79 individual transilience in the face of the covid-19 pandemic Table 3.2. Descriptive Analyses, Reliability Coefficients and Correlations between Measures in Study 2, T1 (n = 435) M SD α ωt 1 2 3 1. Transilience 4.94 0.95 .91 .94 2. Individual adaptation behaviours 4.95 0.94 .82 .86 .31*** 3. Collective adaptation behaviours 4.64 1.17 .80 .82 .42*** .62*** 4. Well-being 5.56 1.28 .33*** .18*** .17*** Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; α = Cronbach’s alpha; ωt = McDonald’s omega. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 Perceived Transilience and Relationships with Relevant Outcomes at T2 Table 3.3 shows the correlations between transilience and all relevant variables at T2. Again, people perceived transilience in the face of COVID-19 (Mdiff-4 = 1.23, t(330) = 23.74; d = 1.30 p < .001), and higher transilience was associated with more individual and collective adaptation behaviours and with higher well-being, as at T1, supporting hypothesis 2. As in Study 1, higher transilience was associated with higher levels of personal positive change derived from the confrontation with COVID-19. Contrary to Study 1, yet in line with our expectations, higher transilience was associated also with more cognitive coping. Furthermore, higher transilience was associated with higher perceived resilience in the face of climate change (due to COVID-19) and, contrary to Study 1, also with higher intention to adapt to climate change (due to COVID-19). Again, the effects were medium-to-large (i.e., .24 < r < .45; Lovakov & Agandulina, 2021). All in all, the cross-sectional results from the Dutch sample show that higher transilience in response to COVID-19 is associated with increased engagement in individual and collective adaptation behaviours, more cognitive coping, higher well-being, and more positive change, regardless of the differences in the severity of the threat of the pandemic and the implemented measures across time points. It is likely that in Study 2, higher transilience did promote adaptive responses due to the less restrictive context in The Netherlands during the study period, where individual had greater freedom compared to Italy during the time of Study 1. In such situations, psychological factors such as transilience may be more likely to exert influence on people’s choices and actions (cf. Guagnano et al., 1995; cf. Stern, 2000). 3
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw