Development and Validation of the Curiosity of Climate Changes Scale

Introduction

Climate change is a result of natural factors, such as increased energy from the sun, but also of man-made greenhouse gases.¹ The sources of these gases are fossil fuels burned in power stations, transport, industry and households, agriculture and land-use changes such as deforestation, waste disposal in landfills and the use of industrial fluorinated gases.² The effects of climate change can be seen in the increasing frequency of heat waves, droughts, floods, heavy rainfall and hurricanes and a significant portion of those consequences are interrelated, causing each other to amplify.^3–5 These highly adverse weather events cause a range of damage and destruction in various sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, forestry and tourism.^6–9 They also have a negative impact on human health, both physical and mental.^10,11

Despite the clearly visible consequences of planetary warming and pollution, these signals are sometimes ignored because fighting climate warming would mean reducing profits and increasing the costs of reorganising the economy and production. Many people therefore deny climate change, considering it to be a whim and an invention of ecologists. However, we can also observe a significant group of people who care about stopping climate change. They are interested in the causes, consequences and coping mechanisms associated with climate change and want to explore the impact of these changes on our planet. In other words, they are curious about climate change. It seems that curiosity of these people has a crucial contribution to make to the efforts being made to combat climate change.

Generally speaking, curiosity can be defined as a need to seek knowledge, to explore and reach satisfaction as a result of obtaining new information,¹² however curiosity tends to be defined and understood in different ways depending on the scientific discipline. From philosophical perspective every human being has a desire for knowledge but when it comes to philosophy itself it’s not curiosity that matters, but something called thauma which was translated as “wonder”.¹³ In turn, contemporary research from the field of social sciences proposes that curiosity should be viewed as a mostly social phenomenon. It views it as a drive – due to its motivational function – and as such curiosity organizes the production of knowledge which depends on both historical and cultural circumstances.¹⁴ Which means that instead of perceiving curiosity on an individual level as a personal characteristic, it should also be viewed as a force that organizes knowledge in a social world. To comprehensively understand and tackle climate change, it is imperative to analyse the collective actions of significant segments of society, instead of solely emphasizing individual initiatives. From more of an evolutionary approach, according to McDougall, curiosity is one of the instincts, defined as an impulse or a strong need to approach an object that differs from other objects and its surrounding, an object that excites its perceiver.¹⁵ From this point of view, curiosity about climate change, especially when it is very intense, can be seen as a motive that is biologically determined.

Also from a psychological perspective curiosity is an intriguing phenomenon because individuals are intrinsically interested in issues which are very important not only for them but also for future generations.^16,17 Curiosity is an intrinsic need to seek out new information and sensory experiences. It motivates exploratory behaviour.^18–20 During an explosion of research into exploratory behaviour in the 1950s, the first theories of curiosity emerged. The forerunner of curiosity research, Berlyne, explicitly distinguished between epistemic and perceptual curiosity.²¹ Epistemic curiosity was aroused by scientific theories, which motivated the testing of hypotheses in order to solve an unknown task using abstractive representation. In this context, epistemic curiosity about climate change can include the search for information about the causes, the consequences or the ways of coping with a change in climate. In turn, perceptual curiosity was aroused by sensory stimulation (e.g. sights, sounds, tastes, smells). Exposure to heavy rain, strong winds or very hot or cold temperatures can trigger perceptual curiosity about climate change.

The current psychological literature on curiosity conceptualises curiosity in a variety of ways. For example, it has been studied as an aspect-level personality construct with a broad trait of openness to experience. The Openness to Experience dimension measures an individual’s “receptiveness to new ideas, approaches, and experiences”.²² It describes a mix of characteristics related to intellectual curiosity, aesthetic interest, perceived intelligence, imagination, fantasy, creativity, or unconventionality.^23–25 This characteristic tends to remain relatively constant. It means that some people are not and will not be interested in climate change, but others can develop and strengthen their own curiosity about planetary warming and pollution.

Spielberger and Reheiser also offer an interesting approach to the phenomenon of curiosity.²⁶ They describe an experience of curiosity as a positive emotional state that significantly differs depending on the individual, but that is also a relatively stable personality trait. It motivates exploration and investigation of perceived stimuli and, as such, it is viewed as an asset to one’s environmental adaptation and adjustment. From this perspective, the study of climate change can foster positive attitudes towards various weather-related issues. As a result, it can encourage further investigation: climate change curiosity is a persistent trait that resonates across settings.

The literature on curiosity conceptualises curiosity not only as a facet-level personality construct under the broad trait of openness to experience, as some researchers treat curiosity as a multidimensional construct. For example, Kashdan et al propose the Five-Dimensional Model of Curiosity.¹⁹ There are following dimensions: Joyous Exploration (seeking out new knowledge and information and enjoying learning), deprivation sensitivity (this involves reducing undesirable states of information deprivation), social curiosity (an interest in other people’s behaviours, thoughts or feelings and the way in which details about other people are discovered – in indirect, surreptitious and clandestine ways), Stress tolerance (the dispositional tendency to cope with the anxiety) and sensation seeking (an inclination to pursue new and intense sensory).

Although these forms of curiosity differ from each other, it seems that the common denominator is the idea of being curious, linked to wanting to experience and learn something new.²⁷ Curious people probably reject simplistic or superficial explanations including explanations for climate change and instead prioritise a deeper comprehension and explanation of its causes. They are more likely to tackle issues regularly, devoting more time and effort to their resolution. This enables them to identify more potential solutions to different problems including climate change.^28,29 What`s more, their curiosity probably compels them to formulate issues related to global warming that need to be solved, to inquire about them, and to pursue answers persistently.

Several constructs have been proposed sharing key aspects with curiosity.²⁷ Researchers have used a variety of questionnaires to measure curiosity but two kinds are dominant: questionnaires that diagnose general curiosity^{19,21,28,30–32} and questionnaires concerning curiosity in relation to specific areas: interpersonal relations (e.g. Interpersonal Curiosity Scale), curiosity at work (e.g., Work-related Curiosity Scale), smoking curiosity (e.g. Brief Adolescent Smoking Curiosity Scale), specific curiosity in sport (e.g. Fans’ Specific Curiosity) or curiosity about elements of nature (e.g. Elements of Nature Curiosity Scale).^18,33–35

Even though curiosity about climate changes should be normal and understandable, there is no scale for diagnosing people’s curiosity about climate changes in the literature, therefore the main purpose of this study is to present a tool for diagnosing people’s curiosity about climate changes.

Development and Validation of the Scale

Construction of the Scale

The inspiration for the construction of the CCCS scale came from a number of sources: our personal experiences and conversations, and publications on climate changes. Using these sources, we attempted to craft statements about the curiosity of different aspects of climate changes: sources, consequences and coping with climate changes.

We tried to formulate the questions for the CCCS in a way that the average recipient could understand and assigned the initial pool of statements to: a) curiosity of climate changes b) curiosity of consequences of climate changes, and c) ways of coping with climate changes.

We tried to craft statements for each factor in such a way that a person with a particular attitude could disagree or agree with each given statement.

We started the construction of the questionnaire with a pool of 47 items on the phenomenon of curiosity of climate changes. In the next steps, we excluded 9 items that were formulated in a very similar way, were a paraphrase of content already expressed in other items or contained technical vocabulary.

To assess the quality of the construct, five experienced environmental psychologists were asked to use a five-point Likert-type scale (very poor, poor, fair, good, very good) to independently determine the extent to which the initial pool of 38 items reflected: (a) the definition of curiosity of climate change (relevancy) and (b) were clearly and simply written (clarity). Only items with an average score of 4.0 or above were retained.

A total of 30 items were accepted for further analysis. The number of questions in each subscale then proved to be balanced: the sources of climate changes contained 10 items, the consequences of climate changes contained 10 items, and curiosity of ways of coping with climate changes also included 10 items. The next stages of the work on the Curiosity of Climate Changes Scale are presented below.

Study 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis

The first aim of this study was to determine the factor structure of the Curiosity of Climate Changes Scale, and the second aim was to determine its reliability.

Method

Participants

In order to verify questionnaire’s structure, we conducted a first study with 306 participants – 220 women (71.90%), 79 men (25.82%) and 7 people identifying with a gender other than male or female (2.29%). The age of the subjects ranged from 18 years old to 83 years old (M = 25.75; SD = 8.35). Most of the participants were residents of cities (83%), while 17% of participants lived in villages. When it comes to the education level of the subjects, the majority of the respondents had secondary education (55.88%), followed by university education (42.16%). Participants with vocational (1.31%), lower secondary (0.33%) and primary (0.33%) education were a minority. The vast majority of the participants identified as heterosexual (77.78%).

Procedure

We collected data for the research via the Internet (Google Sheets and a computer application). Google Sheets is an interactive form whose layout corresponds to the graphical design of the paper equivalent. The subjects filled in the questionnaire directly on the Internet.

The current project (Studies 1–3) was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Institute of Psychology at the University of Szczecin (14/2019; date of approval: 6 December 2019).

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the 2013 Helsinki declaration and its subsequent amendments. All participants provided fully informed, written consent.

Results

Before proceeding with the factor analysis, we analysed the sampling adequacy (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test, KMO) and performed the Bartlett test of sphericity. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.965, which is a very good result.³⁶ The Bartlett’s sphericity test: χ² (435) = 6553.188; p < 0.001, indicated that the correlations between the items were high enough to conduct a reliable analysis.

Initial analyses using a parallel analysis suggested the possibility of a one-factor solution (actual λ1 = 15.55, λ2 = 1.46, λ3 = 1.16 vs λ1 = 1.63, λ2 = 1.54, λ3 = 1.47 from the parallel analysis).

Thus, a possible one-factor solution was investigated, taking into account the loading of their theoretical interpretation. Two- and three-factor solutions were also tested. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to determine the factor structure of the CCCS. Factor solutions were tested using principal axis factoring (PAF) (as it does not depend on multivariate normality assumptions) with Oblimin rotation, as factors may be correlated.^37,38 The individual factor solutions were then assessed for their theoretical and structural interpretation, model coefficients (>.40) and eigenvalues (>.20).³⁹

The exploratory factor analysis using the principal axis factoring principal-factors method of estimation showed a strong single-factor. Thus, only those items loading on the first factor were retained.

The quality of the items that composed the one-factor solution was also analysed. Comrey and Lee classified items with loadings higher than or equal to 0.71 as excellent, higher than or equal to 0.63 as very good, higher than or equal to 0.55 as good, higher than or equal to 0.43 as reasonable, and higher than or equal to 0.32 as poor.⁴⁰ Thus, as to the items’ quality, statements loaded above 0.70 were retained. Thus, the final version of the Curiosity of Climate Changes Scale consisted of 15 items.

The 15-item version of the Curiosity of Climate Changes Scale was again subjected to exploratory factor analysis using the method of factoring the principal axis. Bartlett’s sphericity test: χ² (105) = 3358.821; p < 0.001. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.958. The final version of the Curiosity Climate Change Scale contains 15 items (Table 1).

Table 1 Medium, Standard Deviation, Communalities, Factor, and Item-Total Correlations of the Curiosity of Climate Changes Scale (N = 306)

A one-factor structure explains about 60% of the variance. The factor has satisfactory reliability as measured by Cronbach’s alpha. The reliability of the factor is Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95.

Study 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The next stage of the research was to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis. Two models were tested: the M1 model assumed a one-factor solution and included all statements about curiosity of climate changes, whereas the M2 model assumed a three-factor solution (Factor 1: “Curiosity of sources of climate changes”, items 4, 6, 7, 9, 14; Factor 2: “Curiosity of consequences of climate changes”, items 2, 3, 5, 11, 13, 15; Factor 3: “Curiosity of ways of coping with climate changes”, items 1, 8, 10, 12).

We used several indices to evaluate the model on the empirical data: χ² (df), comparative fit index (CFI), TLI index, and root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA). The following criteria indicated a good fit of the model to the empirical data: >0.90 CFI, TLI and <0.09 RMSEA.⁴¹

Method

Participants

In the second study, we collected data from a sample consisting of 234 participants, including 174 women (74.35%) and 60 men (25.65%). The age of the respondents ranged from 18 years old up to 82 years old (M = 26.60; SD = 8.17). Among the collected sample, 188 participants lived in cities (82%) and 46 participants lived in villages (18%).

Most of the respondents had university education (58%), followed by secondary education (39.25%). A small part of the sample consisted of respondents with either vocational education (1.25%), primary education (1.00%) or lower secondary education (0.50%). Similarly to the previous study, the vast majority of the respondents identified themselves as heterosexual (83%).

Procedure

As with the exploratory factor analysis data collection, the confirmatory factor analysis data were collected electronically. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the 2013 Helsinki declaration and its subsequent amendments. All participants provided fully informed, written consent.

Results

The results of the confirmatory factor analysis are shown in Table 2. The one-factor model proved to be a better fit to the empirical data.

Table 2 Indices for Each Model

Study 3. Curiosity of Climate Changer Scale and Other Diagnostic Tools

In Study 3, we looked for possible relationships between the Curiosity of Climate Changes Scale and other instruments for diagnosing curiosity and attitude towards the natural environment.

Method

Participants

In the third study, we collected data from a sample consisting of 259 participants, including 175 women (67.58%) and 84 men (32.43%). The age of the respondents ranged from 18 years old up to 84 years old (M = 26.41; SD = 7.93). Among the collected sample, the largest number of participants were residents of cities (83%), and the other respondents lived in villages (17%). Most of the respondents had university education (54.05%), followed by secondary education (42.86%). A small part of the sample consisted of respondents with either vocational education (2.54%), primary education (1.16%) or lower secondary education (0.39%). Similarly to the previous studies, the vast majority of the respondents identified themselves as heterosexual (80.69%).

Procedure

The participants filled in the questionnaire directly on the Internet. The people who took part in the study were also asked to fill in all questionnaires carefully. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the 2013 Helsinki declaration and its subsequent amendments. All participants provided fully informed, written consent.

Instruments

The Curiosity of Climate Changes Scale

Curiosity and Exploration Inventory II²⁸

The CEI II was developed by Kashdan et al and translated into Polish by Kaczmarek et al.^28,42 The CEI II consists of two subscales: stretching and embracing. The scale has a satisfactory internal consistency of Cronbach’s α = 0.86.

Need for Cognitive Closure Scale⁴³

To measure NFC, we used the Need for Cognitive Closure Scale in the Polish adaptation by Kossowska.⁴⁴ The scale consists of five subscales: (1) preference for order and structure in the environment, (2) predictability of future contexts, (3) affective discomfort caused by ambiguity, (4) closed-mindedness, and (5) decisiveness of judgements and choices.

Elements of Nature Curiosity Scale (ENCS).⁴⁵

The Elements of Nature Curiosity Scale (ENCS) diagnoses people’s curiosity about hazardous events caused by elements of nature: such as volcanic eruptions, thunderstorms, avalanches, and floods. The scale has an internal consistency of Cronbach’s α = 0.86.

Climate Anxiety Scale (CAS).⁴⁶

The CAS was developed by Clayton and Karazsia and was translated into Polish by Larionow et al.^46,47 The Climate Anxiety Scale (CAS) is a 13-item questionnaire for assessing climate anxiety (CA) as a psychological response to climate change. The CAS consists of two subscales, namely, cognitive impairment (Cronbach’s α = 0.87) and functional impairment (Cronbach’s α = 0.87).

Environmental Identity Scale (EID)⁴⁸

The environmental identity (EID) scale was developed to measure individual differences in a stable sense of interdependence and connectedness with nature. The results support the internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.91) of the scale. Polish adaptation: Larionow.⁴⁹

Generational Time Perspective⁵⁰

The Generational Time Perspective Scale was developed to measure one’s concentration on life in future generations. The first factor includes items about the cognitive representation of the distant future (Cronbach’s α = 0.83). The second factor describes negative emotions towards the problems that humanity may face in future generations (Cronbach’s α = 0.85).

Results

Statistical analyses show that the Curiosity Climate Change Scale (CCCS) correlates with all the tools used in the validation process, but the vast majority of the dependencies found are rather weak. The weakest correlations found were between the CCCS and PPD – Decisive Scale (r = −0.13), CEI-II – Embracing Scale (r = 0.15) and CAS – Functional Difficulty Scale (r = 0.16). Then, slightly higher correlations, although still weak, ranging from r = 0.20 up to r = 0.28, was discovered between the CCCS and the following tools: PPD – Order Preference Scale (r = 0.20), PPD – Predictability Preference Scale and Ambiguity Intolerance Scale (r = 0.21), ENCS (r = 0.22), CAS – total score (r = 0.24), CEI-II – total score (r = 0.26) and CAS – Cognitive Difficulties Scale (r = 0.28). Stronger correlations, but again still somewhat weak, were observed in the relationships between the CCCS and CEI-II – Stretching Scale (r = 0.34) and PPD – Closed-mindedness Scale (r =.-37). The strongest relationships were found between the CCCS and GPC (r = 0.64), followed by EID (r = 0.62). All of the correlations between the CCCS and the other instruments are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Curiosity of Climate Changes and Other Instruments

Discussion

The CCCS is a useful tool for assessing individuals’ curiosity about climate change. The results of the present study indicate that the Curiosity of Climate Change Scale is a reliable and valid instrument. The exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis verified the one-factor structure. The results suggest that the CCCS also has strong internal consistency.

The CCCS correlates positively with other assessment tools. In particular, the CCCS correlates highly with the Generational Time Perspective Scale, which may indicate that curious people are aware of the consequences of climate change for future generations, and they are concerned about the next generations.⁵⁰

Environmental Identity also correlates with the Curiosity of Climate Changes Scale. Environmental Identity (EID) diagnoses attachment to nature.⁵¹ This result may mean that people who are curious about climate change have a strong relationship with the natural environment. Nature is very important to them, and they want to protect it.

Curiosity about climate change correlates with general curiosity and exploration, but the correlation between the variables is rather low. Therefore, these correlational results must be interpreted very cautiously. The results may suggest that the Curiosity of Climate Changes Scale measures separate phenomena from those diagnosed by other human curiosity scales.

The CCCS is moderately correlated with the Climate Anxiety Scale. There was a stronger correlation between the CCCS and cognitive impairment than functional impairment, suggesting that high scores on the CCCS indicate that the respondents have more problems with cognitive functioning than social functioning. We could speculate that due to the increased curiosity about climate changes, followed by gathering information regarding it, the concept of climate change and its negative consequences is more likely to be activated within one’s internal structures, causing difficulties with cognitive functioning. The opposite could also be true – due to climate anxiety, one could become more curious about climate changes. Either way, we assume a stronger tendency to activation of climate change concepts within the population that is curious about said topic.

The CCCS correlates poorly with the Elements of Nature Scale. This result means that people interested in climate change have a moderate interest in elements of nature, which may be somewhat surprising, but also reassuring as it shows that one does not have to be interested in nature itself or be close to it to show interest in the phenomenon of climate change.

Limitations and Future Directions

The validation work on the construction of the questionnaire also has some limitations. One of them is undoubtedly the selection of the research sample. Mostly young people participated in the study, so it is very difficult to generalise the results obtained. In future research, people from different age groups should be invited to participate.

Although the gender of the respondents was controlled for in the construction of the questionnaire, this variable was not analysed. Previous research, eg on the protection of the natural environment, indicates that the gender of a person determines their involvement in pro-environmental activities (women are more likely to undertake such activities). It therefore seems necessary to take gender into account in future studies.

The CCCS is a reliable tool, as shown by the Cronbach’s results, but the validation process of the CCCS did not include an analysis of the stability of the questionnaire over time, which should be considered a limitation. Future research should measure the stability of the CCCS questionnaire.

The method of data collection was Google Sheets. However, it’s important to note that collecting data online can sometimes lead to low-quality responses. Therefore, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution.

Curiosity of climate change does not strongly relate to other measures of curiosity. Further research is needed to explore these tenuous links in more detail. For example, perhaps studying the link between interest in climate change and the Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale (5DC), which includes the following components: Joyous Exploration, Deprivation Sensitivity, Stress Tolerance, Social Curiosity, and Thrill Seeking, could provide fresh insight into the connection between these factors. Which aspects of five dimensional curiosity model correlate with the CCCS?¹⁹

Future research could also examine the relationship between curiosity about climate change and various variables of psychological functioning. Do personality traits correlate with climate change curiosity? In future research, it would be also interesting to analyze the relationship between the CCCS and personal resources such as: self-efficacy, coping, self-esteem or positive orientation. Does the availability of personal resources have an impact on people’s interest in climate change?

It would also be very interesting to examine the relationship of the CCCS with scales of well-being, to see if it is possible that inducing curiosity about climate change could be beneficial in the personal lives of individuals. In general, we believe it would be of value to examine potential factors indicating one’s curiosity regarding climate changes, especially knowing that one’s relation to nature is not one of them. Knowing such factors could be beneficial when discussing raising awareness of climate changes but also actual individual mitigation actions. This raises another question worth answering in future research: Is there any relationship between the CCCS and actual pro-environmental behaviour?

Conclusion

The Curiosity of Climate Change Scale can be a source of scientific reflection on environmental challenges and threats in the XXI century. Moreover, measuring dispositional construct that can diagnose psychological aspects of climate change is becoming increasingly important not only in theory but also in practice: this scale can help teachers and environmental educators effectively deliver diagnoses when they start to work with students or clients. Moreover, this scale may be used to measure the effects of education about climate changes. Finally, the design and development of a reliable and valid measure of this type can further advance environmental psychology research and practice.