48 chapter 2 and appreciation of life. For each dimension, we selected the item that most clearly reflected positive change.17 Participants rated the items on a scale from 1 = very small degree to 5 = very great degree. We also included the option ‘did not experience this’, that was coded as 0. Climate Change Anxiety Scale. We included the 13-item Climate Change Anxiety Scale (Clayton & Karatzsia, 2020) which assesses with what frequency people experience two forms of impairment associated to climate change: cognitive (e.g. ‘Thinking about climate change makes it difficult for me to concentrate’) and functional (e.g. ‘My concerns about climate change can make it hard for me to have fun with my family or friends’). Participants rated each of the items on a scale from 1 = never to 5 = almost always. Results Content Validity We replicated the findings supporting content validity of the transilience scale. The results of the MGM, again, supported the three-factor structure of the transilience scale (see Table 2.11). Only one persistence item (the one mentioning ‘persistent’) correlated similarly strong with adaptability. Again, the three-dimensional model fitted the data significantly better than a unidimensional model, χ2 (3) = 424 p < .001 (see model fit indices in Supplementary Material). Again, The Haberman procedure (see Table 2.3) and omega hierarchical (ωh = .71) indicated that the scale reflects a single construct. The transilience scale showed very good reliability (see Table 2.13). Again, the average scores showed that people perceive they can be transilient in the face of climate change (see Table 2.13). Concurrent and Discriminant Validity We mostly replicated the findings supporting the concurrent and discriminant validity of the transilience scale (see Table 2.13). As expected, higher transilience was associated with more positive affect about climate change. Yet, unexpectedly, higher transilience was associated with perceiving slightly less climate change risks, although the effect size in this last case was very small (r = -.07, p = .044). As expected, the correlation between transilience and psychological resilience, self-efficacy, and outcome efficacy, respectively, was positive, and did not suggest construct overlap (i.e., the effects were between r = .30 and r = .45; see Table 2.13). 17 The original scale has 2 items for each dimension. The correlations when using the original 6 items scale were similar. The remaining dimensions were Relating to Others and Spiritual Growth (Cann et al., 2010), which we consider outside the scope of the present paper.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw