Evaluating goodness-of-fit indicators for the construct validity and reliability of the scale of the

Arnout, Boshra

doi:10.37653/juah.2024.148877.1279

	Evaluating goodness-of-fit indicators for the construct validity and reliability of the scale of the "Dragons of Inaction" Psychological Barriers to climate change mitigation and adaptation: Studying differences using Bayesian probability
Journal of University of Anbar for Humanities
Article 16, Volume 2024, Issue 2, June 2024, Pages 962-1015 PDF (2.45 M)
Document Type: Research Paper
DOI: 10.37653/juah.2024.148877.1279
Author
Boshra Arnout^*
King Khalid University
Abstract
This study aimed to culturally adapt the "Dragons of Inaction Psychological Barriers" scale developed by Lacroix and her colleagues (Lacroix et al., 2019) in the Canadian context, and measure the construct validity good-fit-indexes of the standard model consisting of five psychological barriers and their stability in the Arab environment. The study also sought to identify differences in the validity and stability indicators of the standard model for both male and female samples and differences in psychological barriers to climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts due to education level, age, and social status. The sample consisted of (497) adults in Saudi Arabia, aged between (27– 55) years (37.96 ± 7.88 years), with (279) males and (218) females. The "Dragons of Inaction Psychological Barriers (DIPB)" scale was applied to the study sample, developed by Lacroix et al. (2019) and adapted by the researcher for the Arab context in this study. The results indicated that the scale has good validity and stability indicators for both dimensions and the overall scale. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the standard five-factor model of psychological barriers had good of-fit construct validity indexes, with no differences between male and female standard models in terms of validity and stability indexes, as both showed good validity and stability. Additionally, the Bayesian independent samples t-test showed differences in psychological barriers to climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts due to education level, age group, and social status. Based on these findings, the study recommended the urgent need to measure the psychological barriers to interpret the gap between individuals' attitudes towards climate change and the actions they take to mitigate it, to develop plans and policies based on scientific evidence. It also recommended the importance of designing programs to reduce these psychological barriers among individuals.
Keywords
dragons of inaction; psychological barriers; climate change; Bayesian analysis; constructive validity

References
Adger, W.N; Barnett, J., Brown, K., Marshall, N. & O’Brien, K. (2013). Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 3, 112–117. Arnout, B. A. (2022). Climate values as predictor of climate change perception in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1044697. Arnout, B. A. (2023). An epidemiological study of mental health problems related to climate change: A procedural framework for mental health system workers. Work (Reading, Mass.), 75(3), 813–835. Bain, P.G; Hornsey, M.J.; Bongiorno, R. & Jeffries, C. (2012). Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nature Climate Change, 2, 600–603. Black, R.; Bennett, S.R.; Thomas, S.M., & Beddington, J.R. (2011). Climate change: migration as adaptation. Nature, 478(7370), 447–449. Castillo, I., Schmidt-Hieber, J., & Van der Vaart, A. (2015). Bayesian linear regression with sparse priors. The Annals of Statistics, 43(5), 1986–2018. Consonni, G., Fouskakis, D., Liseo, B., & Ntzoufras, I. (2018). Prior distributions for objective Bayesian analysis. Bayesian Analysis, 13(2), 627–679. Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Psychol, 66, 290–302. Gifford, R., & Chen, A. (2017). Why aren't we taking action? Psychological barriers to climate-positive food choices. Climatic Change, 140(2), 165–178. Gifford, R., Scannell, L., Kormos, C., Smolova, L., Biel, A., Boncu, S., Corral, N.; Guntherf, H.; Hanyu, K.; Hine, D.; Kaiser, F.; Korpela, K.; Lima, L.; Mertig, A.; Mira, R.; Moser, B.; Passafaro, P.; Pinheiro, J.; Saini, S.; Saka, T. & Uzzell, D. (2009). Temporal pessimism and spatial optimism in environmental assessments: An 18-nation study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 1–12. Cambridge University Press; 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Katz, A.R. (2018). An Overview of Psychological Barriers to Climate Change Response and Their Implications for Improved Climate Change Communication. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection. 2954. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/2954 Keysers, C., Gazzola, V., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2020). Using Bayes factor hypothesis testing in neuroscience to establish evidence of absence. Nature Neuroscience, 23, 788-799. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260. Lacroix, K., & Gifford, R. (2018). Psychological barriers to energy conservation behavior: The role of worldviews and climate change risk perception. Environment and Behavior, Lacroix, K., Gifford, R. & Chen, A. (2019). Developing and validating the Dragons of Inaction Psychological Barriers (DIPB) scale. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 9–18. Lee, K. (2009). Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26, 87–96. Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, 17, 445–459. Maiella, R., La Malva, P., Marchetti, D., Pomarico, E., Di Crosta, A., Palumbo, R., Cetara, L., Di Domenico, A. & Verrocchio, M.C. (2020) The Psychological Distance and Climate Change: A Systematic Review on the Mitigation and Adaptation Behaviors. Psychol.11, 1-14. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.568899 Paramo, P. (2017). Pro-environmental rules: An alternative for reducing the "say-do" gap in environmental education. Suma Psicol. 24(1), 42-58. Ramstetter, L. & Habersack, F. (2020) Do women make a difference? Analysing environmental attitudes and actions of Members of the European Parliament, Environmental Politics, 29:6, 1063-1084, DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2019.1609156 Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2015). A direct latent variable modeling-based method for point and interval estimation of coefficient alpha. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75, 146-156. Sahraeian, S., Khanahmadi, I, & Sadeghiyeh, H. (2021). Pro-environmental behaviors correlate with delay discounting. https://osf.io/db2gy/download Sandoval-Escobar, M.; Paramo, P.; Orejuela, J.; Gonzalez, I.; Fernando, O.; Herrera, K.; Garzon, C.; & Erazo, C. (2019). Paradoxes of the environmental behavior of university students in different academic disciplines.Interdisciplinaria, 36(2), 165-184. Schultz, P. W., & Kaiser, F. G. (2012). Promoting pro-environmental behavior. In S. Clayton (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 556–580). New York: Oxford University Press. Sturgess, M. (2012). Psychometric Validation and Demographic Differences in Two Recently Developed Trait Mindfulness Measures. UN published Master Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington. Vieira, J., Castro, S.L., & Souza, A.S. (2023) Psychological barriers moderate the attitude-behavior gap for climate change. PLoS ONE, 18(7), e0287404. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287404 Wagenmakers, E., Morey, R. D., & Lee, M. D. (2016). Bayesian benefits for the pragmatic researcher. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 169–176 Wang, C., Geng, L., & Rodríguez Casallas, J.D. (2022). Mindfulness to climate change inaction: The role of awe, “Dragons of inaction” psychological barriers and nature connectedness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 84, 101912. Xiang, P., Zhang, H., Geng, L., Zhou, K. & Wu, Y. (2019) Individualist–Collectivist Differences in Climate Change Inaction: The Role of Perceived Intractability. Psychol.10:187. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00187 Yuriev, A., Dahmen, M., Paillé, P., Boiral, O., & Guillaumie, L. (2020). Pro-environmental behaviors through the lens of the theory of planned behavior: A scoping review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. Arnout, Bushra Ismail Ahmed. (2022). The scientific encyclopedia on the psychology of climate change. Madbouly Library. ‏ Conference of the Parties: ((COP26). Together for our planet. United Nations. https://www.un.org/ar/climatechange/cop26.
Statistics Article View: 457 PDF Download: 232

Evaluating goodness-of-fit indicators for the construct validity and reliability of the scale of the "Dragons of Inaction" Psychological Barriers to climate change mitigation and adaptation: Studying differences using Bayesian probability