
2000). To examine the influence of cultural context
on global citizenship identity, Katzarska-Miller,
Reysen, Kamble, and Vithoji (in press) assessed
participants’ perception of their normative envir-
onment (i.e., friends and family express an
injunctive norm that one ought to be a global
citizen), global citizenship identification, and
860 REYSEN AND KATZARSKA-MILLER
endorsement of prosocial values in samples from
Bulgaria, India, and the United States.
Participants sampled in the US rated their
normative environment and global citizenship

identification lower than participants sampled in
the other two countries. Mediation analyses
showed that the relationship between cultural
comparisons (US vs. Bulgaria, US vs. India) and
global citizenship identification was mediated by
participants’ perception that others in their nor-
mative environment valued global citizenship (i.e.,
participants’ environment contained an injunctive
norm that prescribes being a global citizen).
Further analyses showed that global citizenship
identification mediated the relationship between
cultural comparison and social justice, intergroup
empathy and helping, and concern for the envir-
onment. In other words, one’s normative environ-
ment is a strong predictor of global citizenship
identification, and global citizenship identification
mediates the relationship between cultural setting
and prosocial values.
Global awareness represents knowledge of
global issues and one’s interconnectedness with
others. Gibson, Reysen, and Katzarska-Miller
(2011) randomly assigned participants to write
about meaningful relationships (interdependent
self-construal prime) or not (control) prior to
rating their degree of global citizenship identifica-
tion and prosocial values. Participants primed with
interdependence to others showed greater global
citizenship identification and prosocial values
compared to participants in the control condition.
The relationship between priming interdependence
(vs. no prime) and global citizenship identification
was mediated by students’ perception of their
normative environment. Furthermore, global citi-
zenship identification mediated the relationship
between the interdependence prime (vs. no prime)

and endorsement of prosocial values. In effect,
raising participants’ awareness of interconnected-
ness with others led to greater endorsement of
prosocial values through a greater connection with
global citizens.
Conversely, raising the saliency of global com-
petition (related to an independent self-construal)
can reduce identification with global citizens.
Snider and colleagues (in press) randomly assigned
college students to read and respond about
globalization leading to the job market becoming
more culturally diverse, more competitive, or did
not read a vignette. Participants in the competition
condition rated global citizenship identification,
academic motivation, valuing diversity, intergroup
helping, and willingness to protest unethical
corporations lower than participants in the
culturally diverse framing condition.
Furthermore, participants exposed to the competi-
tion vignette were more willing to reject outgroups
than those in the diversity framed condition.
Students’ degree of global citizenship identification
mediated the relationship between globalization
message framing and academic motivation, valu-
ing diversity, intergroup helping, and willingness
to protest unethical corporations.
To summarize, past research has shown that
one’s normative environment (friends, family) and
global awareness (knowledge and interconnected-
ness with others) predict global citizenship identi-
fication. Global citizenship identification is
consistently found to mediate the relationship
between normative environment and global aware-

ness, and degree of endorsement of the group’s
content (i.e., prosocial values). Therefore, there is
considerable evidence to suggest a model of global
citizenship in which normative environment and
global awareness predict global citizenship, and
global citizenship predicts endorsement of proso-
cial values.
OVERVIEW OF CURRENT RESEARCH
In the present paper we test a model of the
antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship
identity. Following past theorizing (Davies, 2006;
Dower, 2002a, 2002b; Oxfam, 1997; Pike, 2008;
Schattle, 2008) and research (Gibson et al., 2011;
Katzarska-Miller et al., in press; Reysen et al.,
2012b; Snider et al., in press) we hypothesize a
structural model of global citizenship with one’s
normative environment (i.e., close others endorse
being a global citizen) and global awareness
(knowledge and interconnectedness with others)
predicting identification with global citizens, and
global citizenship identification predicting endor-
sement of prosocial values that represent the
group’s content (i.e., intergroup empathy, valuing
diversity, social justice, environmental sustainabil-
ity, intergroup helping, and felt responsibility to
act). In Study 1 we test the proposed structural
model, and in Study 2 we replicate the model with
a second sample of participants.
STUDY 1
The purpose of Study 1 is to test the predicted
model of global citizenship. Past theory and
research suggest that one’s normative environment

and global awareness predict greater global
citizenship identification, and identification with
global citizens predicts prosocial value outcomes.
In effect, global citizenship is expected to mediate
the relationship between antecedents (normative
environment and global awareness) and outcomes
(prosocial values).
Method
Participants and procedure
Undergraduate college participants (N ¼ 726,
57.6% women) completed the survey for either
course credit toward a psychology class or extra
credit in a nonpsychology class. Their mean age
was 28.90 years (SD ¼ 9.98). Participants rated
items assessing normative environment, global
awareness, global citizenship identification, inter-
group empathy, valuing diversity, social justice,
environmental sustainability, intergroup helping,
felt responsibility to act, and demographic infor-
mation. All items used a seven-point Likert-type
scale, from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly
agree.
Materials
Normative environment. Two items (‘‘Most
people who are important to me think that being
a global citizen is desirable,’’ ‘‘If I called myself a

global citizen most people who are important to
me would approve’’) were combined to assess the
perception that others in one’s environment believe
that people ought to identify as global citizens
(injunctive norm) (a ¼ .82).
Global awareness. Four items (‘‘I understand
how the various cultures of this world interact
socially,’’ ‘‘I am aware that my actions in my local
environment may affect people in other countries,’’
‘‘I try to stay informed of current issues that
impact international relations,’’ ‘‘I believe that I
am connected to people in other countries, and my
actions can affect them’’) were combined to form a
global awareness index (a ¼ .80).
Global citizenship identification. Two items
(‘‘I would describe myself as a global citizen,’’
‘‘I strongly identify with global citizens’’) were
adapted from prior research (see Reysen, Pierce,
Katzarska-Miller, & Nesbit, 2012a) to assess
global citizenship identification (a ¼ .89).
Intergroup empathy. Two items (‘‘I am able to
empathize with people from other countries,’’ ‘‘It
is easy for me to put myself in someone else’s shoes
regardless of what country they are from’’) were
used to assess intergroup empathy (a ¼ .76).
Valuing diversity. Two items (‘‘I would like to
join groups that emphasize getting to know people
from different countries,’’ ‘‘I am interested in
learning about the many cultures that have existed
in this world’’) were combined to assess valuing
diversity (a ¼ .91).

Social justice. Two items (‘‘Those countries that
are well off should help people in countries who
are less fortunate,’’ ‘‘Basic services such as health
care, clean water, food, and legal assistance should
be available to everyone, regardless of what
country they live in’’) were combined to assess
belief in social justice (a ¼ .74).
Environmental sustainability. Two items
(‘‘People have a responsibility to conserve natural
resources to foster a sustainable environment,’’
‘‘Natural resources should be used primarily to
provide for basic needs rather than material
wealth’’) were combined to assess belief in
environmental sustainability (a ¼ .76).
Intergroup helping. Two items (‘‘If I had the
opportunity, I would help others who are in need
regardless of their nationality,’’ ‘‘If I could, I
would dedicate my life to helping others no matter
what country they are from’’) were adapted from
past research (Katzarska-Miller et al., in press) to
assess intergroup helping (a ¼ .76).
Responsibility to act. Two items (‘‘Being
actively involved in global issues is my responsi-
bility,’’ ‘‘It is my responsibility to understand and
respect cultural differences across the globe to the
best of my abilities’’) were combined to assess felt
responsibility to act (a ¼ .78).
Results
All of the assessed variables were moderately to
strongly positively correlated with one another (see
Table 1 for means, standard deviations, and zero-

order correlations between the assessed variables).
We conducted a series of structural equation
models using AMOS 19 to examine the predicted
model’s fit, subsequent modification, and the
mediating role of global citizenship identification.
Due to the related nature of the prosocial values,
we allowed the disturbance terms for the variables
to covary. We evaluated model fit using the
normed fit index (NFI) and the comparative fit
index (CFI), for which values greater than .90 are
acceptable. Following Browne and Cudeck (1993),
we set the root mean square error of approxima-
tion (RMSEA) value of .08 as an acceptable level.
Items loaded well on each of the factors,
including normative environment (.83, .84), global
awareness (.49 to .91), global citizen identification
(.86, .91), intergroup empathy (.85, .74), valuing
diversity (.96, .86), social justice (.78, .76), environ-
mental sustainability (.80, .76), intergroup helping
(.78, .80), and responsibility to act (.78, .82). The
predicted model adequately fit the data, w2(146) ¼
820.24, p 5 .001; RMSEA ¼ .080, CI(075; .085),
NFI ¼ .907, CFI ¼ .922. However, examination of
the modification indices suggested allowing two
of the global awareness item errors to covary.
Following this allowance, the model difference was
significant (Dw2(1) ¼ 211.70, p 5 .001), and the fit
indices showed the model appropriately fit the data,
w2(145) ¼ 608.54, p 5 .001; RMSEA ¼ .066,
CI(.061; .072), NFI ¼ .931, CFI ¼ .946.1

As shown in Figure 1, normative environment
and global awareness were positively related (r ¼ .51,
p 5 .001). Normative environment (b ¼ .78,
p 5 .001, CI¼ .701 to .858) and global awareness
(b ¼ .20, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .104 to .287) predicted
global citizenship identification (significance
computed with bias-corrected bootstrapping with
5000 iterations, 95% confidence intervals). Global
citizenship identification predicted intergroup
empathy (b ¼ .53, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .445 to .606),
valuing diversity (b ¼ .61, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .542 to
.667), social justice (b ¼ .53, p ¼ .001, CI ¼ .439 to
.608), environmental sustainability (b ¼ .50,
p 5 .001, CI ¼ .418 to .581), intergroup helping
(b ¼ .51, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .419 to .594), and felt
responsibility to act (b ¼ .70, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .633
to 769). Using bias-corrected bootstrapping (5000
iterations), the indirect effect of normative environ-
ment and global awareness on the prosocial values
(e.g., social justice) was reliably carried by global
citizenship identification (see Table 2 for standar-
dized betas of indirect effects and 95% bias-
corrected confidence intervals; all indirect effects
were significant at p 5 .001, two-tailed).
Discussion
The purpose of Study 1 was to examine our
predicted model of global citizenship identifica-
tion. Following a small modification, the model
TABLE 1
Study 1: Correlations and means (standard deviations)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean (SD)
1. Normative environment 1.0 4.58
(1.44)
2. Global awareness .44 1.0 4.76
(1.24)
3. Global citizenship
identification
.75 .53 1.0 4.57
(1.54)
4. Intergroup empathy .34 .54 .42 1.0 4.98
(1.40)
5. Valuing diversity .47 .59 .51 .49 1.0 4.84
(1.57)
6. Social justice .39 .33 .41 .40 .44 1.0 5.62
(1.36)
7. Environmental
sustainability
.38 .36 .38 .40 .42 .63 1.0 5.63

(1.29)
8. Intergroup helping .37 .50 .39 .55 .54 .53 .47 1.0 5.54
(1.34)
9. Responsibility to act .49 .59 .56 .58 .65 .51 .54 .63 1.0 5.09
(1.44)
All correlations significant at p 5 .01. Seven-point Likert-type
scale, from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree.
1
Contact the first author for detailed model information,
including item loadings and disturbance term intercorrelations.
In
Studies 1 and 2 we also examined the reversed causal model,
with the outcomes (prosocial values) predicting antecedents
(global awareness, normative environment) through global
citizenship identification. The reversed model showed relatively
appropriate fit to the data in Study 1, w2(147) ¼ 821.16, p 5
.001; RMSEA ¼ .080, CI(.074; .085), NFI ¼ .907, CFI ¼ .922,
and
Study 2, w2(147) ¼ 1299.96, p 5 .001; RMSEA ¼ .081, CI(.077;
.085), NFI ¼ .903, CFI ¼ .913. However, in Study 1, the final
predicted model showed lower AIC (738.54) and ECVI (1.02, CI
¼ .919; 1.13) values than the reversed model (AIC ¼ 947.16,
ECVI ¼ 1.31, CI ¼ 1.19; 1.44). In Study 2, the predicted model
showed lower AIC (1252.35) and ECVI (1.04, CI ¼ .958; 1.14)
values than the reversed model (AIC ¼ 1425.96, ECVI ¼ 1.19,
CI ¼ 1.10; 1.29). Thus, in both studies the predicted model
showed a better fit than the reversed causality model.

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 (N ¼ 1201,
62.8% women) completed the survey for either
course credit toward a psychology class or extra
credit in a nonpsychology class. Their mean age
was 25.86 years (SD ¼ 9.24). The procedure and
materials were identical to Study 1. The scales of
normative environment (a ¼ .81), global awareness
(a ¼ .80), global citizenship identification (a ¼ .89),
intergroup empathy (a ¼ .80), valuing diversity
(a ¼ .82), social justice (a ¼ .73), environmental
sustainability (a ¼ .78), intergroup helping
(a ¼ .77), and responsibility to act (a ¼ .79)

showed appropriate reliability.
TABLE 2
Study 1: Indirect effects through global citizenship
identification
Normative environment Global awareness
Variable Indirect CILower CIUpper Indirect CILower CIUpper
Empathy .41 .348 .486 .10 .053 .163
Diversity .48 .418 .537 .12 .061 .183
Social justice .41 .340 .492 .10 .054 .160
Sustainability .39 .323 .467 .10 .052 .153
Helping .40 .328 .476 .10 .051 .159
Responsibility .55 .484 .622 .14 .072 .211
Standardized betas and 95% confidence intervals; bias-corrected
bootstrapping with 5000 iterations; all indirect effects
are significant at p 5 .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, *p 5 .001.

Results
All of the assessed variables were moderately to
strongly positively correlated with one another (see
Table 3 for means, standard deviations, and zero-
order correlations between the assessed variables).
Items loaded well on each of the factors, including:
normative environment (.79, .86), global awareness
(.50 to .89), global citizen identification (.89, .89),
intergroup empathy (.88, .77), valuing diversity
(.83, .85), social justice (.73, .79), environmental
sustainability (.83, .77), intergroup helping
(.82, .78), and responsibility to act (.79, .83). The
model fit the data, w2(145) ¼ 1122.35, p 5 .001;
RMSEA ¼ .075, CI(.071; .079), NFI ¼ .916,
CFI ¼ .926. Similarly to Study 1, normative envir-
onment and global awareness were positively
related (r ¼ .47, p 5 .001). Normative environment
(b ¼ .74, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .670 to .801) and global
awareness (b ¼ .21, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .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 (b ¼ .49, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .425 to
.553), valuing diversity (b ¼ .49, p ¼ .001, CI ¼ .424
to .556), social justice (b ¼ .40, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .322
to .474), environmental sustainability (b ¼ .42,
p 5 .001, CI ¼ .340 to .486), intergroup helping
(b ¼ .41, p 5 .001, CI ¼ .339 to .483), and felt
responsibility to act (b ¼ .59, p ¼ .001, CI ¼ .517
to .652). Using bias-corrected bootstrapping (5000
iterations), the indirect effect of normative envir-
onment and global awareness on the prosocial
values (e.g., intergroup helping) was again reliably
carried by global citizenship identification (see
Table 4 for standardized betas of indirect effects
and 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals; all
TABLE 3
Study 2: Correlations and means (standard deviations)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean (SD)
1. Normative environment 1.0 4.37
(1.33)
2. Global awareness .43 1.0 4.75
(1.18)
3. Global citizenship
identification
.70 .49 1.0 4.26
(1.44)

4. Intergroup empathy .33 .51 .39 1.0 4.85
(1.42)
5. Valuing diversity .35 .56 .39 .46 1.0 4.96
(1.41)
6. Social justice .28 .34 .30 .36 .40 1.0 5.57
(1.29)
7. Environmental sustainability .33 .43 .31 .42 .40 .57 1.0 5.64
(1.19)
8. Intergroup helping .28 .46 .32 .53 .56 .52 .49 1.0 5.54
(1.31)
9. Responsibility to act .41 .62 .47 .53 .61 .41 .51 .61 1.0 4.96
(1.37)
All correlations significant at p 5 .01. Seven-point Likert-type
scale, from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree.
TABLE 4
Study 2: Indirect effects through global citizenship
identification
Normative environment Global awareness
Variable Indirect CILower CIUpper Indirect CILower CIUpper

Empathy .36 .313 .415 .10 .058 .147
Diversity .36 .310 .416 .10 .058 .148
Social justice .29 .235 .353 .08 .048 .124
Sustainability .31 .249 .360 .09 .049 .129
Helping .30 .251 .359 .09 .049 .129
Responsibility .43 .379 .487 .12 .070 .175
Standardized betas and 95% confidence intervals; bias-corrected
bootstrapping with 5000 iterations; all indirect effects
are significant at p 5 .001.
indirect effects were significant at p 5 .001, two-
tailed).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The purpose of the present studies was to test a
model of the antecedents and outcomes of global
citizenship identity. As hypothesized, one’s nor-
mative environment and global awareness pre-
dicted global citizenship identification, and one’s
connection to global citizens predicted endorse-
ment of prosocial values that represent the content
of the group: intergroup empathy, valuing diver-
sity, social justice, environmental sustainability,
intergroup helping, and a felt responsibility to act.

Global citizenship identification mediated the
relationship between normative environment and
global awareness and prosocial values. Overall, the
proposed structural model of the antecedents and
outcomes of global citizenship was supported.
Clarifying global citizenship
Arguments about the meaning of global citizen-
ship across various disciplines have resulted in a
state of confusion and a lack of definition.
Converging on a definition is difficult given the
variety of synonymous category labels (e.g.,
cosmopolitan, planetary citizen), and theorists’
tendency to highlight certain components (e.g.,
social justice) over others (e.g., environmental
sustainability). We adopt the definition of global
citizenship as awareness, caring, and embracing
cultural diversity, while promoting social justice
and sustainability, coupled with a sense of
responsibility to act (Snider et al., in press). The
model of global citizenship tested in the present
paper supports each aspect of this definition.
Individuals who are highly identified global
citizens are globally aware, express caring and
empathy for others, embrace cultural diversity,
promote social justice and environmentally sus-
tainable living, and feel a responsibility to act to
help others.
The model of global citizenship also supports a
wealth of theorizing (Davies, 2006; Dower, 2002a,
2002b; Oxfam, 1997; Pike, 2008; Schattle, 2008)
and research examining global citizenship (Gibson
et al., 2011; Katzarska-Miller et al., in press;
Reysen et al., 2012b; Snider et al., in press). The

consistent pattern across the literature and
research shows global awareness and normative
environment as antecedents to global citizenship,
and the prosocial values as components of the
content of global citizen identity. Utilizing a social
identity perspective, the present research is the first
to show that the antecedents to global citizenship
predict one’s degree of identification with the
category, and global citizenship identification
predicts endorsement of prosocial values hypothe-
sized to represent the content of the group identity.
Thus, while past theorizing has highlighted com-
ponents of the model, the present results show the
pathways to identification with global citizens, and
the prosocial outcomes to feeling connected to the
superordinate global category.
Global awareness and superordinate
identities
The present model shows global awareness as an
antecedent to identification with global citizens.
As noted by Dower (2002a), all humans are global
citizens; however, some individuals lack the
awareness to recognize their connection with
humanity as a whole. Thus, global citizenship
represents an inclusive group membership with all
humans. A wealth of social psychological research
supports the notion that categorizing with an
inclusive superordinate category results in proso-
cial values and behaviors (for a review see Crisp &
Hewstone, 2007). For example, salience of one’s
human identity leads to greater forgiveness to an
outgroup for past harm. However, human identity
salience can also reduce the motivation of victim

groups to act collectively, and salience of bene-
volent (vs. hostile) human group content can lead
perpetrators to legitimize harmful actions against
outgroups and retain negative attitudes (see
Greenway, Quinn, & Louis, 2011).
We suggest that inherent in the content of global
citizen identity is the notion of valuing diversity
and multiculturalism (i.e., recognition of multiple
identities) that is absent in human identity content.
Indeed, Reysen et al. (2012b) found global citizen-
ship identification to uniquely predict prosocial
values beyond identification with the category
label human, as well as other superordinate groups
(e.g., international citizen). In other words, global
citizen content differs from other superordinate
group labels, and raising the saliency of global
citizen will affect participants differently than
saliency of human due to the differing group
content. The present results support past research
by showing that the extent to which individuals are
aware of the larger world and their place in that
world predict prosocial values (including valuing
diversity and intergroup helping) through greater
identification with the superordinate category
‘‘global citizen.’’
Normative environment
A second antecedent to global citizenship identi-
fication is the extent that one’s normative environ-
ment supports aspects of global citizenship.

Results from the present set of studies show that
perceiving valued others embedded in one’s every-
day settings (e.g., friends, family) as endorsing
global citizenship (injunctive norm) predicts iden-
tifying with the group. The results support past
research (Katzarska-Miller et al., in press) that
shows the relationship between cultural context
and identification with global citizens is mediated
by the degree others in one’s normative environ-
ment prescribe the identity. Global citizen theor-
ists, rightly, argue for greater integration and
support for global citizenship education between
school and community (Dower, 2002a, 2002b).
Embedding injunctive norms in the everyday lives
of students may lead to greater identification with
others around the world and subsequent endorse-
ment of prosocial values and behaviors.
The strong influence of social norms on
attitudes and behavior has a long history in
psychology. Individuals shape and are shaped by
the cultural patterns that are produced, repro-
duced, and modified by individuals in settings in
which they are embedded. In other words, every-
day environments (e.g., home, school, work, cities)
are intentionally constructed places that hold the
cultural patterns from prior generations, and
engaging in the settings can influence individuals
through implicit conditioning and priming of
everyday actions (Adams & Markus, 2004).
Cultural patterns and norms afford various
identities to individuals, and to the extent that
these identities are valued, can influence one’s
degree of identification (Reysen & Levine, 2012).
Thus, to the extent that patterns related to global
citizenship are embedded in one’s environment

(Adams & Markus, 2004), and others within that
environment endorse those beliefs, greater identi-
fication with global citizens can be expected.
Global citizenship and prosocial identity
content
Global citizenship identity content contains values
and behaviors (i.e., intergroup empathy, valuing
diversity, social justice, environmental sustainabil-
ity, intergroup helping, and felt responsibility to
act) that are typically examined in isolation with
one another in psychology. The present model
highlights the interconnected nature of these
prosocial values and their relation to social
identity processes. For example, work on inter-
group empathy finds that empathetic feelings for a
person in need are reserved for ingroup members
(Stürmer, Snyder, Kropp, & Siem, 2006). Global
citizen identity relates to empathetic concern for
ingroup and outgroup members. Priming shared
human experiences reduces prejudice toward out-
groups and increases support for peace (Motyl
et al., 2011). Similarly, global citizenship relates to
valuing diversity, reduced prejudice toward out-
groups, and greater endorsement of world peace
(Katzarska-Miller, Barnsley, & Reysen, 2012;
Reysen et al., 2012b).
Groups, and social and moral norms, influence
one’s personal values and subsequent intention to
engage in environmental behaviors (Bamberg &
Möser, 2007). Global citizenship identity content
includes a desire to act for environmentally
sustainable societies (Reysen et al., 2012b). The

relationship between salience of relationships and
helping others is mediated by one’s felt intercon-
nectedness with others (Pavey, Greitemeyer, &
Sparks, 2011). Similarly, global citizenship is
related to a variety (i.e., charity, volunteering) of
helping behaviors (Reysen et al., 2012b), and the
relationship between global awareness (knowledge
and interconnectedness with others) and inter-
group helping is mediated by global citizenship
identification (Gibson et al., 2011). Research
shows the importance of social identities in
predicting collective action (van Zomeren,
Postmes, & Spears, 2008). As shown in the present
model, and in past research (Gibson et al., 2011;
Reysen et al., 2012b), global citizens report a
responsibility to act for the betterment of human-
ity. Overall, the research described above exam-
ined prosocial values separately, while the present
research integrates these disparate areas of
research as outcomes of a psychological connec-
tion with others in the world.
Implications and future directions of
global citizenship
Beyond the prosocial values that represent the
content of global citizen identity, the present
research has implications for a variety of areas
within psychology and other disciplines (e.g.,
education, political science, business). For exam-
ple, psychological concepts of moral identity and
critical moral consciousness are related to empa-
thy, social justice, and a moral responsibility to act
(Mustakova-Possardt, 2004). The motivation
behind a moral identity is posited to be a spiritual
search for truth, similar to the concept of a

religious quest motivation. In a recent series of
studies, Katzarska-Miller et al. (2012) found that
global citizenship identification is closely related to
a religious quest motivation. Global citizenship is
also similar to past findings examining ‘‘world-
mindedness,’’ which is positively related to endor-
sement for collective action and suggested to lead
to greater felt connection with the global commu-
nity (Der-Karabetian, 1992). Within education,
cooperative learning highlights students’ intercon-
nectedness with others and results in greater
empathy and perspective taking, justice beliefs,
and wellbeing (Johnson & Johnson, 2010). The
underlying mechanism behind cooperative learn-
ing may reside in the salience of interconnected-
ness with others, similar to the interconnectedness

component predicting global citizenship.
Based on social identity perspective, global
citizenship has implications for intergroup rela-
tions. As previously noted, superordinate group
salience can have beneficial but also negative
effects on intergroup bias (see Crisp & Hewstone,
2007). The present model shows global citizenship
identification predicting greater intergroup empa-
thy, helping, and valuing diversity. In a recent
study, Jenkins and Reysen (2011) presented
participants with either morally positive or nega-
tive information about an outgroup prior to rating
the perception of the outgroup and endorsed
actions. Participants’ prior rating of global citizen-
ship identification moderated the relationship of
valence of information on outgroup attitudes such
that when the outgroup was portrayed negatively
(vs. positively), highly identified global citizens
were less likely to view the outgroup as an enemy,

which resulted in a lower desire to avoid the
outgroup.
Global citizenship has implications for research
examining immigrants and global travelers. For
example, Berry’s model of acculturation strategies
(e.g., Berry, 2001) has recently been adapted to
account for a larger global identity (Banerjee &
German, 2007). Work on bicultural identities (e.g.,
Chen, Benet-Martı́nez, & Bond, 2008) shows that
bicultural individuals who integrate disparate
cultural identities show better psychological
adjustment in their new environments. Perhaps
an umbrella identity can aid immigrants by
providing an inclusive identity that allows for
identification with both new and prior subgroup
identities. In effect, global citizenship may provide
global sojourners with a way to reduce the
perceived distance between cultures by simulta-
neously identifying with the larger superordinate
global citizen category.

Unethical companies can elicit moral outrage
and protest behaviors on the part of consumers
(Cronin, Reysen, & Branscombe, in press). In
response, corporations endorse and advertise
corporate social responsibility, regardless of
whether they actually perform responsible business
practices, which affects how consumers view those
corporations. Consumer reactions to corporate
practices may depend on consumers’ global
citizenship identification and interact with whether
the corporations’ actions reflect global citizen
values. Corporations are also pushing to hire
employees with a greater global focus and open-
ness to new ideas and experiences. Global citizen-
ship identity is related to greater intellectualism
and openness (Jenkins et al., 2012) beyond
identification with other identities (e.g., nation,
human). Perhaps the characteristics companies
desire in new employees are those associated with
global citizen identity. The present model of global
citizenship holds implications for how companies
present their public image, how consumers react,
and employee hiring and training.
Limitations
Although the present set of studies is novel in
showing antecedents and outcomes of identifying
with global citizens, there are limitations that
should be considered when interpreting the results.
First, participants in the present study consisted of
American undergraduate college students attend-
ing a university in northeastern Texas. As shown
by Pippa Norris’ (2000) examination of World
Values Survey results, younger individuals are

more likely than older adults to feel an attachment
with the world as a whole. While similar patterns
of association between global citizenship identifi-
cation and endorsement of prosocial values have
been found in a community sample including older
adults (Reysen et al., 2010) and participants
sampled in other countries (Katzarska-Miller
et al., in press), caution should be taken in
generalizing the results. Future research can
examine the model tested in the present paper in
other cultural contexts and demographically vari-
able populations. Second, the measures used in the
present studies are subjective self-reports rather
than objective behavioral measures. Future
research should examine whether global citizen-
ship identification is related to prosocial behaviors
when the identity is salient.
Third, the present studies are correlational. The
purpose of modeling the antecedents and out-
comes of global citizenship is to direct future
research endeavors that can experimentally manip-
ulate aspects of the model. Fourth, we implied a
causal direction of antecedents leading to global
citizenship, and global citizenship leading to out-
comes. However, practicing global citizen oriented
activities (e.g., community service) may also lead
to greater global citizenship (e.g., Schattle, 2008).
While we examined, and found, the reverse
causality model to show poorer fit to the data
than the predicted model, future research examin-

ing aspects of the model (e.g., manipulating
responsibility and examining the effect on global
citizenship identification) is needed.
CONCLUSION
Globalization has encouraged many disciplines to
examine the nature of citizenship, identity, and
more generally, the effects of increasing intercon-
nectedness with others. One outcome is the
affordance of identifying the self with a global,
rather than national, identity—global citizen. In
two studies, we tested a model of the antecedents
and outcomes of identification with global citizens.
Global awareness and one’s normative environ-
ment predict identification with global citizens,
and global citizenship predicts prosocial values of
intergroup empathy, valuing diversity, social
justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup
helping, and a felt responsibility to act for the
betterment of the world. The relationship between
normative environment and global awareness and
prosocial values is mediated by global citizenship
identification. Global citizenship highlights the
unique effect of taking a global perspective on a
multitude of topics relevant to the psychology of
everyday actions and environments (e.g., helping
behaviors). The field of psychology has relatively
ignored the exponential cultural and social change
and impact of globalization. Global citizenship
exemplifies the recognition of the impact of
globalization on identity and subsequent prosocial
effects on attitudes and behaviors.
Manuscript received March 2012

Revised manuscript accepted May 2012
First published online July 2012
REFERENCES
Adams, G., & Markus, H. R. (2004). Toward a
conception of culture suitable for a social psychology
of culture. In M. Schaller, & C. S. Crandall (Eds.),
The psychological foundations of culture
(pp. 335–360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization.
American Psychologist, 57, 774–783.
Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after
Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-
analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-envir-
onmental behavior. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 27, 14–25.
Banerjee, P., & German, M. (2007, October).
Amalgamated religious–ethnic identities: The promise
of an emerging postmodern paradigm. Paper presented
at Intellectbase International Consortium conference,
Atlanta, GA.
Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration.
Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615–631.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative
ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, &
J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models
(pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chen, S. X., Benet-Martı́nez, V., & Bond, M. H. (2008).
Bicultural identity, bilingualism, and psychological
adjustment in multicultural societies: Immigration-
based and globalization-based acculturation. Journal
of Personality, 76, 803–837.
Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple social
categorization. Advances in Experimental Social
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
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.
Heater, D. (2000). Does cosmopolitan thinking have a
future? Review of International Studies, 26, 179–197.
Hogg, M. A., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Attitudes in social
context: A social identity perspective. European
Review of Social Psychology, 18, 89–131.
Jenkins, S., & Reysen, S. (2011, November). A

mediated moderation model of outgroup perception
and avoidance. Poster presented at the 9th annual
Pathways Student Research Symposium, College
Station, TX.
Jenkins, S., Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2012).
Ingroup identification and personality. Journal of
Interpersonal Relations, Intergroup Relations and
Identity, 5, 9–16.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2010). The impact of
social interdependence on values education and
student wellbeing. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey, &
N. Clement (Eds.), International research handbook
on values education and student wellbeing
(pp. 825–848). New York, NY: Springer.
Katzarska-Miller, I., Barnsley, C. A., & Reysen, S.
(2012). Global citizenship, religiosity, and political
orientation. Manuscript in preparation.
Katzarska-Miller, I., Reysen, S., Kamble, S. V., &
Vithoji, N. (in press). Cross-national differences in
global citizenship: Comparison of Bulgaria, India, and
the United States. Journal of Globalization Studies.
Motyl, M., Hart, J., Pyszczynski, T., Weise, D.,
Maxfield, M., & Siedel, A. (2011). Subtle priming
of shared human experiences eliminates threat-
induced negativity toward Arabs, immigrants, and
peace-making. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 47, 1179–1184.
Mustakova-Possardt, E. (2004). Education for critical
moral consciousness. Journal of Moral Education, 33,
245–269.

Norris, P. (2000). Global governance and cosmopolitan
citizens. In J. S. Nye Jr, & J. D. Donahue (Eds.),
Governance in a globalizing world (pp. 155–177).
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Oxfam (1997). A curriculum for global citizenship.
Oxford, UK: Oxfam.
Pavey, L., Greitemeyer, T., & Sparks, P. (2011).
Highlighting relatedness promotes prosocial motives
and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 37, 905–917.
Pike, G. (2008). Reconstructing the legend: Educating
for global citizenship. In A. A. Abdi, &
L. Shultz (Eds.), Educating for human rights and
global citizenship (pp. 223–237). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Reysen, S., & Levine, R. V. (2012). People, culture, and
place: An integrative approach to predicting helping
toward strangers. In P. J. Rentfrow (Ed.),
Psychological geography. Washington, DC: APA.
Reysen, S., Pierce, L., Katzarska-Miller, I., & Nesbit, S.
(2012a). Measuring ingroup identification: The single
item ingroup identification scale. Manuscript in
preparation.
Reysen, S., Pierce, L., Spencer, C., & Katzarska-Miller,
I. (2012b) Exploring the content of global citizenship
identity. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Schattle, H. (2008). The practices of global citizenship.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Snider, J. S., Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I.
(in press). How we frame the message of
globalization matters. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology.
Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., Kropp, A., & Siem, B. (2006).
Empathy-motivated helping: The moderating role of
group membership. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 943–956.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory
of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin, &
S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup
relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D.,
& Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social
group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008).
Toward an integrative social identity model of
collective action: A quantitative research synthesis
of three socio-psychological perspectives.
Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535.
Copyright of International Journal of Psychology is the property
of Routledge and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print,

download, or email articles for
individual use.
Name: Date:
Target Corporation Case
Answers and Analysis
Target Corporation (Target) operates large general merchandise
and food discount stores in all of the
United States, with the exception of Alaska Hawaii, and
Vermont. The company also has its own credit
card operations and operates a fully integrated online business,
target.com. Although the online portion of
target’s business is small relative to the overall size of target,
sales are growing at a more rapid pace in the
online business compared to the in-store sales. The company’s
philosophy is to offer their customers a
delightful shopping experience and their team members a
preferred place to work, and to invest in the
communities in which target conducts business to improve
quality of life. Selected information from the
2007 form 10-k of Target Corporation is on pages 228-237.

Required:
1. Analyze the firm’s financial statements and supplementary
information. Your analysis should include
the preparation of common-size financial statements, key
financial ratios, and an evaluation of
short-term liquidity, operating efficiency, capital structure and
long-term solvency, profitability, and
market measures.
2. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the company.
3. What is your opinion of the investment potential and the
creditworthiness of Target Corporation?
Company Overview:
Target Corporation (Target or ‘the company’) operates large
format general merchandise and food
discount stores in the US, which include Target and Super
Target stores. The company offers both
everyday essentials and fashionable merchandise. Target is
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota
and employs 366,000 people. The company recorded revenues
of $63,367 million in the fiscal year
ended January 2008, an increase of 6.5% over 2007. The
operating profit of the company was $5,272

million in the fiscal year 2008, an increase of 4% over 2007.
The net profit was $2,849 million in the
fiscal year 2008, an increase of 2.2% over 2007.
Target Corporation
Consolidated Balance Sheets and common-size Balance Sheets
(In millions, except share and per share date)
Period End Date
2008
02/02/2008
2007
02/03/2007
Assets
Cash and Short Term Investments 2,450.00 12.96% 813 5.53%
Cash & Equivalents 599 3.17% 813 5.53%
Short Term Investments 1,851.00 9.79% 0 0.00%
Total Receivables, Net 8,651.00 45.76% 6,757.00 45.95%
Accounts Receivable - Trade, Net 8,054.00 42.60% 6,194.00
42.12%

Accounts Receivable - Trade, Gross 8,624.00 45.62% 6,711.00
45.63%
Provision for Doubtful Accounts -570 -3.01% -517 -3.52%
Receivables - Other 597 3.16% 563 3.83%
Total Inventory 6,780.00 35.86% 6,254.00 42.53%
Prepaid Expenses 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Other Current Assets, Total 1,025.00 5.42% 882 6.00%
Total Current Assets 18,906.00 100.00% 14,706.00 100.00%
Property/Plant/Equipment, Total - Net 24,095.00 127.45%
21,431.00 145.73%
Goodwill, Net 60 0.32% 60 0.41%
Intangibles, Net 148 0.78% 152 1.03%
Long Term Investments 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Note Receivable - Long Term 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Other Long Term Assets, Total 1,351.00 7.15% 1,000.00 6.80%
Other Assets, Total 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Total Assets 44,560.00 235.69% 37,349.00 253.97%
Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity
Accounts Payable 6,721.00 35.55% 6,575.00 44.71%

Payable/Accrued 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Accrued Expenses 2,109.00 11.16% 2,004.00 13.63%
Notes Payable/Short Term Debt 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Current Port. of LT Debt/Capital Leases 1,964.00 10.39%
1,362.00 9.26%
Other Current Liabilities, Total 988 5.23% 1,176.00 8.00%
Total Current Liabilities 11,782.00 62.32% 11,117.00 75.59%
Total Long Term Debt 15,126.00 80.01% 8,675.00 58.99%
Long Term Debt 15,126.00 80.01% 8,528.00 57.99%
Capital Lease Obligations 0 0.00% 147 1.00%
Deferred Income Tax 470 2.49% 577 3.92%
Other Liabilities, Total 1,875.00 9.92% 1,347.00 9.16%
Total Liabilities 29,253.00 154.73% 21,716.00 147.67%
Common Stock 68 0.36% 72 0.49%
Additional Paid-In Capital 2,656.00 14.05% 2,387.00 16.23%
Retained Earnings (Accumulated Deficit) 12,761.00 67.50%
13,417.00 91.23%
Other Equity, Total -178 -0.94% -243 -1.65%
Total Equity 15,307.00 80.96% 15,633.00 106.30%

Total Liabilities & Shareholders’ Equity 44,560.00 235.69%
37,349.00 253.97%
Target Corporation
Income statements and common-size Income statements
Period End Date
2008
02/02/2008
2007
02/03/2007
2006
01/28/2006
Revenue 63,367.00 100.00% 59,490.00 100.00% 52,620.00
100.00%
Total Revenue 63,367.00 100.00% 59,490.00 100.00%
52,620.00 100.00%

Cost of Revenue, Total 43,766.00 69.07% 41,073.00 69.04%
35,703.00 67.85%
Gross Profit 19,601.00 30.93% 18,417.00 30.96% 16,917.00
32.15%
Selling/General/Administrative
Expenses, Total
12,670.00 19.99% 11,852.00 19.92% 11,185.00 21.26%
Research & Development 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Depreciation/Amortization 1,659.00 2.62% 1,496.00 2.51%
1,409.00 2.68%
Interest Expense (Income), Net
Operating
0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Unusual Expense (Income) 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Other Operating Expenses, Total 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Operating Income 4,625.00 7.30% 4,497.00 7.56% 3,860.00
7.34%
Interest Income (Expense), Net
Non-Operating

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Gain (Loss) on Sale of Assets 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Other, Net 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Income Before Tax 4,625.00 7.30% 4,497.00 7.56% 3,860.00
7.34%
Income Tax - Total 1,776.00 2.80% 1,710.00 2.87% 1,452.00
2.76%
Income After Tax 2,849.00 4.50% 2,787.00 4.68% 2,408.00
4.58%
Minority Interest 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Equity In Affiliates 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
U.S. GAAP Adjustment 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Net Income Before Extra. Items 2,849.00 4.50% 2,787.00 4.68%
2,408.00 4.58%
Total Extraordinary Items 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Discontinued Operations 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Net Income 2,849.00 4.50% 2,787.00 4.68% 2,408.00 4.58%

Target Corporation
Statements of cash flows
Period End Date
2008
02/02/2008
2007
02/03/2007
2006
01/28/2006
Net Income/Starting Line 2,849.00 2,787.00 2,408.00
Depreciation/Depletion 1,659.00 1,496.00 1,409.00

Amortization 0 0 0
Deferred Taxes -70 -201 -122
Non-Cash Items 634 497 579
Discontinued Operations 0 0 0
Unusual Items 28 53 70
Other Non-Cash Items 606 444 509
Changes in Working Capital -947 283 177
Accounts Receivable -602 -226 -244
Inventories -525 -431 -454
Other Assets -38 -25 -52
Accounts Payable 111 435 489
Accrued Expenses 62 389 351
Taxes Payable 0 41 70
Other Liabilities 124 100 0
Other Operating Cash Flow -79 0 17
Cash from Operating Activities 4,125.00 4,862.00 4,451.00
Capital Expenditures -4,369.00 -3,928.00 -3,388.00

Purchase of Fixed Assets -4,369.00 -3,928.00 -3,388.00
Other Investing Cash Flow Items, Total -1,826.00 -765 -761
Sale of Fixed Assets 95 62 58
Other Investing Cash Flow -1,921.00 -827 -819
Cash from Investing Activities -6,195.00 -4,693.00 -4,149.00
Financing Cash Flow Items -375 -5 58
Other Financing Cash Flow -375 -5 58
Total Cash Dividends Paid -442 -380 -318
Issuance (Retirement) of Stock, Net -2,267.00 -720 -1,025.00
Issuance (Retirement) of Debt, Net 6,791.00 101 386
Cash from Financing Activities 3,707.00 -1,004.00 -899
Foreign Exchange Effects 0 0 0
Net Change in Cash 1,637.00 -835 -597
Net Cash - Beginning Balance 813 1,648.00 2,245.00
Net Cash - Ending Balance 2,450.00 813 1,648.00

Target Corporation
Key financial ratios
Fiscal Year 2008 2007 2006
Fiscal Year End Date 3/31/09 3/31/08 3/31/07
Tests of profitability:
1.Return on equity (ROE): Net Income / Average Stockholders'
Equity 0.15 0.18 0.19
2.Return on assets (ROA): Net Income + Interest Expense (net
of tax) /
Average Total assets 0.07 0.09 0.09
3.Financial leverage percentage: Return on Equity - Return on
assets 0.08 0.10 0.09
4.Earnings per share (EPS): Net Income / Average Number of
Share of
Common Stock Outstanding 2.82 3.39 3.21
5.Quality of income: Cash Flows From Operating Activities /
Net

Income 2.00 1.45 1.74
6.Profit margin: Net Income / Net Sales Revenue 0.03 0.04 0.05
7.Fixed asset turnover ratio: Net Sales Revenue / Average Net
Fixed
Assets 2.52 2.63 2.78
8.Asset turnover ratio: Net Sales Revenue / Average Total
Assets 1.47 1.55 1.64
Tests of Liquidity:
8.Cash ratio: Cash + Cash Equivalents / Current Liabilities 0.05
0.05 0.07
9.Current ratio: Current Assets / Current Liabilities 1.66 1.60
1.32
10.Quick Ratio: Quick Assets (cash, short-term investments,
accounts
receivable(net of the allowance or doubtful accounts)) / Current
Liabilities 0.95 0.94 0.68
11.Receivable turnover ratio: Net Credit Sales / Average
Inventory 9.63 9.72 9.84
12.Average Age of Receivables: Days In a Year / Receivable
Turnover
Ratio 37.89 37.54 37.10

13.Inventory turnover ratio: Cost of Goods Sold / Average
Inventory 6.79 6.72 6.79
14.Average Day's Supply in inventory: Days In a Year /
Inventory
Turnover Ratio 53.77 54.35 53.73
15.Payable Turnover Ratio: Cost of Goods Sold / Average
Accounts
Payable 7.01 6.58 6.14
16.Average Age of Payables: Days In a Year / Payable Turnover
Ratio 52.07 55.44 57.07
Tests of Solvency:
17.Times interest earned: Net Income + interest Expense +
Income
Taxes Expense / Interest Expense 3.96 6.92 7.53
18.Cash coverage ratio: Cash Flows from Operating Activities
(before
interest and tax paid) / Interest Paid 4.96 6.18 8.14
19.Debt-to-equity ratio: Total Liabilities / Stockholder's Equity
2.22 1.91 1.39
Market Tests:
20. Price/earnings ratio: Current Market Price per Share /
Earnings per

Share 18.67 18.13 16.92
21.Dividend yield ratio: Dividends per Share / Market Price per
Share 0.01 0.01 0.01
information. Your analysis should
include the preparation of common-size financial statements,
key financial ratios, and an
evaluation of short-term liquidity, operating efficiency, capital
structure and long-term solvency,
profitability, and market measures. (The financial statement
analysis template can be accessed
and used at www.prenhall.com/fraser.)
1.1. Evaluation of profitability and operating efficiency:
1.1.1. Return on equity:
Return on equity reflects the simple fact that investors expect to
earn more money if they invest more
money. Target earned 0.19 in 2006, 0.18 in 2007, and 0.15 in
2008 on the owners’ investment.
Comparing 2006 to 2008, the data shows that Target’s
performance in 2008 as measured by its ROE has

declined compared to 2006. This comparison suggests that they
have been inefficient.
1.1.2. Return on Assets:
Return on assets compares income to the total assets used to
earn the income. The return on assets for
Target was 0.09 in 2006, 0.09 in 2007, and 0.07 in 2008 this
decrease indicates that Target utilized its
assets inefficiently.
1.1.3. Financial leverage percentage:
Financial leverage percentage measures the advantage or
disadvantage that occurs when a company’s
return on equity differs from its return on assets. Target’s
financial leverage ratio was 0.09 in 2006, 0.10
in 2007, and 0.08 in 2008. The financial leverage ratio
increased by .01 from 2006 to 2007, which
indicated that it utilized more debt in its capital structure but
from 2007 to 2008 it decreased by .02,
which indicates that it utilized less debt in its capital structure.
1.1.4. Profit margin:
The profit margin measures the percentage of each sales dollar.
From 2006 to 2008, each dollar of
Target sales generated 5 cents of profit in 2006, 4 cents of
profit in 2007, and 3 cents of profit in 2008.

This data indicates that the operating efficiency of Target
became weak.
1.1.5. Fixed asset turnover ratio:
From 2006 to 2008 Target’s fixed asset turnover ratio was 2.78
in 2006, 2.63 in 2007, and 2.52 in
2008. This means that Target had no ability to effectively
utilize its fixed assets to generate revenue.
For each dollar Target invested in property, plant, and
equipment, the company was able to earn $2.78 in
2006, $2.63 in 2007, and $2.52 in 2008 in sales revenue.
1.1.6. Asset turnover ratio:
From 2006 to 2008 Target’s asset turnover ratio was 1.64 in
2006, 1.55 in 2007, and 1.47 in 2008.
http://www.prenhall.com/fraser
This also means that Target wasn’t able to operate more
effectively.
1.2. Evaluation of Liquidity:
1.2.1. Cash Ratio:
From 2006 to 2008, Target’s cash ratio was 7% in 2006, 5% in
2007 and 5% in 2008. The average
cash ratio during 2006 to 2008 was 5.67% that means Target has

on hand 5.67 cents of cash for each $1.
In the meanwhile, Target’s statement of cash flows showed that
the company generated a large amount of
cash from its operating activities. From 2006 to 2008, Target’s
cash from operating activities was $4451
millions, $4862 millions and $4125 millions. Although the
number of Target’s cash from operating
activities dropped seriously from $4862 millions in 2007 to
$4125 millions in 2008, Target still had a
strong ability to generate cash form operating activities to cover
the currently liabilities.
1.2.2. Current Ratio:
The current ratio measures the cushion of working capital that
companies maintain to allow for the
inevitable unevenness in the flow of funds through the working
capital accounts. From 2006 to 2008,
Target’s current ratio was 1.32 in 2006, 1.60 in 2007 and 1.66
in 2008. The average current ratio during
2006 to 2008 was 1.53 that means Target had $1.53 in current
assets for each $1 in current liabilities. This
ratio is very strong that gave Target a strong ability to generate
cash.
1.2.3. Quick Ratio:

The quick ratio is a measure of the safety margin hat is
available to meet a company’s current
liabilities. From 2006 to 2008, Target has 0.68 cents in cash and
near-cash assets for every $1 in current
liabilities in 2006, 0.94 cents in cash and near-cash assets for
every $1 in current liabilities in 2007, 0.95
cents in cash and near-cash assets for every $1 in current
liabilities in 2008. The average Quick ratio
during 2006 to 2008 was 0.86 that means Target has 0.86 cents
in cash and near-cash assets for every $1
in current liabilities. Target has a safety and good margin in the
amount of cash Target generates from its
operating activities.
1.2.4. Inventory Turnover Ratio:
Inventory turnover is a measure of both liquidity and operating
efficiency. From 2006 to 2008,
Target’s inventory was acquired and sold to customers 6.79
times during the year 2006, 6.72 times during
the year 2007, and 6.79 times during the year of 2008. During
2006 to 2008, on average, Target’s
inventory was acquired and sold to customers 6.77 times.
According to the data we know that Target’s
inventory turnover ratio kept stable in recent years. We can see

this result through the data of average
day’s supply in Inventory. From 2006 to 2008, Target’s average
day’s supply in inventory was 53.73 days
in 2006, 54.35 days in 2007, and 53.77 days in 2008.
1.2.5. Using ratio to analyze the operating cycle:
Fiscal Year 2008 2007 2006
Fiscal Year End Date 3/31/08 3/31/07 3/31/06
9.Average Age of Payables: Days In a Year / Payable
7.Average Day's Supply in inventory: Days In a Year /
Inventory Turnover Ratio 91.66 91.89 90.83
5.Average Age of Receivables: Days In a Year / Receivable
The component parts of the operating cycle help us understand
the cash needs of the company. In
2006, Target, on average, pays for its inventory 57.07 days after
it receives it. It takes, on average, 90.83
days for it to sell and for the company to collect cash from the
customer. In 2007, Target, on average, pays

for its inventory 55.44 days after it receives it. It takes, on
average, 91.89 days for it to sell and for the
company to collect cash from the customer. In 2008, Target, on
average, pays for its inventory 52.07 days
after it receives it. It takes, on average, 91.66 days for it to sell
and for the company to collect cash from
the customer. Therefore, Target must invest cash in its
operating activities for nearly 33.76 days in 2006,
36.45 days in 2007, and 39.59 days in 2008 between the times it
pays its vendors and the time it collects
from its customers. In conclusion, in recent years, Target had
enough liquidity, but the liquidity became
weak, so for the management of Nissan should be aware on his
liquidity strategy to keep their enough
liquidity and management efficiency.
1.3. Evaluation of capital structure and long-term solvency:
1.3.1. Times interest earned ratio:
The times interest earned ratio compares the income a company
generated in a period to its interest
obligation for the same period. From 2006 to 2008, Target
generated $7.53 in income for each $1 of
interest expense in 2006, $6.92 in income for each $1 of interest

expense in 2007 and$3.96 in income for
each $1 of interest expense in 2008 The ratios were decreasing
annually that indicates the secure position
for creditors became weak, and the creditors risk became
higher.
1.3.2. Cash coverage ratio:
Target’s cash coverage ratio shows that the company generated
$8.14 in cash for every $1 of interest
paid in 2006, $6.18 in cash for every $1 of interest paid in 2007
and $4.96 in cash for every $1 of interest
paid in 2008, which are not very strong coverage and the
coverage ability became weak.
1.3.3. debt-to-equity ratio:
From 2006 to 2008, for each $1 of stockholder’s equity, Target
had $1.39 worth of liabilities, $1.91
worth of liabilities and $2.22 worth of liabilities that means
Target were using more debt to operate.
1.4. Evaluation of market measures:
1.4.1. price/Earnings Ratio:

Recently, when the price of Target stock was $54.40 per share
in 2006, $61.53 per share in 2007 and
$52.61 per share in 2008, EPS for Target was $3.21 in 2006,
$3.39 in 2007, and $2.82 in 2008. This
indicates that Target’s stock was selling at a price that was
16.92 times its earnings per share in 2006,
18.13 times its earnings per share in 2007 and 18.67 times its
earnings per share in 2008. The P/E ratio
reflects the stock market’s assessment of a company’s future
performance. Target’s P/E ratio suggests that
the market believes that Target has the growth potential in
recent years.
1.4.2. Dividend yield ratio:
Target paid dividends of 0.01 cents per share when the market
price of its stock was $54.40 per share
in 2006, $61.53 per share in 2007 and $52.61 per share in 2008.
(www.datamonitor.com)
2.2. Strengths:
2.2.1. Robust return on assets and equity:
Target’s return on average assets (ROA) and return on average
equity (ROE) remained high in 2006

at 1.67% and 23.7%, respectively. The company's ROA and
ROE are significantly higher than its
competitors. For instance, Associated Banc-Corp’s ROE
declined from 17.2% in 2004 to 13.9% in 2006,
and ROA declined from 1.6% in 2004 to 1.5% in 2006. Target’s
higher return compared to its competitors
gives it a competitive advantage in attracting customers and
equity and debt investors.
(www.datamonitor.com)
2.2.2. Strong credit quality:
http://www.datamonitor.com/
Target’s credit quality remains strong. Target’s net charge-offs
for 2006 were 0.17%, which is a low
level. The allowance for loan and lease losses at December 31,
2006 was $58.5 million or 0.52% of loans
and leases outstanding. At December 31, 2006, non-performing
assets totaled $65.6 million, up by $18.3
million from the previous year end. Approximately 60% of non-
performing assets are secured by
residential real estate. Target’s secured lending strategy reduces
losses by providing a secondary source of

repayment in the event of a customer default. The company’s
strong asset quality reduces earnings
volatility for investors. (www.datamonitor.com)
2.2.3. Strong core banking and regulatory capital position:
In 2006, Target registered a strong growth in its core banking
(deposits and loans & leases) and
maintained a good regulatory capital position. In 2006, the
company’s loans & leases rose to $11.33
billion, a rise of 11% over 2005. Target’s deposits grew to
$9.77 billion in 2006, up by 7% over 2005. In
summary, the company’s core banking grew to $21 billion, a
rise of 9.1% over 2005. Despite the growth
in core banking activities, the company’s regulatory capital
position remained strong. Target’s tier 1
capital rose to $914 million in 2006 as compared to $864
million in 2005. The company’s total risk based
capital rose to $1,173 million in 2006 from $1,049.6 million in
2005. Consequently, the company’s
capital adequacy ratio rose to 11.10% in 2006 from 10.68% in
2005. The company’s strong core banking
and capital position implies that it is able to balance growth and
solvency. (www.datamonitor.com)

2.3. Weaknesses:
2.3.1. High long-term borrowings:
Target’s long-term borrowings were $3,374.4 million during
fiscal year 2006, a year on year increase
of 34.4%. The company’s long-term borrowings equaled 245.3%
of its revenues in the fiscal year 2006.
The ratio of long term borrowings to revenues rose to 2.45 in
2006 from 2.07 in 2005. This indicates that
the company’s dependence on long term borrowings has
increased. The company's long-term debt to
equity ratio also increased to 3.27 in 2006, up from 2.51 in
2005. This is much higher than some of its
peers. The company's high indebtedness limits its ability to
undertake further financing going forward.
Moreover, it exposes the company to significant financial
risks.(www.datamonitor.com)
2.3.2. Declining ATM revenue and low growth in fees and
services charges:
Target’s ATM revenue has been declining since the fiscal year
2004. ATM revenue declined to $37.7
million in 2006, as compared to $40.73 million in 2005. During
2003-2006, ATM revenue shrunk to

$37.7 million in 2006, from $42.9 million in 2004, at a negative
CAGR of 6.2%. The company’s revenue
from fees and services charges increased in 2006 by 2.9% to
$270.2 million. However, during 2004-2006,
revenue from fees and services charges shrunk by a CAGR of
1.8%. The company's fee income was
negatively affected by the change in behavior of checking
account customers. Customers now prefer
Automated Clearing House transactions and debit card
transactions instead of checks. In addition, the
accounts of certain customers were closed since they abused
their debit card spending, which negatively
affected the company's fees and service charges. Declining
ATM revenues and low growth in fees and
services charges indicate that the company is yet to control
customer defection. (www.datamonitor.com)
2.3.3. Limited geographical spread:
Target Financial operates only in the US. The company's
principal subsidiary, Target National Bank,
operates in Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado
and Indiana. The company's limited

geographic spread limits its customer base. In 2007, the US
economy, especially the financial services
industry, was badly affected by sub prime crisis. The average
cost of inter bank borrowing went up in
2007. The cost of borrowing is expected to remain high in 2008
as well. The company’s high reliance on
long term borrowings and the US economy could lead to lower
business growth and profits in the coming
quarters. (www.datamonitor.com)
3. What are your opinion of the investment potential and the
creditworthiness of Target
Corporation?
The company’s growth can be seen in multiple areas such as
revenue growth since the same quarter
one-year prior revenues slightly increased by .2% and good cash
flow from operations and reasonable
valuation levels, since the net operating cash flow has increased
by 35% when compared with last year.
However, we can find weakness including feeble growth in the
company’s earning per share,
generally poor debt management and poor profit margins, since
target’s earning per share has declined by

6.8% in the most recent quarter compared to the same quarter a
year ago, the debt-to-equity ratio of 1.33
is relatively high when compared with the industry average
suggesting a need for better debt level management. Along
with the unfavorable debt-to-equity ratio, TGT
maintains a poor quick ratio of .86, which illustrates the
inability to avoid short-term cash problems.
At Target’s current price of $39.30, investors are
placing a positive value of $17 on its future investments. This
view is consistent with the company’s most
recent performance that reflected a growth rate of 8.0% per
year, and a return on equity of 13.6% versus a
cost of equity of 12.2%. In addition, this view is consistent with
PTR’s forecasts. As explained
previously, PTR expects TGT to grow at a rate of 6.0% per year
and to earn a return on equity of 16.7%
versus a cost of equity of 12.2%. PTR’s 2011 Price Target of
$36 is based on these forecasts and reflects
an estimated value of existing assets of $29 and a value of
future investments of $8.

According to the data analysis above we don’t think invest
money to Target is a good choice. The
management of Target was becoming inefficient in recent years,
and the debt of Target was becoming
higher. It means higher risk to both investors and creditors. The
management of Target should change this
situation to operate more efficiently in their business. From our
research we can determine that even
though sales increased the net income decreased representing a
decrease to the bottom line. This goes to
further prove our standpoint on not investing on Target
Corporation because of all the risk factors stated
through out this research paper.
Name: Date:
XXX Corporation
Requirements:
1. Pick a public firm.
information. Your analysis should include the preparation of
common-size financial statements, key financial ratios, and an
evaluation of short-term liquidity, operating efficiency, capital
structure and long-term solvency, profitability, and market
measures.
4. What is your opinion of the investment potential and the

creditworthiness of XXX Corporation?
Educational Philosophy and Theor y, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2005
© 2005 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road,
Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.Oxford, UKEPATEducational
Philosophy and Theory0013-1857© 2005 Philosophy of
Education Society of AustralasiaSeptember 2005374Original
ArticleGlobalisation, Globalism and CosmopolitanismMarianna
Papastephanou
Globalisation, Globalism and
Cosmopolitanism as an Educational Ideal
M
P

University of Cyprus
Abstract
In this paper, I discuss globalisation as an empirical reality that
is in a complex relation
to its corresponding discourse and in a critical distance from the
cosmopolitan ideal. I argue
that failure to grasp the distinctions between globalisation,
globalism, and cosmopolitanism
derives from mistaken identifications of the Is with the Ought
and leads to naïve and
ethnocentric glorifications of the potentialities of globalisation.
Conversely, drawing the
appropriate distinctions helps us articulate a more critical
approach to contemporary cultural
phenomena, and reconsider the current place and potential role
of education within the
context of global affairs. From this perspective, the antagonistic
impulses cultivated by
globalisation and some globalist discourse are singled out and
targeted via a radicalization
of educational orientations. The final suggestion of the article
concerns the vision of a more
cosmopolitically sensitive education.
Keywords: globalisation, nation-state, identity, antagonism,
hybridity, Bauman,
Giddens, Kristeva, Dewey

Introduction
As early as 1916, John Dewey wrote:
Every expansive era in the history of mankind has coincided
with the
operation of factors which have tended to eliminate distance
between
peoples and classes previously hemmed off from one another.
Even the
alleged benefits of war, so far as more than alleged, spring from
the fact
that conflict of peoples at least enforces intercourse between
them and
thus accidentally enables them to learn from one another, and
thereby to
expand their horizons. Travels, economic and commercial
tendencies,
have at present gone far to break down external barriers; to
bring peoples
and classes into closer and more perceptible connection with
one another.
It remains for the most part to secure the intellectual and
emotional
significance of this physical annihilation of space. (Dewey,
1993, p. 110)
Today, although the relevant empirical phenomena have
advanced in incredible
ways and paces, the intellectual and emotional significance has
not been debated

534
Marianna Papastephanou
exhaustively, let alone secured. The economic and commercial
tendencies that
Dewey noticed have now taken the form of a shift of the
population to the tertiary
sector of economy, i.e. services, commerce, transport, etc.
(Habermas, 1998, p. 308),
what is often seen as knowledge economy, and an
unprecedented flow of informa-
tion across the globe. These facts—and many more—constitute
the phenomenon of
globalisation, which has become the object of globalist studies.
In this paper, after exploring the connection of globalisation
and globalism
meta-theoretically, I discuss some tendencies in the globalist
examination of the
factual, intellectual and emotional significance of globalisation
and show how they
affect educational theory. A critical assessment of these
tendencies leads me to sugges-
tions regarding the direction globalism and the theorization of
the cosmopolitan
pedagogical ideal must take.
Globalisation

Globalisation is an empirical phenomenon that has been
primarily felt as a structural
transformation of the world economic system operating in a
complex dialectics with
time and space compression effected by advances in technology
and communication.
Politically, globalisation is playing a major role in issues of
state sovereignty, world-
order, extra-state policies and administration practices.
Culturally, it is intervening
dramatically in the (re)shaping of identities and self-
conceptions, the premises of
human encounter and exchange of world-interpretations and the
frame of diverse
sensitivities, creativities and responses to aesthetic experience.
As a result of its
multi-dimensionality and the chaotic force of its effects,
globalisation denotes the
‘indeterminate, unruly and self-propelled character of world
affairs: the absence of
a centre, of a controlling desk, of a board of directors’
(Bauman, 1998, p. 38).
Theoretical responses to the facts of globalisation vary and
often conflate empirical
reality and rhetorical myth. The line distinguishing the two is
fuzzy since our access
to empirical reality is always linguistically and culturally
mediated but this should
not lead us to blurring the distinction itself. To see
Globalisation as a ‘discursively
constructed master discourse of uncontrollable global market
forces’ ( Janice Dudley,
cf. Porter & Vidovich, 2000, p. 451) ignores the material effects

of globalisation
and their extra-linguistic factual character. That this character
is thematized and
known to us through our linguistically mediated interactions (a
chiefly epistemo-
logical matter) should not obscure the fact that globalisation
occurs as a set of
actualities that radicalize and accentuate older phenomena of
cross-cultural human
contact. Such a set may be entangled in a complex dialectics
with its discursiveness,
as its narrativity, its representation and the imaginary
investments they create play
an important ideological role in that very consolidation and
promotion of globali-
zing effects and the construction of the particular symbolic
sphere that nurtures
globalisation. Globalisation often becomes an ideological
device that states and
governments employ as an excuse for imposing certain policies
that would otherwise
fail to gain public acceptance or support. But it would be
erroneous to conclude
that the admission of the ideological role globalisation plays
should lead us some-
how to deny its reality. It could even be politically dangerous
since the political
Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism
535

significance of a discursive construction differs from that of a
detectable reality and
focusing on the former would engender one-sided
interpretations overlooking the
need to deal with the latter. In any case, as Giddens writes,
… a few years ago, there was some doubt, particularly on the
left, about
whether globalization was a reality. The unpersuaded would
write
‘globalization’ in inverted commas, to demonstrate their
essential scepticism
about the idea. This controversy has moved on. Discussion
continues
about how best to conceptualize globalization, but few would
any longer
deny its influence—as signalled by the role of global financial
markets,
new developments in electronic communication and geopolitical
transitions [ … ]. Discussion of globalization is no longer
concentrated on
whether or not it exists, but on what its consequences are
(Giddens,
2001, p. 3).
In this respect, I argue, the idea that ‘globalization is best
understood as a kind of
imaginary

’ (Smith, 1999, p. 2) should rather correspond to globalism than
the
latter’s object of inquiry. For, the facticity of globalisation is
one thing but the
thematization
of this facticity is quite another.
For many thinkers, especially Third Way advocates, the impact
of globalisation
‘has been compared to that of the weather; a “self-regulating,
implacable Force of
nature” about which we can do nothing except look out of the
window and hope
for the best’ (Andrews, 1999, p. 1). But also critics of the Third
way such as
Bauman diagnose the same quality. ‘Globalization is not about
what we all or at
least the most resourceful and enterprising among us wish or
hope
to do
. It is about
what is
happening to us all
. It explicitly refers to the foggy and slushy “no man’s

land” stretching beyond the reach of the design and action
capacity of anybody in
particular’ (Bauman, 1998, p. 39). These meteorological
metaphors that have been
employed by many theorists to illustrate the unanticipated and
unintended character
of globalisation prove indirectly the facticity of this
phenomenon and the need for
a nuanced conceptual treatment of globalisation and its
discursive thematization.
Given such a chaotic multiplicity and lack of determinate
responsibility or liability,
it is no wonder that the causes and consequences of
globalisation, ‘let alone the
new political arrangements and kinds of democracy—
cosmopolitan, realist, liberal,
radical—that should respond to globalization are debated and
contested’ (Isin &
Wood, 1999, p. 92). To render the distinction between empirical
reality and its
theorization more operative, I suggest that we reserve the term
‘globalization’ for
the description of the intensification of global
interconnectedness and use the term
‘globalism’ for the discursive treatment and analysis of the
empirical phenomenon.
Globalisation as an empirical phenomenon involves various
practices—some of
which are discursive—and states of affairs. But the discourse
about globalisation,
i.e. its thematization, should be examined separately, at least
for methodological
purposes, and under a different heading: the term I suggest is
‘globalism’. To use
an example, it is part of globalisation that a multinational

company operating in a
Western state may cause an ecological disaster that will affect
primarily the clima-
tological conditions of some remote countries or perhaps even
the whole planet.
536
Marianna Papastephanou
The debate on this phenomenon, however, belongs to a
particular discourse that
we may call globalist.
Globalism
Following Isin & Wood, we may regard globalism as a
discourse that constitutes
globalisation as an object (Isin & Wood, 1999, p. 92).
Therefore, globalism is not
a process or a set of realities independent from researchers.
1

It is a ‘discourse in
which the very idea of globalization is articulated,
disseminated, justified, debated,
in short, constituted as an object of reflection and analysis’
(Isin & Wood, 1999,
p. 94).
Globalist discourse operates at many levels deploying a large
variety of descrip-
tive, evaluative and normative judgements—most frequently in
a syncretic and
eclectic fashion. But one may synthesize some of the
approaches so as to group
them in three main categories of responses to globalisation.
1. The
first
category includes the positions that express deep concern about
globalisa-
tion as a new form of domination propelled by a
‘homogenization’ principle.
2. The
second
comprises those that have a more positive and optimistic
outlook resting
on what I would call a ‘global diversity thesis’.

3. The
third
involves positions that share the pessimism of the first category
but explain
it via a description that acknowledges more subtle
differentiations and accepts the
dual nature of globalisation.
The first and third focus on the concentration of power whereas
the second on its
dispersal. One may associate the first with Eric Hobsbawm, the
second with Feath-
erstone, Giddens and Appadurai and the last with Bauman. (It
should be noted
here that there is nothing ‘essential’ about the association of the
above thinkers
with the corresponding positions on globalisation.
Categorizations of the above
kind serve methodological purposes and can become easily
relativized by the
polemical shifts that often guide theoretical discussions. For
instance, Giddens’s
approach can be largely associated with the ‘global diversity
thesis’ but when he
confronts the glorifications of globalisation that derive from the
conservative inter-
nationalist camp he adopts a far more sceptical and critical
outlook. Therefore, like
all generalizations, the above segregation of positions is subject
to the vagaries of
deliberation.)

1. Hobsbawm deplores the fact that globalisation puts
heterogeneity and particularity
under threat by imposing a single dominant culture as the model
of all operations.
Globalisation is ‘a state of affairs in which the globe is the
essential unit of operation
of some human activity, and where this activity is ideally
conducted in terms of
single, universal, systems of thought, techniques and modes of
communication.
Other particularities of those who engage in such activities, or
of the territories in
which they are conducted, are troublesome or, at best,
irrelevant’ (Hobsbawm,
1998, p. 1).
Globalisation, Globalism and Cosmopolitanism
537
2. The opposite holds for Featherstone who ‘calls into question
the homogenization
thesis, arguing that globalization often results in indigenization
and syncretization of
global symbols and hybridization of various local symbols’
(Isin & Wood, 1999, p.
105). To him, complexity is the most important feature of
globalisation. He argues

A model of global citizenship Antecedentsand outcomesSt.docx

A model of global citizenship Antecedentsand outcomesSt.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A model of global citizenship Antecedentsand outcomesSt.docx

Similar to A model of global citizenship Antecedentsand outcomesSt.docx (18)

More from makdul

More from makdul (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A model of global citizenship Antecedentsand outcomesSt.docx