42 chapter 2 General Resilience. We used The Brief Resilience Scale (Smith et al., 2008) to assess the extent to which people feel capable to bounce back from adversities in general. The scale consists of three positively-worded (e.g., ‘I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times’), and three reverse-coded items (e.g., ‘I have a hard time making it through stressful events’; see Appendix B). Items were rated on a 5-point scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Well-being. We used The Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985), consisting of 5 items (e.g., ‘In most ways my life is close to my ideal’), to assess general well-being. Results Content Validity The results of the MGM showed that all items in the transilience scale were most strongly correlated with the components they were assigned to (see Table 2.9), indicating that the 12 items captured well the three components of transilience. Again, the three-dimensional model fitted the data significantly better than a unidimensional model χ2 (3) = 62.9, p < .001 (see model fit indices in Supplementary Material). Both the Haberman (see Table 2.3) and omega hierarchical (ωh = .74) indicated that the transilience scale assesses a single construct. The reliability of the transilience scale was excellent (see Table 2.10). Again, average scores indicated that people perceive transilience in the face of climate change. Concurrent and Discriminant Validity Again, concurrent and discriminant validity was supported (see Table 2.10). As expected, higher transilience was significantly related to more positive affect, but not to negative affect about climate change, and to stronger perceptions of climate change risks, indicating that higher transilience was not associated with downplaying climate change risks. As expected, transilience was positively related to self-efficacy, outcome efficacy and general resilience, yet the effect sizes did not indicate construct overlap (they were all between r = .30 and r = .60). Predictive and Incremental Validity Again, predictive validity was supported (see Table 2.10). Higher transilience increased the likelihood that respondents engaged in all types of climate adaptive behaviours and supported policies, both at the local and national level, with effects ranging from .16 to .41. When controlling for self- or outcome efficacy, transilience remained related to collective behaviours, policy support, and well-being (see Table 2.11). Furthermore, higher transilience was related to higher general well-being, as expected, and this relation remained when controlling for self- and outcome efficacy or for resilience (see Table 2.11).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw