127 general discussion key open research questions, as well as relevant practical implications deriving from our overall findings. 5.2. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS AND THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS Transilience can be Assessed in a Valid and Reliable Way First, in this PhD dissertation we set out to develop a valid and reliable scale to measure human transilience in the face of an adversity. As a case in point, we tested the validity and reliability of the transilience scale in the context of climate change. We expected the scale to capture well the three components of transilience, yet to reflect that transilience is an overarching construct. Additionally, we expected transilience to be positively associated with theoretically related constructs (i.e., self-efficacy, outcome efficacy, resilience), yet not to overlap with any of them. We also expected that transilience does not imply that people deny or downplay the threat posed by the adversity under consideration. Furthermore, we expected the transilience scale to be applicable both at the individual and at the collective level; this is relevant considering that the threat of certain adversities, particularly large-scale adversities like climate change, likely affects both individuals and groups. Overall results show that we succeeded in developing a valid and reliable transilience scale. In Chapter 2, we developed a scale to assess individual transilience, and we tested its validity in the context of climate change risks; the scale comprises items reflecting the three components of transilience (i.e., persistence, adaptability, and transformability), which we developed in consultation of the literature and with experts in the field of climate change adaptation (see Table 5.1 below). We found support for the reliability and validity of the climate change transilience scale across four empirical studies, conducted in three different countries (USA, The Netherlands, UK). As expected, the individual transilience scale showed good content validity, as it accurately reflected the three components of persistence, adaptability, and transformability. Yet, as expected, the overall transilience score appeared the most meaningful to report and interpret, indicating that transilience is an overarching construct. The climate change transilience scale showed to have good concurrent and discriminant validity. As expected, transilience was found to be positively related, yet not overlapping with self-efficacy (i.e., the extent to which people think they are capable of engaging in adaptation behaviour; van Valkengoed & Steg 2019b), outcome efficacy (i.e., the extent to which people think their adaptation actions would reduce climate change risks; van Valkengoed & Steg 2019b) and resilience (i.e., the extent 5
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw