36 chapter 2 Self- Efficacy and Outcome Efficacy for Greening the Backyard. Self-efficacy was assessed with the item ‘I can make my backyard greener’. Outcome Efficacy was assessed with the item ‘A greener backyard can reduce the negative consequences of a flood’. Climate Change Adaptation Intentions. Participants indicated to what extent they intend to engage in four adaptation behaviours within the next year: ‘Green my own backyard’; ‘Donate money to a local organization aiming to make the city greener’; ‘Make an evacuation plan’; ‘Seek information about climate change’, on a scale from 1 = Not at all to 7 = Very much. The first two items are adaptive measures that particularly reduce the risk of flooding, whilst the latter two focus on climate adaptation more broadly. We averaged the four items into one adaptation intentions scale.8 Results Content Validity Table 2.7 shows that transilience items generally correlated most strongly with the component they were assigned to. We found that the reverse-coded items were either more strongly related to another component, or weakly related to the expected component (see Table 2.7).9 Therefore, we removed these reverse-coded items before calculating average scale scores. To have an equal number of items from each subcomponent, we removed the transformability item ‘I can find new opportunities by adjusting to climate change’, as this has the lowest face validity in comparison to the other transformability items. Again, the three-dimensional model fitted the data significantly better than a unidimensional model χ2 (3) = 238, p < .001 (see model fit indices in Supplementary Material). Again, the Haberman procedure indicated that the total transilience score is the most meaningful (see Table 2.3). Omega hierarchical showed that around 43% of the variance is attributable to a common factor (ωh = .43) - somewhat lower compared to Study 1, but still adequate.10 The reliability of the resulting transilience scale (12 items) was good (see Table 2.8). Again, we found that the mean score for the transilience scale was above the mid-point scale (see Table 2.8), indicating that, also in a Dutch sample, people on average perceive they can be transilient in the face of climate change risks. 8 Although the scale’s reliability was rather low, we opted for keeping all items, as removing items worsened reliability. The results were similar when analysing intention items separately; only the intention to make an evacuation plan was not significantly related to transilience. 9 These findings are in line with recent discussions in the literature, where the practice of using reverse items in combination with regular items has been put into question (see Suarez Alvarez et al., 2018 for more details). We inspected the ranges of the items (reported in Supplementary Material for Study 4) to exclude the possibility of acquiescence bias. 10 According to Revelle (n.d., p. 228-230) a value of ωh =.48 indicates large general factor and small group factors, while a value of ωh = .35 indicates large group factors and small general factor. Hence, a value of ωh =.43 reflects that the scale somewhat assesses a single construct.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw