气候变化焦虑的测量:气候焦虑量表的法国验证。

IF 2.7 4区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Camille Mouguiama-Daouda, M Annelise Blanchard, Charlotte Coussement, Alexandre Heeren
{"title":"气候变化焦虑的测量:气候焦虑量表的法国验证。","authors":"Camille Mouguiama-Daouda,&nbsp;M Annelise Blanchard,&nbsp;Charlotte Coussement,&nbsp;Alexandre Heeren","doi":"10.5334/pb.1137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The notion of climate change anxiety has gained traction in the last years. Clayton & Karazsia (2020) recently developed the 22-item Climate Change Anxiety Scale (CAS), which assesses climate change anxiety via a four-factor structure. Yet other research has cast doubts on the very structure of the CAS by calling either for a shorter (i.e. 13 items) two-factor structure or for a shorter single-factor structure (i.e. 13 items). So far, these three different models have not yet been compared in one study. Moreover, uncertainty remains regarding the associations between the CAS and other psychological constructs, especially anxiety and depression. This project was designed to overcome these limitations. In a first preregistered study (<i>n</i> = 305), we translated the scale into French and tested, via confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), whether the French version would better fit with a four-, two-, or single-factor structure, as implied by previous works. We also examined how the CAS factors related to depression, anxiety, and environmental identity. In a second preregistered study, we aimed at replicating our comparison between the three CFA models in a larger sample (<i>n</i> = 905). Both studies pointed to a 13-item version of the scale with a two-factor structure as the best fitting model, with one factor reflecting cognitive and emotional features of climate change anxiety and the other reflecting the related functional impairments. Each factor exhibited a positive association with depression and environmental identity but not with general anxiety. We discuss how this two-factor structure impacts the conceptualization of climate change anxiety.</p>","PeriodicalId":46662,"journal":{"name":"Psychologica Belgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8954884/pdf/","citationCount":"26","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Measurement of Climate Change Anxiety: French Validation of the Climate Anxiety Scale.\",\"authors\":\"Camille Mouguiama-Daouda,&nbsp;M Annelise Blanchard,&nbsp;Charlotte Coussement,&nbsp;Alexandre Heeren\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/pb.1137\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The notion of climate change anxiety has gained traction in the last years. Clayton & Karazsia (2020) recently developed the 22-item Climate Change Anxiety Scale (CAS), which assesses climate change anxiety via a four-factor structure. Yet other research has cast doubts on the very structure of the CAS by calling either for a shorter (i.e. 13 items) two-factor structure or for a shorter single-factor structure (i.e. 13 items). So far, these three different models have not yet been compared in one study. Moreover, uncertainty remains regarding the associations between the CAS and other psychological constructs, especially anxiety and depression. This project was designed to overcome these limitations. In a first preregistered study (<i>n</i> = 305), we translated the scale into French and tested, via confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), whether the French version would better fit with a four-, two-, or single-factor structure, as implied by previous works. We also examined how the CAS factors related to depression, anxiety, and environmental identity. In a second preregistered study, we aimed at replicating our comparison between the three CFA models in a larger sample (<i>n</i> = 905). Both studies pointed to a 13-item version of the scale with a two-factor structure as the best fitting model, with one factor reflecting cognitive and emotional features of climate change anxiety and the other reflecting the related functional impairments. Each factor exhibited a positive association with depression and environmental identity but not with general anxiety. We discuss how this two-factor structure impacts the conceptualization of climate change anxiety.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychologica Belgica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8954884/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"26\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychologica Belgica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.1137\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.1137","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

摘要

气候变化焦虑的概念在过去几年得到了广泛关注。Clayton & Karazsia(2020)最近开发了22项气候变化焦虑量表(CAS),该量表通过四因素结构评估气候变化焦虑。然而,其他研究对CAS的结构本身提出了质疑,要求采用较短的双因素结构(即13项)或较短的单因素结构(即13项)。到目前为止,这三种不同的模型还没有在一项研究中进行比较。此外,关于CAS与其他心理构念之间的关系,特别是焦虑和抑郁,仍然存在不确定性。该项目旨在克服这些限制。在第一项预注册研究中(n = 305),我们将量表翻译成法语,并通过验证性因子分析(CFA)测试法语版本是否更适合四因素、两因素或单因素结构,正如之前的工作所暗示的那样。我们还研究了CAS因素与抑郁、焦虑和环境认同的关系。在第二项预注册研究中,我们的目标是在更大的样本中重复三种CFA模型之间的比较(n = 905)。两项研究都指出,量表的13项版本采用双因素结构作为最佳拟合模型,其中一个因素反映气候变化焦虑的认知和情感特征,另一个反映相关的功能障碍。每个因素都与抑郁和环境认同呈正相关,但与一般焦虑无关。我们讨论了这种双因素结构如何影响气候变化焦虑的概念化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On the Measurement of Climate Change Anxiety: French Validation of the Climate Anxiety Scale.

The notion of climate change anxiety has gained traction in the last years. Clayton & Karazsia (2020) recently developed the 22-item Climate Change Anxiety Scale (CAS), which assesses climate change anxiety via a four-factor structure. Yet other research has cast doubts on the very structure of the CAS by calling either for a shorter (i.e. 13 items) two-factor structure or for a shorter single-factor structure (i.e. 13 items). So far, these three different models have not yet been compared in one study. Moreover, uncertainty remains regarding the associations between the CAS and other psychological constructs, especially anxiety and depression. This project was designed to overcome these limitations. In a first preregistered study (n = 305), we translated the scale into French and tested, via confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), whether the French version would better fit with a four-, two-, or single-factor structure, as implied by previous works. We also examined how the CAS factors related to depression, anxiety, and environmental identity. In a second preregistered study, we aimed at replicating our comparison between the three CFA models in a larger sample (n = 905). Both studies pointed to a 13-item version of the scale with a two-factor structure as the best fitting model, with one factor reflecting cognitive and emotional features of climate change anxiety and the other reflecting the related functional impairments. Each factor exhibited a positive association with depression and environmental identity but not with general anxiety. We discuss how this two-factor structure impacts the conceptualization of climate change anxiety.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychologica Belgica
Psychologica Belgica PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信