39 individual transilience in the face of climate change first, it was not set up with the main purpose of scale validation; second, most of the constructs were measured with only one item. We address these limitations in the next studies. 2.4. STUDY 3 Study 3 was set up to further validate the transilience scale, by including additional measures. To test concurrent and discriminant validity, we examined whether transilience is related to positive affect about climate change. Feeling positive emotions, such as hope and optimism, is typically associated with resilience (Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004) and can promote well-being and adaptive responses in the face of adverse events (Scheier & Carver, 1992; Tugade et al., 2004). Thus, we expect climate change positive affect to be positively related to transilience. Additionally, we included general psychological resilience to further assess discriminant validity. We expect transilience to be positively related to general resilience, as we incorporate the idea of ‘bouncing back’ in the face of climate change with the persistence component. However, we expect that these constructs will not overlap, as transilience acknowledges that humans can do more than ‘bounce back’, and thus assesses something different from resilience. Furthermore, transilience is assessed at the more specific level of climate change, while resilience is measured at a general level. To test predictive validity, we included both individual and collective adaptation behaviours, i.e. behaviours performed with and for other people (also called community responses; Reser & Swim, 2011). Furthermore, we included political forms of collective action (e.g., protesting and signing a petition for climate change adaptation; van Zomeren & Iyer, 2009; van Zomeren et al., 2019). We tested incremental validity of transilience on these measures by controlling for self- or outcome efficacy. We also tested whether higher transilience is positively related to people’s general well-being, and verified incremental validity of transilience by controlling for resilience. To account for the fact that people may face different climate change risks depending on the region they live (e.g. inhabitants of a coastal area in the North-East of the US may face a higher risk due to increase rainfall and sea-level rise, whereas those who live in the South-West face higher risks of droughts and wildfires; Clayton et al., 2016), we adjusted some of the measures by explicitly referring to climate change risks affecting the local community or municipality, making the items directly relevant for participants. 2
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw