28 chapter 2 Method Participants and Procedure We aimed for around 10 participants per scale item (i.e., around 180 participants; Boateng et al., 2018). A random sample of 194 participants was recruited via Amazon MTurk.2 After data inspection and cleaning,3 178 responses (46% male; M age = 39; SDage = 12.5) were retained (see more demographics in Supplementary Material). After agreeing to participate, participants were directed to the survey in Qualtrics, where they could fill in the questionnaire and be compensated $1.20 for participation. Measures All measures were assessed on a seven-point Likert-scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, unless otherwise specified (see all items in Appendix B). In the case of reverse-coded items, scores were recoded so that a higher score reflected stronger endorsement of the construct. For all scales, we computed mean scores. The questionnaire started with the climate change reality items and ended with the climate change transilience scale (the transilience items were presented in randomized order). The other measures were presented in a randomized order. See Table 2.4 for descriptives and reliability indicators. Climate Change Reality. Three items assessed the extent to which people believe in climate change (e.g., ‘I believe climate change is real’; van Valkengoed et al., 2021). We excluded responses from participants who do not believe in climate change. We believe the transilience scale does not make sense when people do not believe climate change is real. Climate deniers would likely not agree with the transilience items. Furthermore, for climate change deniers variations in responses on transilience items (e.g. scoring a 1 = strongly disagree vs a 4 = neither agree nor disagree) likely do not reflect variations in perceived adaptive capacity, as responses are rooted in a disbelief in climate change. Thus, we used the reality items only for data cleaning purposes. Negative Affect about Climate Change. Participants indicated the extent to which they feel negative affect about climate change (three items, e.g., ‘I worry about climate change’). 2 Participants were randomly allocated to the present study or another study assessing whether people perceive they can adapt to climate change collectively, that is, as a community. As the second study did not include any item on individual transilience, we do not discuss it here. 3 From the initial sample we removed 16 participants (8.2%) based on the following criteria. First, duplicated IP addresses were removed (n = 2). Second, participants who consistently scored above or below the midpoint of the scale for the reality of climate change items (i.e., only ‘5’, ‘6’ or ‘7’ or only ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’) were removed (n = 11), as these items were mutually exclusive (Meade & Craig, 2012; e.g. ‘I believe that climate change is real’ and ‘I do NOT believe that climate change is real’). Third, one participant was removed because they did not believe in the reality of climate change. Finally, we removed participants who completed the survey within 3 minutes (n = 2), as it seems unrealistic to accurately fill in the questionnaire this time (median completion time = 9.1 minutes).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw