SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 27 Sayı: 52

Adaptation of the Psychological Socio-Spatial Distance of Climate Change Scale into Turkish: A Preliminary Study

İKLİM DEĞİŞİKLİĞİNİN PSİKOLOJİK SOSYOMEKÂNSAL MESAFESİ ÖLÇEĞİNİN TÜRKÇEYE UYARLANMASI: BİR ÖN ÇALIŞMA

Gökhan Şahin(KARADENİZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6479-7018
Pages
1141–1157
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Increasing research findings reveal that the world’s climate is changing rapidly.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Increasing research findings reveal that the world’s climate is changing rapidly.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It is widely accepted that the concept of psychological distance constitutes a significant barrier to climate action.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The final 12-item version of the scale has demonstrated that it is a viable scale in Turkish for evaluating the four sub-dimensions of psychological distance toward climate change.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:iklim değişikliği · psikolojik mesafe · sosyal mesafe

Abstract

Increasing research findings reveal that the world’s climate is changing rapidly. The primary cause of this change is human activities. It is widely accepted that the concept of psychological distance constitutes a significant barrier to climate action. In this study, it was aimed to adapt the scale developed by Loy and Spence (2020: 10) into Turkish to measure the dimensions of psychological distance (social, spatial, temporal, hypothetical) regarding the climate change problem. For linguistic equivalence, the translation-back translation method was used, followed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and reliability-validity analyses. The study sample consisted of 143 volunteers (108 females, 35 males) reached through social media using the convenience sampling method. The Climate Change Denial Scale was used for the criterion validity of the scale. The significant positive correlation observed between the total scores obtained from both scales showed that the adapted scale has criterion validity. The final 12-item version of the scale has demonstrated that it is a viable scale in Turkish for evaluating the four sub-dimensions of psychological distance toward climate change.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, Loy ve Spence (2020) tarafından geliştirilen İklim Değişikliğinin Psikolojik Sosyo-Mekânsal Mesafesi Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanması ve psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çeviri-geri çeviri sürecinin ardından ölçek, kolayda örneklemeyle ulaşılan 143 gönüllüye (108 kadın, 35 erkek) uygulanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, madde analizi, iç tutarlılık ve ölçüt geçerliği incelemeleri yürütülmüştür. Düşük düzeltilmiş madde-toplam korelasyonu nedeniyle bir madde çıkarılmış; 12 maddelik dört faktörlü yapı kabul edilebilir uyum göstermiştir (RMSEA = .063, CFI = .961, TLI = .947, SRMR = .058). Toplam ölçeğin Cronbach alfa katsayısı .85’tir. Psikolojik mesafe ile iklim değişikliği inkârı arasında pozitif ilişki bulunmuştur (r = .401, p < .001). Bulgular, ölçeğin Türkçe formunun genç ağırlıklı bu örneklemde psikolojik mesafeyi değerlendirmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ön araç olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şahin, G. (2026). Adaptation of the Psychological Socio-Spatial Distance of Climate Change Scale into Turkish: A Preliminary Study. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 52, 1141–1157. https://doi.org/10.21550/sosbilder.1880065

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (38)

  1. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191.
  2. Cebeci, F., Karaman, M., Öztürk, A. F., Uzun, K., Altin, O., Arici, A., Artan, T. (2022). İklim değişikliği anksiyetesi ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Ufkun Ötesi Bilim Dergisi, 22(1), 20-42.
  3. Clayton, S. (2020). Psychology and climate change. Cambridge University Press.
  4. Dal, B., Alper, U., Özdem-Yilmaz, Y., Öztürk, N., Sönmez, D. (2015). A model for pre-service teachers’ climate change awareness and willingness to act for pro-climate change friendly behavior: Adaptation of awareness to climate change questionnaire. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 24(3), 184-200.
  5. Deniz, M., İnel, Y., Sezer, A. (2021). Awareness scale of university students about global climate change. International Journal of Geography and Geography Education (IGGE), (43), 252-264.
  6. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications.
  7. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
  8. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  9. Gönençgil, B. (2022). İklim değişikliği. Sosyal Bilimler Ansiklopedisi. TÜBİTAK.
  10. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson.
  11. Häkkinen, K. & Akrami, N. (2014). Ideology and climate change denial. Personality and Individual Differences, (70), 62-65.
  12. Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F., Spielberger, C. D. (Eds.). (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  13. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, (43), 115-135.
  14. Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
  15. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama, Eds.). Cambridge University Press.
  16. JASP Team. (2024). JASP (Version 0.18.3) [Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org/
  17. Jones, C., Hine, D. W., Marks, A. D. G. (2017). The future is now: Reducing psychological distance to increase public engagement with climate change. Risk Analysis, 37(2), 331-341.
  18. Kay, A. & Gaymard, S. (2021). The social representations of climate change and media representations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 78, 101684.
  19. Keller, E., Marsh, J. E., Richardson, B. H., Ball, L. J. (2022). A systematic review of the psychological distance of climate change: Towards the development of an evidence-based construct. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81(101822), 1-19.
  20. Kıral Uçar, G., Gezici Yalçın, M., Özdemir, G. (2019). İklim değişikliği inkârının sosyal baskınlık yönelimi ve ekolojik adil dünya inancı ile ilişkisi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(37), 739-764.
  21. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
  22. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C. (2010). Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in January 2010. Yale University and George Mason University. Yale Project on Climate Change. http://environment.yale.edu/uploads/AmericansGlobalWarmingBeliefs2010.pdf
  23. Lorenzoni, I. & Pidgeon, N. F. (2006). Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change, 77(1-2), 73-95.
  24. Loy, L. S. & Spence, A. (2020). Reducing, and bridging, the psychological distance of climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 67(101388), 1-21.
  25. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320-341.
  26. McDonald, R. I., Chai, H. Y., Newell, B. R. (2015). Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: An integrative review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, (44), 109-118.
  27. Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
  28. Özbay, S. & Alcı, B. (2021). İklim değişikliği kaygı ölçeği: Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Research Studies Anatolia Journal, (3), 183-193.
  29. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
  30. Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N. (2012). The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 957-972.
  31. Steentjes, K., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Corner, A., Arnold, A., Böhm, G., Mays, C., Poumadère, M., Ruddat, M., Scheer, D., Sonnberger, M., Tvinnereim, E. (2017). European perceptions of climate change (EPCC): Topline findings of a survey conducted in four European countries in 2016. Cardiff University.
  32. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
  33. Şahin, G. (2023). Psychological distance in climate change: The role of climate change denial, contact with nature and political opinion. Afet ve Risk Dergisi, 6(3), 1202-1217.
  34. Şeremet, M. & Efe, S. (2023). Türkiye’de iklim haberciliği: Kuraklık haberleri üzerine bir içerik analizi. Kastamonu İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(1), 1-25.
  35. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
  36. Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
  37. van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Improving public engagement with climate change: Five “best practice” insights from psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 758-763.
  38. van Valkengoed, A. M., Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G. (2023). The psychological distance of climate change is overestimated. One Earth, 6(4), 362-391.