78 chapter 3 32123 responses (47% identified as men; < 0.5% identified as ‘other’; M age = 54.00; SDage = 18.00; see all demographic information for T1, T2 and the merged dataset in Supplementary Material). A post-hoc power calculation (G*Power; Faul et al., 2007) showed that with these samples we had a power of .99 to detect a medium-to-large correlation (r = .30) and a power of higher than .99 to detect a medium effect (f = .25) with a repeated-measures design with one group and two measurement levels. After consenting, participants responded to the relevant questions in Dutch. Measures The full list of items is provided in Appendix B. At T2, the measures were identical to Study 1. Specifically, we assessed transilience in the face of COVID-19 (12 items), individual and collective adaptation behaviours, general well-being, cognitive coping, positive personal change derived from COVID-19, climate change adaptive capacity and climate change adaptation intentions (both due to COVID-19). For all measures we referred to ‘the Dutch’ and ‘The Netherlands’ instead of ‘Italians’ and ‘Italy’. In comparison to Study 1 and T2, T1 included fewer measures and a few different items, to keep the survey short and secure a high response rate. More precisely, at T1 we assessed transilience in the face of COVID-19, collective adaptation behaviours and general well-being as in Study 1 (thus cognitive coping, positive personal change, and the measures related to climate change were not included). The individual adaptation behaviours scale was slightly different at T1: it included the item ‘I call the doctor if I have early symptoms’ (which was recommended at that time, but later was no longer recommended to avoid saturating the healthcare facilities), instead of the item ‘I keep 1.5m distance’ (which was not yet recommended officially). Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients are provided in Tables 3.2- 3.4. Results and Discussion Perceived Transilience and Relationships with Relevant Outcomes at T1 Table 3.2 shows that at T1 the mean scores for transilience were above the midpoint of the scale (Mdiff-4 = 0.94, t(434) = 20.57; d = 0.99; p < .001), indicating that on average Dutch respondents perceived they can persist, adapt flexibly, and positively transform in the face of COVID-19, supporting hypothesis 1. Notably, and contrary to Study 1, the more people perceived transilience in the face of COVID-19, the more likely they were to engage in individual and collective adaptive behaviours, and the higher their general well-being, with a medium-to-large effect (i.e. .24 < r < .45; Lovakov & Agandulina, 2021), supporting hypothesis 2. 23 We cleaned the datasets for T1 and T2 separately, before creating the merged dataset. As such, the merged dataset only includes responses from people who answered accurately at both T1 and T2. The fact that the merged dataset contains less participants than the dataset at T2 indicates that some respondents responded accurately at T2, but not at T1. We calculated bivariate correlations for all separate datasets (T1, T2, and merged), whereas we ran the longitudinal analyses only with the merged dataset.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw