129 general discussion to the full 12-items scale (see Chapter 3). Indeed, some of the items of the transilience scale are very similar (e.g., the items assessing adaptability), which may explain why the shorter version of the scale works well. Still, we recommend using the full version of the scale to capture the full complexity of the construct, unless external limitations impede to do so. In Chapter 4, we adapted the individual climate change transilience scale to assess transilience at the collective level, and we tested its validity in the context of climate change risks. Results across two studies conducted in the US and the Netherlands indicated good psychometric properties of the collective transilience scale (i.e., the perceived capacity to persist, adapt flexibly, and positively transform in the face of climate change risks as a community). As expected, we found that the collective transilience scale captures well the three theorised components, yet that it should be interpreted and reported as an overarching construct. The collective transilience scale also showed good concurrent and discriminant validity. As expected, collective transilience was positively related to higher collective efficacy (i.e., the perceived ability of a community to achieve specific (climate change adaptation) goals; Bandura, 1998). Yet both constructs did not overlap, indicating that collective transilience reflects a different construct. Again, as expected, we found that higher collective transilience does not imply that people downplay or deny that climate change poses risks to one’s community. Additionally, we found that collective transilience is positively related to individual transilience, yet the two constructs can be empirically distinguished. As such, our findings suggest that the more people perceive they can be transilient as individuals, the more they perceive they can be transilient as a community. At the same time, while both collective and individual transilience tap into people’s perceived capacity to adapt to an adversity, individual transilience specifically captures the perceived adaptive capacity of the individual, while collective transilience captures the perceived adaptive capacity of one’s community. All in all, in this PhD dissertation we succeeded in developing a valid and reliable scale to measure transilience, at the individual as well as collective level, which can be used in the face of threats with different levels of severity, including different adversities (e.g., climate change, COVID-19 pandemic) and countries. In line with our proposition, the transilience scale captures three distinct components, which are all relevant parts of the overarching construct of transilience. Moreover, transilience is related to, yet distinct from, existing relevant constructs in the domain of human adaptation to adversities, such as self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and general resilience. In line with our expectations, when people strongly perceive transilience they don’t seem to downplay the threat posed by an adversity, which indicates that transilience is 5
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw